|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Vatican cracks down on liberal nuns
|
Ronald Binge
Shipmate
# 9002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Think˛:
Seems to this liberal lesbian Quaker that the Vatican is well within its rights to insist that its own religious orders agree with and teach its core doctrine. I don't agree with RC teaching on presthood or human sexuality - I deal with this by not being Roman Catholic. I really don't understand why you would you choose a religiously dedicated life within a church with which you fundementally disagree. (Tis essentially what I don't understand about the folk who didn't transfer to the RRC until the ordinariate was provided - why stay if you thought the sacraments were dodgy, nothing was stopping you converting.)
Have you ever lived in a culture that assumes by default that once born a Roman Catholic, you remain a Roman Catholic? I could make all the cracks I could like about +++Benedict being the double of Senator Palpatine, but what would never change is that my parents and generations before them were as much Roman Catholics as they breathed air. What is different is that our generation, those from the 60s onwards had a greater level of education, and the Church in Ireland never really caught up with that. I could go down the road to the Church of Ireland in the morning, but what about my parents? What about my family? Most people faced with the dichotomy between the demands of Rome and their own lives simply disconnect from any belief whatsover, because its simply easier. Crucifying the Church of Christ on Humanae Vitae , or on OoW may make those yearning for a smaller, more docile and obedient Church happy, but ultimately, will it be doing the will of God, that belief in the saving Grace of God is limited to those orthodox in sexual matters?
--------------------
Older, bearded (but no wiser)
Posts: 477 | From: Brexit's frontline | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Being sorted enough to question means being sorted enough to choose.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ronald Binge
Shipmate
# 9002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Think˛:
Being sorted enough to question means being sorted enough to choose.
Then the status quo is maintained.
--------------------
Older, bearded (but no wiser)
Posts: 477 | From: Brexit's frontline | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:
... what would never change is that my parents and generations before them were as much Roman Catholics as they breathed air. What is different is that our generation, those from the 60s onwards had a greater level of education, and the Church in Ireland never really caught up with that. I could go down the road to the Church of Ireland in the morning, but what about my parents? What about my family? Most people faced with the dichotomy between the demands of Rome and their own lives simply disconnect from any belief whatsover, because its simply easier...
An excellent post in toto Ronald Binge.
Coming from Australia, probably the most Irish of countries after Ireland, yes, even than the USA, I can empathise with what you say, although I may not agree with some of your individual positions.
The loss of faith, or, seemingly, anything but the rags of same, is, I think something many ex-pew sitters of many denominations have. Perhaps it's more acute in ex-Catholics because they were imbued with a stronger certainty, especially in Ireland and Australia and elsewhere in the Diaspora, because of the power position, or perceived lack of power in the Ascendancy times or the new countries? That has changed.
My gut feeling is that things have really changed in Ireland. The "Catholic" identity of the nation seems less strong than it was in the 60s and after. Ditto with Australian Catholics. The Catholic demographic has changed here as well.
I think you have at least enough material for another thread there.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mary LA
Shipmate
# 17040
|
Posted
Trisagion wrote: Mary LA, I don't know whether it's a sort of passive-aggression or genuine uncertainty in your mind but there is nothing in this reform that should have the slightest effect on the apostolic work of female orders working in the Eastern Cape or anywhere else.
How rude. I'm neither passive aggressive nor uncertain. The Vatican crackdown on religious and lay groups practising liberation theology began with then Cardinal Ratzinger's 1985 report criticising liberation theology in the Third World and continues to this day. Fortunately out here there is a significant percentage of liberal bishops and more commitment to working with the poor. Which means, as opaWim pointed out, that some of us do consider ourselves the church
semper reformanda.
There are bishops and Vatican officials who seem to have forgotten the teachings of the social encyclicals and the new understandings of Vatican II, but there are others who still carry on working for transformation.
[ 21. April 2012, 06:57: Message edited by: Mary LA ]
--------------------
“I often wonder if we were all characters in one of God's dreams.”
― Muriel Spark
Posts: 499 | From: Africa | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Just so people know the quote in full is
quote:
Ecclesia reformata semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei
Which approximately translates:
The church reformed and always being reformed by the Word of God.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
opaWim
Shipmate
# 11137
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Thank you, opaWim. Without you I'd never have discovered what I actually thought and come to realise that, despite the three thousand or so posts I have made which suggest at least some degree of complexity of thought, I am instead a two dimensional Vatican villain straight from central casting.
How refreshing to learn that you speak for all the rest of the Catholic Church and that if we want a pure, spotless, sinless view of the Catholic faith, all we need to do is ask you. All those years spent in study wasted, when all I needed to do to hear the authentic voice of Christ in the Church was to ignore the Bishops and listen with obsequium religiosum to your take on things.
Insofar as your thanks and compliments are sarcasm-free, you are quite welcome.
Apparently I hit a raw nerve.
Where do I claim to "speak for all the rest of the Catholic Church", however you might care to define that "rest"?
Where do I claim to be able to provide a "pure, spotless, sinless view of the Catholic faith".
I write as a Catholic who hangs on, despite a lot of wrongs in the RCC, and despite the efforts of better Catholics to bully me out.
--------------------
It's the Thirties all over again, possibly even worse.
Posts: 524 | From: The Marshes | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
opaWim
Shipmate
# 11137
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:
Most people faced with the dichotomy between the demands of Rome and their own lives simply disconnect from any belief whatsover, because its simply easier. Crucifying the Church of Christ on Humanae Vitae , or on OoW may make those yearning for a smaller, more docile and obedient Church happy, but ultimately, will it be doing the will of God, that belief in the saving Grace of God is limited to those orthodox in sexual matters?
Exactly my sentiments.
Disconnecting from any belief whatsoever wouldn't be an option for me anyway. In fact I suspect to wholeheartedly and consciously accept more catholic dogma's than most Catholics.
--------------------
It's the Thirties all over again, possibly even worse.
Posts: 524 | From: The Marshes | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mary LA
Shipmate
# 17040
|
Posted
Jengie I know the full quotation and wasn't implying any other kind of reform.
The difficult thing with a thread that is so polarised -- and I haven't engaged in these kinds of debates for many years -- is that it is hard not to end up defensive or sounding extreme or reactionary. I am critical of certain liberation theological positions and I no longer find it possible to work or remain in church structures as they are. I know others who are better at 'protesting in place' as well as those who have simply left the church altogether and work only in secular groupings.
None of this is easy to talk about in any depth or to do justice to the issues at stake and I find such debates rarely lead anywhere except acrimony.
--------------------
“I often wonder if we were all characters in one of God's dreams.”
― Muriel Spark
Posts: 499 | From: Africa | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mary LA:
How rude. I'm neither passive aggressive nor uncertain. The Vatican crackdown on religious and lay groups practising liberation theology began with then Cardinal Ratzinger's 1985 report criticising liberation theology in the Third World and continues to this day. Fortunately out here there is a significant percentage of liberal bishops and more commitment to working with the poor. Which means, as opaWim pointed out, that some of us do consider ourselves the church
semper reformanda.
There are bishops and Vatican officials who seem to have forgotten the teachings of the social encyclicals and the new understandings of Vatican II, but there are others who still carry on working for transformation.
I am sorry if you thought that rude. I simply couldnt work out from the tentative nature of your previous posts whether you were genuinely unsure how this action would impact on the good work being done that you were observing or whether you were avoiding specifically the points in issue and just whining about the big bad Vatican. In order to clear that up once and for all, would you be so kind as to point us in the direction of any of the social encyclicals or new understandings of Vatican II that are forgotten in the excellent critique of Liberation Theology produced by the CDF in 1984, or in the current attempt at reforming LCWR.
For what is worth, my diocese has a very close link with a diocese in West Africa and, like many others in the diocese, I have had the privilege of visiting and working alongside clergy, religious and laity from that diocese both here and there. I see a huge commitment to the Gospel and to the working out of its implications both in areas of faith and morals and in areas of social justice. What I don't see is any evidence of the transformatory power of Liberation Theology or any interest, let alone commitment to it. In fact, what I hear from them when I ask about it is exactly the same message I heard in Sao Paolo, Brazil in 1984 and in the parish of an old friend from seminary in Lima in 1991: that the Marxist obsession with structures of oppression that characterised not only the writings of Boff, Gutierrez, Sobrino and others but also the discourse of the base communities was profoundly disabling of individuals, that the complete indifference towards the reformation of personal behaviour (because sin was always about being victims of unjust structures - which, in part, it is, but in part it isn't) meant that people were encouraged to see salvation purely in terms of the coming revolution.
One priest I know, who has worked in Brazil since 1973, was visiting his home diocese last year and gave a talk to the clergy. I was invited because I have a very close connection with that diocese. In response to a question that suggested that the growth of Evangelicalism in Brazil might have something to do with the crackdown on Liberation Theology, he answered to the effect that he had initially been very attracted to Liberation Theology but came to see, relatively early on, that it was little more than an attempt to provide a theological foundation for Marxist struggle. He then suggested that the strength of the Evangelical message was precisely because of the insistence on a reform of personal morality. It meant that the man with four children, a wife, a mistress, a drink problem and a reluctance to work anymore than necessary, who was encouraged to blame the whole lot on structures of oppression and excused any personal responsibility when he was involved in a base community, found that within a Pentecostalist or Evangelical Protestant Church he was required to take some responsibility. The mistress had to go - so the costs associated with her went, the drink had to go - so too did the cost of buying it, he was told that work was a creation ordinance - so instead of sitting in base community meetings talking about how the structure of society was responsible for all his ills, he worked an hour of overtime every day. Now his children ate a meal every day and could afford to go to school every day and he no longer came home with pubic lice, pissed up and ready to beat his wife senseless. Which one of these, the priest asked us, looked like a theology of liberation? You could have heard a pin drop.
A final anecdote: on Palm Sunday I heard a priest from the Cameroon ask a congregation of 600 in a parish in my diocese that is very committed to social justice, and where he has been serving since September, why they couldn't see that the most urgent and pressing social justice issue in this country, in their town, was that one in four children was deliberately killed before they were born - had they, he asked, swallowed the seductive lie of a woman's right to choose? The most telling criticism of the LCWR by the CDF made the very same point.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mary LA
Shipmate
# 17040
|
Posted
Trisagion, I have done some work with the UN office for West Africa and spent time in Nigeria and Sengal. The 16 states of West Africa are predominantly Muslim. My experience of the Catholic church in Dakar and western Sahel in Senegal was that the key concern has to do with caring for asylum seekers and refugees from Mauretania and Libya.
In Nigeria, attending churches in Ibadan and Lagos, the issue most on people's minds was the conflicts around oil in the Niger Delta and crime in the fast-growing cities. Most Anglican and Roman Catholic churches, while conservative as regards abortion and homosexuality, practise ancestor worship and would strongly resist any attempt to curtail this aspect of worship.
I couldn't speak with any firsthand knowledge about most of the 16 countries that comprise West Africa. Cameroon, as far I know, has more in common with central Africa and a much higher Christian population.
Most women outside of South Africa do not have access to abortion on demand and this has only been available in South Africa since the mid 1990s. I haven't heard many sermons or emphasis on this in West African or East African churches.
Africa has 54 countries and an estimated population of 900-million. It is so difficult to generalise about church practices or the local issues. My own experience has been mostly to do with the Lusaphone Roman Catholic Church in Mozambique, Angola and Zimbabwe, as well as the Irish Catholicism of South Africa.
To the best of my knowledge, liberation theology in Latin America has been very different from the liberation theologies practised in southern Africa, less ecumenical and with less focus on neoglobalism.
--------------------
“I often wonder if we were all characters in one of God's dreams.”
― Muriel Spark
Posts: 499 | From: Africa | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
Link to brief BBC interview with a nun - She does not seem to have two heads.
AtB, Pyx_e
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Who are you trying to kid, Pyx_e? That's not a nun - that's Dave Marshall dragged up. A bit. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mary LA:
To the best of my knowledge, liberation theology in Latin America has been very different from the liberation theologies practised in southern Africa, less ecumenical and with less focus on neoglobalism.
That is, I think, correct. The 1984 instruction was addressed to the specific theologies being proposed in South America and the specifically Marxist economic and political substrate on which it was based. A partial condemnation of certain aspects of that manifestation of a concern for social justice doesn't constitute an international Vatican led purge of the social teaching of the Church in all its manifestations. Nor is it related to a call to reform an organisation within the US church that exists precisely to foster and manifest collaboration with the Holy See and the Bishops' Conference. I am privileged to do some work with one manifestation of the Church's work with migrants and am aware of a concern at both the Pontifical Council for Migrants and at Cor Unum that the Church's work in that space is a proper expression of the Church's call to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, house the homeless and care for the widow, the orphan, the stranger in our midst, without losing sight of the Christocentric cause of our work. Going 'beyond Jesus, beyond the Church' or rejecting the Church's faith in matters of faith and morals can't be part of that. As several non-Catholics have said on this thread, this looks like house-keeping. What is sauce for the SSPX gander (assenting to the Church's teaching and maintaining ecclesial communion) is sauce for the LCWR goose.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
Apparently I hit a raw nerve.
Nah, you just expressed yourself in self-righteous and sanctimonious terms that I wanted to challenge. I gave up sarcasm for Lent and might have been better to have given it up altogether: I just can't help myself: mea maxima culpa.
quote:
Where do I claim to "speak for all the rest of the Catholic Church", however you might care to define that "rest"?
That'd be when you wrote:
quote:
Outside the Vatican the vast majority of RC's...We try, each in our own imperfect way, and with varying success, to follow Jesus Christ and be beneficial to our neighbors.
It seems pretty clear you are self identifying as part of the 'we' that constitutes 'the vast majority of RC's', against whom you are pitting the 'they' of the Pope, the Vatican, the Bishops and anyone who seeks to faithfully believe that what the Church teaches is true amongst whom I would count myself.
And then you ask:
quote:
Where do I claim to be able to provide a "pure, spotless, sinless view of the Catholic faith".
You didn't. I over-egged the sarcasm pudding. My apologies.
You complain:
quote:
I write as a Catholic who hangs on, despite a lot of wrongs in the RCC, and despite the efforts of better Catholics to bully me out.
I'm sorry you've experienced bullying. That kind of behaviour is never justified. I have experienced it all too often. It is precisely the kind of behaviour the then Cardinal Ratzinger wrote of relating to another group who nurse a sense of grievance in the Church, when he wrote in Spirit of the Liturgy:
quote:
For fostering a true consciousness in liturgical matters, it is also important that the proscription against the form of liturgy in valid use up to 1970 should be lifted. Anyone who nowadays advocates the continuing existence of this liturgy or takes part in it is treated like a leper; all tolerance ends here. There has never been anything like this in history; in doing this we are despising and proscribing the Church's whole past. How can one trust her at present if things are that way?"
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
opaWim
Shipmate
# 11137
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
Apparently I hit a raw nerve.
Nah, you just expressed yourself in self-righteous and sanctimonious terms that I wanted to challenge
Just out of curiosity, what makes you so confident that is a just assessment?
--------------------
It's the Thirties all over again, possibly even worse.
Posts: 524 | From: The Marshes | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Who are you trying to kid, Pyx_e? That's not a nun - that's Dave Marshall dragged up. A bit.
Hah. I'm flattered - sort of. But encouraged to see obviously committed Church people getting their priorities right.
quote:
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith ... accused US nuns of engaging in "corporate dissent" and of ignoring, or worse, challenging the church's teachings on abortion, homosexuality and an all-male priesthood.
It's like something out of Monty Python.
quote:
The Archbishop of Seattle, Peter Sartain, is to lead a reform of the LCWR ... Sister Campbell suggested a difficult time ahead: "It's totally a top-down process and I don't think the bishops have any idea of what they're in for."
All power to the Sisters' subversion, but I hope they don't waste too much time on the CDF. It sounds like they have enough more worthwhile things to do.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
Just out of curiosity, what makes you so confident that is a just assessment?
Having learned to read some years ago, I looked at what you wrote and construed its meaning from the choice of vocabulary and sentence construction. I attempted to assess its meaning with as much charity as my nasty, judgemental character would allow and reached the conclusion that self-righteousness and sanctimoniousness were the only possible conclusion. I have been wrong before - twice, I think ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) - and might be here too but unless you meant something other than the normal, plain, common or garden meaning of the words you used and the way in which you combined them, my original assessment seems as likely as not to be correct.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
opaWim
Shipmate
# 11137
|
Posted
Well, that goes to show that it is not only beauty that is in the eye of the beholder.
--------------------
It's the Thirties all over again, possibly even worse.
Posts: 524 | From: The Marshes | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
Well, that goes to show that it is not only beauty that is in the eye of the beholder.
Touché.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Squirrel
Shipmate
# 3040
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
"The Episcopal Church Welcomes You"
And I am certain that some will heed the call, as I have.
I like to look at the controversy over feminist nuns from the perspective of organizational psychology, in which I have some formal training. From an org psych perspective, a certain amount of dissent is healthy and functional in an organization, be it a church, an insurance company or a sports team. Dissenters may go overboard at times, but they help the group in so many ways, from calling to light abuses of authority to provoking thought on everybody's part.
But when dissent is silenced, frequently in the name of "cleaning house" or promoting "loyalty," the organization loses all of the above, and comes in danger of being dominated by a smaller and smaller cadre of "yes-men" whose major leadership qualification is that they keep their mouths shut.
It seems to me that this is exactly what the RCC has been doing lately. And it's the major reason why this one layman here joined another church.
--------------------
"The moral is to the physical as three is to one."
- Napoleon
"Five to one."
- George S. Patton
Posts: 1014 | From: Gotham City - Brain of the Great Satan | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Squirrel:
I like to look at the controversy over feminist nuns from the perspective of organizational psychology, in which I have some formal training. From an org psych perspective, a certain amount of dissent is healthy and functional in an organization, be it a church, an insurance company or a sports team.
Absolutely. The key qualifier in your statement must be "a certain amount". A player on a sports team who constantly and deliberately stirs up other players to actively work against the decisions of the captain becomes a problem as does a worker in an insurance company who attempts to make other workers ignore the direction set by the directors. The time comes when the team captain or the CEO has to call an end to the dissent and the same is true of the Church.
quote:
Dissenters may go overboard at times, but they help the group in so many ways, from calling to light abuses of authority to provoking thought on everybody's part.
Quite. And if you don't think the LCWR have gone overboard, then either you haven't read the CDF note or you have ceased to believe the Catholic faith.
quote:
But when dissent is silenced, frequently in the name of "cleaning house" or promoting "loyalty," the organization loses all of the above, and comes in danger of being dominated by a smaller and smaller cadre of "yes-men" whose major leadership qualification is that they keep their mouths shut.
So, at what point is the Team Captain or the CEO allowed to say: "Enough, already. This is what we're going to do."? The LCWR have been allowed to dissent constantly and, in the judgement of many members of their own orders, of the bishops, clergy and people of the dioceses in which they work and of those to whom these people have appealed, the dissent has gone way beyond the "certain amount" to a situation where it is damaging the message of the Gospel and the apostolic work those orders are engaged in. The team Captain has said, in effect: "We've gone beyond legitimate criticism and constructive dissent, to a point where you're simply not playing with and for your own team any longer.". To suggest that this is precipitate or oppressive or whatever simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The LCWR were attempting and (from the statements made in their name over the last couple of days) continue to attempt to set themselves up as an alternative Magisterium. They've been given forty years of leeway and now they've been called out.
quote:
It seems to me that this is exactly what the RCC has been doing lately. And it's the major reason why this one layman here joined another church.
So tell us, do, what level of dissent is permissable and the tolerance of which would have kept you aboard?
[ 21. April 2012, 15:39: Message edited by: Trisagion ]
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Squirrel
Shipmate
# 3040
|
Posted
In terms of how much dissent is to be tolerated, the best answer would be "that amount which keeps the organization flourishing and accomplishing its goals." We can argue for eons just what the goals of a church should be, but I think we'd all agree that one of them should be doing what the gospel says. As for what makes a flourishing church, I'd say that a vibrant intellectual climate is certainly one ingredient, as are, quite frankly, a lot of seats in the pews on Sundays.
Of course, it's too early to say for sure whether wither the current RCC's policy towards feminist nuns who dissent will help or hinder the church and its mission. As you will no doubt have discerned from my prior post, I am leaning strongly towards predicting it will hurt things. Some really good people will probably leave the church; morale amongst religious orders will deteriorate, and there will be increased pressure for theologians and other intellectuals to tow the party line.
--------------------
"The moral is to the physical as three is to one."
- Napoleon
"Five to one."
- George S. Patton
Posts: 1014 | From: Gotham City - Brain of the Great Satan | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
Posted
As far the morale of religious orders, the most thriving orders with the most vocations are the most traditional. It is not 1970 and I think many of these superiors are stuck in that era I'm afraid
--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"
Posts: 2247 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Squirrel:
In terms of how much dissent is to be tolerated, the best answer would be "that amount which keeps the organization flourishing and accomplishing its goals." We can argue for eons just what the goals of a church should be, but I think we'd all agree that one of them should be doing what the gospel says. As for what makes a flourishing church, I'd say that a vibrant intellectual climate is certainly one ingredient, as are, quite frankly, a lot of seats in the pews on Sundays.
Of course, it's too early to say for sure whether wither the current RCC's policy towards feminist nuns who dissent will help or hinder the church and its mission. As you will no doubt have discerned from my prior post, I am leaning strongly towards predicting it will hurt things. Some really good people will probably leave the church; morale amongst religious orders will deteriorate, and there will be increased pressure for theologians and other intellectuals to tow the party line.
Please look at which religious orders are in terminal decline and which are growing. By their fruits ye shall know them...
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Who are you trying to kid, Pyx_e? That's not a nun - that's Dave Marshall dragged up. A bit.
Hah. I'm flattered - sort of.
Och, you're a good sport, Dave.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pancho
Shipmate
# 13533
|
Posted
What SeraphimSarov and CL said. Anybody who has their eyes and ears open in the Catholic Church nowadays knows that it's the orthodox and traditional orders that are growing and attracting younger vocations, and it's the so-called "liberal" orders (for want of a better term) that are aging and shrinking.
--------------------
“But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the market places and calling to their playmates, ‘We piped to you, and you did not dance;
we wailed, and you did not mourn.’"
Posts: 1988 | From: Alta California | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
Please look at which religious orders are in terminal decline and which are growing. By their fruits ye shall know them...
Interestingly, the average age of religious sisters in orders affiliated to LCWR is now over 74.. The average age of those whose orders are affiliated with the Council of Major Superiors of Religious Women (CMSRW) - set up by orders that were fed up with the LCWR's nonsense - is now below 60. Despite representing only 20% of religious women in the US, the orders in CMSRW account for nearly 90% (2,312 out of 2,630 in initial formation or temporary vows in 2009) of those joining religious orders.
This report is very instructive. If the Gamaliel principle is anything to go by, then my bet is that anything that reforms the LCWR to refocus their constituent orders on fidelity to their original charisms in fidelity to the Catholic faith can only be a good thing for the mission of the Church.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
What SeraphimSarov and CL said. Anybody who has their eyes and ears open in the Catholic Church nowadays knows that it's the orthodox and traditional orders that are growing and attracting younger vocations, and it's the so-called "liberal" orders (for want of a better term) that are aging and shrinking.
Maybe because younger people are immature and so are attracted to conservative groups whereas those who think for themselves stay out of it.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
Speaking as a Lutheran observer with no dog in this fight (although I'll point out that we've been giving aid and comfort to uppity nuns since 1523;-))...reading stories of the lives of the saints, it seems that a lot of noted monastics spent at least part of their vocational lives at odds with the ecclesiastical powers that be. To me it seems that the monastic and academic tracks, if you will, versus the church-administration track, attracts different personalities and skill sets, and that the tension that creates is healthy -- that, as others have noted, there needs to be space for the theologians and monastics to move intellectually and practically without fearing the heavy hand of the Home Office.
And...having worked in a government bureaucracy, I've seen what happens to creative, lively thinkers and persistent boots-on-the-ground problem-solvers who've had their spirits ground to dust and their careers derailed by administrators who spend their lives studying books of "regs" and who live to play, as the transactional analysists used to put it, "Now I've got you, you SOB."
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pancho
Shipmate
# 13533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
What SeraphimSarov and CL said. Anybody who has their eyes and ears open in the Catholic Church nowadays knows that it's the orthodox and traditional orders that are growing and attracting younger vocations, and it's the so-called "liberal" orders (for want of a better term) that are aging and shrinking.
Maybe because younger people are immature and so are attracted to conservative groups whereas those who think for themselves stay out of it.
Hmmm, that's making an awful lot of assumptions and implications. It assumes and implies that:
a)"conservative" = "orthodox and traditional"
b)religiously "conservative" = politically "conservative"
c)conservatives, of whichever definition don't/can't think for themselves
d)non-conservatives, of whichever definition, think for themselves
e)younger people are immature (without defining what "younger" means: Gen X? Gen Y? Gen Z? etc.)
g)older people think for themselves
h)older people who think for themselves don't join "conservative" groups, however that's defined
i)older people who think for themselves don't join anything (because it's those so-called "liberal" groups that are shrinking)
j)there are fewer and fewer people who think for themselves (because it's those so-called "liberal" groups that are shrinking)
k)people who think for themselves are dying (because it's those so-called "liberal" groups that are shrinking)
For the record religiously orthodox is not the same as politically conservative, I dislike using the words "liberal" and "conservative" in regards to the Catholic Church and when I do I do so reluctantly when I can't think of better short-hand terms, and by "younger" I mean Generation X and later, which includes people in their 40s now.
I submit that the reasons orthodox and traditional orders are growing and attracting younger vocations include the following:
a) they've seen the damage done by some of the so-called "liberal" orders
b) they've been let down by many of the trends and fashions in the Catholic Church of the past 40 years
c) they've observed the lack of "Christ-centerdness" in the activities of many of those groups and trends which leads to...
d)an appearance similar, sometimes indistinguishable, from secular social welfare and activist groups which leads to...
e) a questioning of why one should join such groups when one can do the same in a secular lifestyle without the obligations of obedience, community life, vows of poverty and chastity, etc.
I can think of more reasons but this will do for now.
--------------------
“But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the market places and calling to their playmates, ‘We piped to you, and you did not dance;
we wailed, and you did not mourn.’"
Posts: 1988 | From: Alta California | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
opaWim: quote:
Outside the Vatican the vast majority of RC's do not engage in being a "fundamentalist sect yapping away at the ankles of society, but with no real power or ability to influence people's lives".
We try, each in our own imperfect way, and with varying success, to follow Jesus Christ and be beneficial to our neighbors. What the Vatican does or says plays a much smaller role in our lives than the Vatican would wish, and than you apparently wish to believe.
The practical truth is that individual RC's and RC-organizations all over the world manage to do a lot of good, quite often in spite of Vatican interference.
This sounds like a good description of most of the Catholics that I know - they put more emphasis on following the example of Christ, than the teaching of the Vatican.
And I'm still puzzled as to why Joan Chittister is a hate figure. All that a Google search has thrown up is that she thinks that women should be ordained. Is that really all it takes to make you anathema? I know that the debate has been officially declared to be finished, but is it that terrible to go on discussing the issue even so?
[ 21. April 2012, 19:48: Message edited by: Robert Armin ]
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
What SeraphimSarov and CL said. Anybody who has their eyes and ears open in the Catholic Church nowadays knows that it's the orthodox and traditional orders that are growing and attracting younger vocations, and it's the so-called "liberal" orders (for want of a better term) that are aging and shrinking.
Maybe because younger people are immature and so are attracted to conservative groups whereas those who think for themselves stay out of it.
Of course.
And maybe the old people are senile, and the young people want no part in their slide into dribbling inconsequence.
Your task, should you accept it, is to make sense of these two ridiculous generalisations. This task will self-destruct in fifteen seconds.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
Back in my salad days I met a certain number of "radical" nuns and priests. They were pretty indistinguishable from "radical" clergy and laity in my own denomination. To me, as someone coming up in the 70's and 80's, they were rather endearing old hippies whom I admired for walking their talk. And I found their personal spirituality alive and real; they were people who could talk about their relationship with God in a way that was heartfelt and compelling.
I'm not sure why this demographic segment is seen as so threatening by the current leadership of the RCC.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edgeman
Shipmate
# 12867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
What SeraphimSarov and CL said. Anybody who has their eyes and ears open in the Catholic Church nowadays knows that it's the orthodox and traditional orders that are growing and attracting younger vocations, and it's the so-called "liberal" orders (for want of a better term) that are aging and shrinking.
Maybe because younger people are immature and so are attracted to conservative groups whereas those who think for themselves stay out of it.
Well, at the current rate, there won't be any mature,independently thinking religious at all. I also think that this characterization of younger people in conservative orders is unfair. I've had experience in both a very conservative, very traditional order as well as the most conservative U.S. seminary, and I can say that immaturity was usually at a high when I visited more liberal orders, such as the monastery where I went for spiritual direction. The amount of childish backbiting and refusal to follow even the most basic precept of their rule and constitutions was astonishing. I saw brothers and sisters who basically lived on their own terms, skipping community prayers as they wished, ignoring the directions of the superior, flaunting their own individualism and their personal apostolates over the work of the community. In one community, I experienced a sister refusing to do a task given to her because so-and-so didn't have to do it.
There's a difference between mature dissent and childish rebellion. The wholesale refusual of many orders to obey, not just the hierarchy of the church on a corporate level, but the directions of local superiors and their own rules and constitutions is certainly a problem. It isn't always based on a perfectly noble ideal of righting the wrongs of a wrongheaded hierarchy, but often on the simple fact that many religious of this type are just seeking independence and desire to be free from outside influence and control. Unfortunately, my experiences are not of isolated incidents but of repeated experiences of the same behavior of different houses of different orders.
--------------------
http://sacristyxrat.tumblr.com/
Posts: 1420 | From: Philadelphia Penns. | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
I don't think the young people of the 1920s or the 1960s/70s can de described as conservative. It's just foolish to say that young people are naturally conservative. Probably more correct to say that young people tend to go after the things neglected by the older generation of their time. The pendulum swings.
Neither should it be imagined that all the younger vocations are to extremist, old-fashioned, conservative communities. Vocations tend to go where there is vibrancy and a common identity, apostolate and prayer life. The "trendy" nuns have ditched all of that.
Far from being prophetic and forward-looking, they are now quite passe. From that perspective I think the intervention from Rome was pointless because these communities are knocking on death's door and will soon be extinct.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
Gosh! So many replied to leo's rubbish while I was composing my fairly short response!
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Maybe because younger people are immature and so are attracted to conservative groups whereas those who think for themselves stay out of it.
I disagree. The trouble is that the young are attracted bormally to a cause. To actually trying to fix the world. And the Conservatives, although in my opinion are pursuing policies that will do immense harm with very little good at all, are at least offering a vision. The liberal churches are offering little more than Fairtrade which, although a good thing, is not enough to attract anyone looking for a genuine cause.
The vision presented by Liberal Christianity generally looks like winning the battles that have more or less already been won.
God, give us grace to accept with serenity
the things that cannot be changed,
Courage to change the things
which should be changed,
and the Wisdom to distinguish
the one from the other.
That seems to be the centrepiece of liberal Christianity. But that which appears to not be subject to change often needs to be changed. And young idealists (who are ultimately those who fight and win the hard battles) are only getting the voice of the Serenity Prayer.
Part of this is that if we took a liberal Christian from 1800 and transported him to 2012, he'd be amazed. Almost every single liberal battle has been fought and won. Leaving an aging cadre of revolutionaries wondering what the hell to do now. And most liberal human beings looking at the mainstream churches and seeing that the political fight is between those who can just about match the moral development of secular society and those trying to drag us kicking and screaming backwards.
Liberal Christianity needs less Serenity and more Sinatra.
Just what makes that little old ant
Think he'll move that rubber tree plant
Anyone knows an ant, can't
Move a rubber tree plant
But he's got high hopes, he's got high hopes
He's got high apple pie, in the sky hopes
...
Just remember that ant
Oops there goes another rubber tree plant
Without the rubber tree plants to aim at Liberal Christianity lets the idealists go. And without the idealists to drive things forward it's offering little to anyone else.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
What SeraphimSarov and CL said. Anybody who has their eyes and ears open in the Catholic Church nowadays knows that it's the orthodox and traditional orders that are growing and attracting younger vocations, and it's the so-called "liberal" orders (for want of a better term) that are aging and shrinking.
Maybe because younger people are immature and so are attracted to conservative groups whereas those who think for themselves stay out of it.
"think for themselves " is merely a pretty dressing for "I'm made uncomfortable by those old fashioned values of poverty, chastity , and obedience"
--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"
Posts: 2247 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
opaWim
Shipmate
# 11137
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I'm not sure why this demographic segment is seen as so threatening by the current leadership of the RCC.
But surely you must have your suspicions?
--------------------
It's the Thirties all over again, possibly even worse.
Posts: 524 | From: The Marshes | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fuzzipeg
Shipmate
# 10107
|
Posted
I've just watched an interview with Sr Simone Campbell who seems completely unable to understand what this is all about where Catholic doctrine is concerned and assumes it is because of the LCWR's support for Obama's health programme and the bishops' opposition to it....in other words it's political. I am not qualified to comment on this though I am concerned about attempts to stop discussion on certain topics within the Church as theology is based upon continuing discussion...that's the whole basis of theology.... Fortunately it is impossible to stop people thinking!
--------------------
http://foodybooze.blogspot.co.za
Posts: 929 | From: Johannesburg, South Africa | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
What SeraphimSarov and CL said. Anybody who has their eyes and ears open in the Catholic Church nowadays knows that it's the orthodox and traditional orders that are growing and attracting younger vocations, and it's the so-called "liberal" orders (for want of a better term) that are aging and shrinking.
Maybe because younger people are immature and so are attracted to conservative groups whereas those who think for themselves stay out of it.
"think for themselves " is merely a pretty dressing for "I'm made uncomfortable by those old fashioned values of poverty, chastity , and obedience"
Uh-uh. "Think for themselves" is a pretty dressing for "I'm made uncomfortable by those old fashioned 'virtues' of homophobia, slut-shaming, and superstition." And touting the virtue of obedience would go down a lot better if it wasn't known how the virtues of obedience and loyalty had been perverted.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
Posted
Ah. Those old canards even including superstition. Reminds me of Julia in Brideshead.
"get up and make speech in Hyde Park. Write a letter to the Times. Start a "no Popery" riot. But for goodness sake, don't bore me about it"
--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"
Posts: 2247 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
Ah. Those old canards even including superstition. Reminds me of Julia in Brideshead.
"get up and make speech in Hyde Park. Write a letter to the Times. Start a "no Popery" riot. But for goodness sake, don't bore me about it"
Ah, the old canard of attempting to claim that doccumented patterns are canards - then followed up by the tiresome rhetorical stunt of accusing the other side of being boring because you have no wothwhile evidence or ammunition on your side at all.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Canard? More like a mallard imaginaire.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Back to the discussion:-
Justinian wrote: quote:
Part of this is that if we took a liberal Christian from 1800 and transported him to 2012, he'd be amazed. Almost every single liberal battle has been fought and won.
Justinian - did you actually mean 1800? I'm not sure Liberal christianity (as opposed to liberal christianity) really existed then outside of Germany. But if so, maybe you could outline what you see as "all the battles" involving?
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Ah, the old canard of attempting to claim that doccumented patterns are canards - then followed up by the tiresome rhetorical stunt of accusing the other side of being boring because you have no wothwhile evidence or ammunition on your side at all.
Well that's interesting, because there does not seem to be anything about the things you introduced as the REAL issues in the CDF document itself. So you have to rely on the rhetorical stunt of "documented patterns". Which seems to be what some of the LCWR spokesmen themselves are doing. In other words, don't address the issues raised but instead try and look for some hidden motive: it's because we are women, it's because we are "prophetic"; it's because we don't submit to the patriarchal power structures. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Try ratcheting down the rhetoric, sisters, and address the concerns raised. If there is no substance to them, you come up smelling of roses. If there is substance to them, step away from them and get on with the good works to which you are committed. Engaging in a pitched battle on matters where you are clearly out of step with the Magisterium will get you nowhere.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Holy Smoke
Shipmate
# 14866
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fuzzipeg:
I've just watched an interview with Sr Simone Campbell who seems completely unable to understand what this is all about where Catholic doctrine is concerned and assumes it is because of the LCWR's support for Obama's health programme and the bishops' opposition to it....in other words it's political. I am not qualified to comment on this though I am concerned about attempts to stop discussion on certain topics within the Church as theology is based upon continuing discussion...that's the whole basis of theology.... Fortunately it is impossible to stop people thinking!
My understanding, from the interview on BBC Radio 4 'Sunday', is that the LCWR have offered to enter dialogue with Rome (presumably, with the CDF), but that their 'offer' has not been taken up. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
(I would personally give the nun concerned six months Refectory Penance...)
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
Posted
Offered to enter into dialogue ?? This has been a process of Years between Rome and the LCWR which has resulted in a report outlining where there have been these excesses. Now it is time for them to reform and the Archbishop of Seattle has been appointed as Delegate to begin that process
--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"
Posts: 2247 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
opaWim
Shipmate
# 11137
|
Posted
And all this mutual canardization could have been prevented had Leo formulated his question slightly different.
quote:
Maybe because younger people are immature and so are attracted to conservative groups whereas those who think for themselves stay out of it.
It's really a lot more complicated than that.
Most younger people do think for themselves.
And some older people, some even relatively early in life, cease to think for themselves because they give up.
Contemplative and/or traditional (by the way, what kind of tradition would that be?) communities attract their share of young people who seek a highly-structured, stable environment, where truth is self-evident and where they expect to be able to relegate responsibility for their own lives into the hands of others. Most such communities try to weed out such applicants, before or during the novitiate. Life in a religious community is tough, can be extremely lonely, and if you let too many of these applicants in, the community will come under strain.
I know of one numerically very successful newish congregation that goes from mini-crisis to mini-crisis as a consequence of setting the bar too low in this respect.
Contemplative and/or traditional communities also attract their share of older people who didn't really survive a midlife-crisis or are at the end of their working life. The guardian of a Franciscan monastery where I spend a week every year, told us that they could easily triple the number of brothers living there if they would welcome everyone who wanted to start a second (or even first career) as a contemplative. But, he said, you simply cannot have too many high-maintenance members if you want your community to survive.
What it boils down to is: which part of the attractiveness of traditional communities is due valid reasons, and which part is due to "smells and bells", highly-structured environment, and perceived safeness from the usual problems of a life in the outside world.
What is the goal of a religious community?
Throughout the history of the Church the character of religious communities has changed with the times. Clearly the LCWR doesn't provide a solution to the slump in the religious life, but I don't expect a return to traditional (i.e. the way it was during the 1st half of the 20th century) communities to be the all-encompassing solution either.
--------------------
It's the Thirties all over again, possibly even worse.
Posts: 524 | From: The Marshes | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
