Originally posted by Golden Key:
AKA "rein in the girls, and watch out for cooties". And "no more Reimagining conferences".
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
for all women's religious orders who often do the non-glamorous work nobody else is prepared to do.
quote:Hehe. That's a joke, right? I would never wish such a quixotic and soul-crushing task on anyone. Certain orders of sisters are right up there with academic theologians in the category of "people the bishops really don't like," and not just because many sisters tend to do theology.
Originally posted by Mary LA:
I'm hoping the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (and especially the Sisters of Mercy and the Catholic Health Association and Network which lobbies for social justice) fights back and demands more autonomy from the Vatican.
quote:And, perhaps most indicative of all
‘On a doctrinal level, this crisis is characterized by a diminuition of the fundamental Christological center and focus of religious consecration which leads, in turn, to a loss of a “constant and lively sense of the Church” among some religious.’
‘Addresses given during LCWR annual Assemblies manifest problematic statements and serious theological, even doctrinal errors.’
‘…letters the CDF received from “Leadership Teams” of various Congregations, among them LCWR Officers, protesting the Holy See’s actions regarding the question of women’s ordination and a correct pastoral approach to homosexual persons…The terms of the letters suggest that these sisters collectively take a position not in agreement with the Church’s teaching on human sexuality.’
‘…a prevalence of certain radical feminist themes incompatible with the Catholic faith…that risk distorting faith in Jesus and his loving Father who sent his Son for the salvation of the world.’
‘…while there has been a great deal of work on the part of LCWR promoting issues of social justice in harmony with the Church’s social doctrine, it is silent on the right to life from conception to natural death…’
‘Some speakers claim that dissent from the doctrine of the Church is justified as an exercise of the prophetic office. But this is based upon a mistaken understanding of the dynamic of prophecy in the Church: it justifies dissent by positiing the possibility of divergence between thge Church’s magisterium and a “legitimate” theological intuition of some of the faithful.’
‘The analysis of the General Assemblies, Presidential Addresses, and Occassional Papers reveals…a a two-fold problem. The first consists in positive error…The second…the silence and inaction of the LCWR in the face of such error.’
quote:This isn't about the power politics of the liberal/conservative culture war nor is it (pace MaryLA) about liberation theology: it is about an organisation whose very reason for existence is about ecclesial communion seeking to maintain it by ensuring that the LCWR stops drifting away from the doctrine of the Catholic faith.
The doctrinal Assessment found that many of the materials prepared by the LCWR for these purposes (Occasional Papers, Systems Thinking Handbook) do not have a sufficient doctrinal foundation. These materials recommend strategies for dialogue, for example when sisters disagree about basic matters of Catholic faith or moral practice, but it is not clear whether this dialogue is directed towards reception of Church teaching. As a case in point, the Systems Thinking Handbook presents a situation in which sisters differ over whether the Eucharist should be at the center of a special community celebration since the celebration of Mass requires an ordained priest, something which some sisters find “objectionable.” According to the Systems Thinking Handbook this difficulty is rooted in differences at the level of belief, but also in different cognitive models (the “Western mind” as opposed to an “Organic mental model”). These models, rather than the teaching of the Church, are offered as tools for the resolution of the controversy of whether or not to celebrate Mass. Thus the Systems Thinking Handbook presents a neutral model of Congregational leadership that does not give due attention to the responsibility which Superiors are called to exercise, namely, leading sisters into a greater appreciation or integration of the truth of the Catholic faith.
quote:AKA: "Catholic nuns called by Pope to believe in Catholic faith."
Originally posted by Golden Key:
AKA "rein in the girls, and watch out for cooties". And "no more Reimagining conferences".
quote:Oh this makes me want to
Originally posted by Trisagion:
The note from the CDF is here and before indulging in reflexive Vatican bashing or scare mongering it would repay five minutes reading. A few highlights that leapt out at me were:
quote:And, perhaps most indicative of all
‘On a doctrinal level, this crisis is characterized by a diminuition of the fundamental Christological center and focus of religious consecration which leads, in turn, to a loss of a “constant and lively sense of the Church” among some religious.’
‘Addresses given during LCWR annual Assemblies manifest problematic statements and serious theological, even doctrinal errors.’
‘…letters the CDF received from “Leadership Teams” of various Congregations, among them LCWR Officers, protesting the Holy See’s actions regarding the question of women’s ordination and a correct pastoral approach to homosexual persons…The terms of the letters suggest that these sisters collectively take a position not in agreement with the Church’s teaching on human sexuality.’
‘…a prevalence of certain radical feminist themes incompatible with the Catholic faith…that risk distorting faith in Jesus and his loving Father who sent his Son for the salvation of the world.’
‘…while there has been a great deal of work on the part of LCWR promoting issues of social justice in harmony with the Church’s social doctrine, it is silent on the right to life from conception to natural death…’
‘Some speakers claim that dissent from the doctrine of the Church is justified as an exercise of the prophetic office. But this is based upon a mistaken understanding of the dynamic of prophecy in the Church: it justifies dissent by positiing the possibility of divergence between thge Church’s magisterium and a “legitimate” theological intuition of some of the faithful.’
‘The analysis of the General Assemblies, Presidential Addresses, and Occassional Papers reveals…a a two-fold problem. The first consists in positive error…The second…the silence and inaction of the LCWR in the face of such error.’
quote:This isn't about the power politics of the liberal/conservative culture war nor is it (pace MaryLA) about liberation theology: it is about an organisation whose very reason for existence is about ecclesial communion seeking to maintain it by ensuring that the LCWR stops drifting away from the doctrine of the Catholic faith.
The doctrinal Assessment found that many of the materials prepared by the LCWR for these purposes (Occasional Papers, Systems Thinking Handbook) do not have a sufficient doctrinal foundation. These materials recommend strategies for dialogue, for example when sisters disagree about basic matters of Catholic faith or moral practice, but it is not clear whether this dialogue is directed towards reception of Church teaching. As a case in point, the Systems Thinking Handbook presents a situation in which sisters differ over whether the Eucharist should be at the center of a special community celebration since the celebration of Mass requires an ordained priest, something which some sisters find “objectionable.” According to the Systems Thinking Handbook this difficulty is rooted in differences at the level of belief, but also in different cognitive models (the “Western mind” as opposed to an “Organic mental model”). These models, rather than the teaching of the Church, are offered as tools for the resolution of the controversy of whether or not to celebrate Mass. Thus the Systems Thinking Handbook presents a neutral model of Congregational leadership that does not give due attention to the responsibility which Superiors are called to exercise, namely, leading sisters into a greater appreciation or integration of the truth of the Catholic faith.
![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
The church covering up for and tolerating priests raping children- the Vatican won't condemn this but they'll come down like a ton of bricks on women whose experiences in bringing Christ's love to those who most need it, lead them to question the hardline doctrines dreamed up by men in ivory towers.
quote:
Originally posted by Mary LA:
Reading around the Internet and Catholic blogs, the response from the American Leadership Conference of Women Religious saying they are 'stunned' is echoed by many others.
Joan Chittister, Benedictine religious and author, told the National Catholic Reporter, “When you set out to reform a people, a group, who have done nothing wrong, you have to have an intention, a motivation that is not only not morally based, but actually immoral.”
If we are going to talk about ecclesiology or doctrinal aberrations, I feel it needs to be done in the context of the Catholic church currently facing its worst crisis in centuries, a paedophile crisis and scandal that has primarily to do with the priesthood. Until that crisis has been addressed and resolved, the Vatican and the US bishops lack any credibility.
Is the attack on women religious a red herring perhaps?
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
quote:That is not merely a grotesque distortion, it is an out and out malicious lie.
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Oh this makes me want to
quote:Which bit? Are there not multiple instances across multiple countries of peaedophile priests being sent to different schools or dioceses? Has the vatican condemned the cover-ups and the sending of priests against whom multiple accusations of criminal behaviour to places where their history wasn't known?
That is not merely a grotesque distortion, it is an out and out malicious lie.
quote:So it's the libruls' fault, that the whole unholy infrastructure of Magdelene Laundries, and monsters like Brendan Smith and Sean Fortune got away with it for years?
Originally posted by CL:
quote:That is not merely a grotesque distortion, it is an out and out malicious lie.
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Oh this makes me want to
quote:That may be so, but it is a curious way to go about it. I imagine if you wanted to push an idea underground and make it even more destructive to church unity, then this is certainly a blueprint on how to do just that. But it's not just LCWR, lets be honest. Irish clergy, orders and laity have also had their knuckles rapped recently for more or less the same 'concerns of doctrine'. I wouldn't be at all surprised to discover that this is a pattern observable throughout the Roman Catholic Church at present. I know there are concerns about unity, and yes that is hugely important, I would feel however that a process of listening, dialogue and discernment would be more beneficial and would be a more likely satisfactory outcome for all involved. The way its being dealt with at the moment makes it look like a bunch of cardinals with their backs against the wall, slapping the dissident hoardes back into their seats and telling them to be good, even though they don't understand why they are asked to be good! Smacks of an act of desperation and fear, yet - unless I read it wrongly - there isn't any great fear of a split over these issues at all.
The simple fact here is that for years and years the LCWR have encouraged and endorsed or appeared to encourage and endorse opinions and actions based on those opinions amongst its members that were contrary to or incompatible with the Catholic faith. This got to such a stage where it was straining to breaking point ecclesial communion. Many of the Bishops in the US were so concerned about it that they raised the issue time and again with the Holy See. So concerned with this were a number of religious sisters who were members of the orders whose superiors were members of LCWR that they wrote to Rome to seek some kind of action. In response to this the Holy See conducted a five year doctrinal investigation and found what they found. I have absolutely no problem with orders of nuns believing things that are incoherent or incompatible with the Catholic faith but doing so whilst still professing to be Catholic is simply dishonest and wanting to have some special pass that allows them to ignore the settle teaching of the Church and be excused the obedience to the Church's teaching that the rest of us are bound to is special pleading of the most pathetic kind.
quote:Well, RC-education's loss is Fordham's gain.
Originally posted by Mary LA:
Thanks opaWim. As an improperly Catholic newcomer, it's good to know these things.
I do keep thinking about poor Elizabeth Johnson who bent over backwards as a theologian trying not to offend bishops and imprimatur-givers and then got zapped anyway.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:If the Vatican were to consider it possible for non-radical feminism to exist, it would probably best be described as "slightly enlightened clerical chauvinism".
Originally posted by Louise:
Out of interest, what do they mean by 'radical feminist themes'? What constitutes 'radical' from that point of view?
L.
quote:My arse it does. It's Rome finally having enough backbone to clean house after decades of local hierarchies being either unable or unwilling to do so.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
posted by Trisagion:
quote:That may be so, but it is a curious way to go about it. I imagine if you wanted to push an idea underground and make it even more destructive to church unity, then this is certainly a blueprint on how to do just that. But it's not just LCWR, lets be honest. Irish clergy, orders and laity have also had their knuckles rapped recently for more or less the same 'concerns of doctrine'. I wouldn't be at all surprised to discover that this is a pattern observable throughout the Roman Catholic Church at present. I know there are concerns about unity, and yes that is hugely important, I would feel however that a process of listening, dialogue and discernment would be more beneficial and would be a more likely satisfactory outcome for all involved. The way its being dealt with at the moment makes it look like a bunch of cardinals with their backs against the wall, slapping the dissident hoardes back into their seats and telling them to be good, even though they don't understand why they are asked to be good! Smacks of an act of desperation and fear, yet - unless I read it wrongly - there isn't any great fear of a split over these issues at all.
The simple fact here is that for years and years the LCWR have encouraged and endorsed or appeared to encourage and endorse opinions and actions based on those opinions amongst its members that were contrary to or incompatible with the Catholic faith. This got to such a stage where it was straining to breaking point ecclesial communion. Many of the Bishops in the US were so concerned about it that they raised the issue time and again with the Holy See. So concerned with this were a number of religious sisters who were members of the orders whose superiors were members of LCWR that they wrote to Rome to seek some kind of action. In response to this the Holy See conducted a five year doctrinal investigation and found what they found. I have absolutely no problem with orders of nuns believing things that are incoherent or incompatible with the Catholic faith but doing so whilst still professing to be Catholic is simply dishonest and wanting to have some special pass that allows them to ignore the settle teaching of the Church and be excused the obedience to the Church's teaching that the rest of us are bound to is special pleading of the most pathetic kind.
quote:No. It means that the "Spirit of Vatican II" can stop distorting that Council's very moderate decisions for their agendas
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
AKA let's undo everything we did in Vatican I and II and pretend we all think exactly the same on everything.
What's the big fear here?
quote:Don't be. The denizens of the Ship LOVE controversial threads because it is, after all, a discussion board.
Originally posted by Mary LA:
I'm embarrassed to have started such a controversial thread from newcomer ignorance.
quote:I saw this summarized in yesterday's newspaper -- just how much time did Jesus spend speaking about the poor, the hungry, the oppressed -- and how much time on birth control and abortion?
‘…while there has been a great deal of work on the part of LCWR promoting issues of social justice in harmony with the Church’s social doctrine, it is silent on the right to life from conception to natural death…’
quote:There's nothing to be embarrassed about.
Originally posted by Mary LA:
I'm embarrassed to have started such a controversial thread from newcomer ignorance.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:They should clearly do the latter. As you say, many others have and many others will continue to do so. And this will continue until the RCC becomes just one more small fundamentalist sect yapping away at the ankles of society, but with no real power or ability to influence people's lives.
Originally posted by Mary LA:
The liberal nuns will either have to back down or they will join so many others and leave the Church.
quote:The LCWR's response? That they don't "knowingly" invite speakers who speak against the Church, and if they do that's their own affair and not necessarily what the LCWR itself thinks.
Addresses given during LCWR annual Assemblies manifest problematic statements and serious theological, even doctrinal
errors. The Cardinal offered as an example specific passages of Sr. Laurie Brink’s
address about some Religious “moving beyond the Church” or even beyond Jesus.
This is a challenge not only to core Catholic beliefs; such a rejection of faith is also a
serious source of scandal and is incompatible with religious life. Such unacceptable
positions routinely go unchallenged by the LCWR, which should provide resources for
member Congregations to foster an ecclesial vision of religious life, thus helping to
correct an erroneous vision of the Catholic faith as an important exercise of charity.
Some might see in Sr. Brink’s analysis a phenomenological snapshot of religious life
today. But Pastors of the Church should also see in it a cry for help.
quote:That is most certainly what it seems determined to do. Thanks to JPII and Papa Razzi.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:They should clearly do the latter. As you say, many others have and many others will continue to do so. And this will continue until the RCC becomes just one more small fundamentalist sect yapping away at the ankles of society, but with no real power or ability to influence people's lives.
Originally posted by Mary LA:
The liberal nuns will either have to back down or they will join so many others and leave the Church.
quote:To this outsider, it just looks like housecleaning. "A process of listening, dialogue and discernment" about settled doctrines of the Catholic Church? If they want to push theological boundaries ...
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
... I would feel however that a process of listening, dialogue and discernment would be more beneficial and would be a more likely satisfactory outcome for all involved. The way its being dealt with at the moment makes it look like a bunch of cardinals with their backs against the wall, slapping the dissident hoardes back into their seats and telling them to be good, even though they don't understand why they are asked to be good! Smacks of an act of desperation and fear, yet - unless I read it wrongly - there isn't any great fear of a split over these issues at all.
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
"The Episcopal Church Welcomes You"
quote:Roflmao. You certainly are adrift on a sea of surreality.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And this will continue until the RCC becomes just one more small fundamentalist sect yapping away at the ankles of society, but with no real power or ability to influence people's lives.
quote:I re-echo Trisagion's response to this, Evangeline. But not only but also...
Originally posted by Evangeline:
The church covering up for and tolerating priests raping children- the Vatican won't condemn this but they'll come down like a ton of bricks on women whose experiences in bringing Christ's love to those who most need it, lead them to question the hardline doctrines dreamed up by men in ivory towers.
quote:Or try the pretty liberal Fr Thomas Doyle:
We — feminists and progressive Catholics — love them [liberal nuns]. And so we were surprised when the LCWR leadership refused to allow survivors of sexual abuse by Catholic sisters to address the past few annual meetings. The survivors want to share their stories of abuse as well as suggest processes to prevent such abuse in the future, including recommending that the sisters adopt the bishops’ anti-sex-abuse guidelines. To date, the nuns have just said no. Even the bishops allowed the survivors time on the agenda of their annual meeting some five years ago when the clergy sex abuse scandal was at its peak.
What was wrong with these sisters who have worked for democracy in the church, the rights of the poor and marginalized, and just about every social justice issue you could think of? Were they in denial? Afraid of the publicity?
Barbara Blaine, co-director of SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, told me that she couldn’t understand LCWR’s unwillingness to listen to survivors. “It’s such a bad move. Even if they weren’t sincere it would make more sense to invite us, listen politely and then ignore us. Stonewalling just makes them look bad.” Blaine, a survivor of sexual abuse by a priest, organized two demonstrations calling on LCWR to hear the survivors.
quote:The LCWR have certainly not got the excuse that they were "preaching the truth to power" on this particular issue.
In light of the highly visible and vocal support of most contemporary nuns, including their leadership in LCWR for victims of social injustice both inside and outside the Church, we would certainly expect that they would quickly respond openly, honestly and with compassion to victims of religious women. The opposite has been true. The religious congregations of women who have been sued have fought the victims with a viciousness that was equal to or exceeded that of many bishops. The LCWR has treated the victims who have tried to communicate with them in a disgraceful and downright unchristian manner. They have been as cold, as clerical, as arrogant and as dishonest as the bishops. They have refused to even consider cleaning the mess in their own house. They have treated those who have brought the mess to their attention with cruelty and disdain.
quote:Chesterbelloc, given that the American Bishops have now
...
Barbara Blaine, co-director of SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests...[/QB]
quote:Indeed
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
"The Episcopal Church Welcomes You"
![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
quote:As opposed to their current status of a large fundamentalist sect yapping away at the ankles of society, but with no real power or ability to influence people's lives?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And this will continue until the RCC becomes just one more small fundamentalist sect yapping away at the ankles of society, but with no real power or ability to influence people's lives.
quote:I didn't endorse SNAP to make a point against the LCWR. I actually think some of SNAP's conduct is pretty shabby myself. Rather, I used articles by people who do support SNAP's activities to show that even they (who hold no brief for the bishops, to say the least) don't think the LCWR have anything teach the bishops on this score; and I did that in response to Evengeline's implying that the the bishops' handling of the abuse scandal was a reason for laying off the LCWR.
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
Chesterbelloc, given that the American Bishops have now gone after SNAP in the courts, using them as a point to make your case against the LCWR probably isn't your best tactical move.
quote:In fact, Pyx_e, the SSPX differ from Vat II on far fewer issue than the LCWR seem to. Most of Vat II was reiterating previous "traditional" doctrine on Christ, the Church, Papal and episcopal authority, Scripture, etc. Apart from a very technical issue over interpreting the Council's pronouncements on religious liberty, and some emphases on ecumenism and the liturgy, the SSPX have very little beef with the Council (which pronounced no new dogmas whatsoever).
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
I am in comparative ignorance but could somebody please explain the differing approaches being used too SSPX and the Nuns? Not least (and I did not introduce the Nazis to this thread) as SSPX seem to my outsiders view to be a damn sight more dodgy/doctrinally unsound.
quote:The SSPX have no real problem with about 95% of the actual content of Vatican II. The inverse is true of the LCWR.
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
I am in comparative ignorance but could somebody please explain the differing approaches being used too SSPX and the Nuns? Not least (and I did not introduce the Nazis to this thread) as SSPX seem to my outsiders view to be a damn sight more dodgy/doctrinally unsound.
I think I get His Holiness is trying to pull back form the fringes, make the fringes less fuzzy and create a more homogenous unit but there does seem to be some differing approaches. Or am I misreading the two situations, they may not even be comparable.
AtB, Pyx_e
quote:I think the two situations are comparable in the following ways:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
I am in comparative ignorance but could somebody please explain the differing approaches being used too SSPX and the Nuns? Not least (and I did not introduce the Nazis to this thread) as SSPX seem to my outsiders view to be a damn sight more dodgy/doctrinally unsound.
I think I get His Holiness is trying to pull back form the fringes, make the fringes less fuzzy and create a more homogenous unit but there does seem to be some differing approaches. Or am I misreading the two situations, they may not even be comparable.
AtB, Pyx_e
quote:Talk about a hermetically sealed definition to defend the church from prophecy.
Originally posted by Trisagion:
The note from the CDF is here and before indulging in reflexive Vatican bashing or scare mongering it would repay five minutes reading. A few highlights that leapt out at me were:
quote:
‘Some speakers claim that dissent from the doctrine of the Church is justified as an exercise of the prophetic office. But this is based upon a mistaken understanding of the dynamic of prophecy in the Church: it justifies dissent by positiing the possibility of divergence between thge Church’s magisterium and a “legitimate” theological intuition of some of the faithful.’
quote:Apparently you share the Vatican's view that they are the RCC.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:They should clearly do the latter. As you say, many others have and many others will continue to do so. And this will continue until the RCC becomes just one more small fundamentalist sect yapping away at the ankles of society, but with no real power or ability to influence people's lives.
Originally posted by Mary LA:
The liberal nuns will either have to back down or they will join so many others and leave the Church.
quote: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?
Originally posted by Think²:
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.)
quote:Then the status quo is maintained.
Originally posted by Think²:
Being sorted enough to question means being sorted enough to choose.
quote:An excellent post in toto Ronald Binge.
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...
quote:Which approximately translates:
Ecclesia reformata semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei
quote:Insofar as your thanks and compliments are sarcasm-free, you are quite welcome.
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.
quote:Exactly my sentiments.
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?
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by opaWim:
Apparently I hit a raw nerve.
quote:That'd be when you wrote:
Where do I claim to "speak for all the rest of the Catholic Church", however you might care to define that "rest"?
quote: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.
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.
quote:You didn't. I over-egged the sarcasm pudding. My apologies.
Where do I claim to be able to provide a "pure, spotless, sinless view of the Catholic faith".
quote: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:
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.
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?"
quote:Just out of curiosity, what makes you so confident that is a just assessment?
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:Nah, you just expressed yourself in self-righteous and sanctimonious terms that I wanted to challenge
Originally posted by opaWim:
Apparently I hit a raw nerve.
quote:Hah. I'm flattered - sort of. But encouraged to see obviously committed Church people getting their priorities right.
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.
quote:It's like something out of Monty Python.
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.
quote: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.
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."
quote: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
Originally posted by opaWim:
Just out of curiosity, what makes you so confident that is a just assessment?
![[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.
quote:Touché.
Originally posted by opaWim:
Well, that goes to show that it is not only beauty that is in the eye of the beholder.
quote:And I am certain that some will heed the call, as I have.
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
"The Episcopal Church Welcomes You"
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote:So tell us, do, what level of dissent is permissable and the tolerance of which would have kept you aboard?
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.
quote:Please look at which religious orders are in terminal decline and which are growing. By their fruits ye shall know them...
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.
quote:Och, you're a good sport, Dave.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:Hah. I'm flattered - sort of.
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.
quote: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.
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...
quote:Maybe because younger people are immature and so are attracted to conservative groups whereas those who think for themselves stay out of it.
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.
quote:Hmmm, that's making an awful lot of assumptions and implications. It assumes and implies that:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Maybe because younger people are immature and so are attracted to conservative groups whereas those who think for themselves stay out of it.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote:Of course.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Maybe because younger people are immature and so are attracted to conservative groups whereas those who think for themselves stay out of it.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Maybe because younger people are immature and so are attracted to conservative groups whereas those who think for themselves stay out of it.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote:"think for themselves " is merely a pretty dressing for "I'm made uncomfortable by those old fashioned values of poverty, chastity , and obedience"
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Maybe because younger people are immature and so are attracted to conservative groups whereas those who think for themselves stay out of it.
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.
quote:But surely you must have your suspicions?
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I'm not sure why this demographic segment is seen as so threatening by the current leadership of the RCC.
quote: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.
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
quote:"think for themselves " is merely a pretty dressing for "I'm made uncomfortable by those old fashioned values of poverty, chastity , and obedience"
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Maybe because younger people are immature and so are attracted to conservative groups whereas those who think for themselves stay out of it.
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.
quote: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.
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"
quote: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?
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.
quote: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.
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.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
quote: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.
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!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:It's really a lot more complicated than that.
Maybe because younger people are immature and so are attracted to conservative groups whereas those who think for themselves stay out of it.
quote:And the word 'obedience' needs teasing out. At root, it is about listening and discerning. Is this listening to an external authority only or is it to one's own experience and conscience, weighing up scripture, tradition, reason etc.?
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote: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.
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
quote:"think for themselves " is merely a pretty dressing for "I'm made uncomfortable by those old fashioned values of poverty, chastity , and obedience"
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Maybe because younger people are immature and so are attracted to conservative groups whereas those who think for themselves stay out of it.
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.
quote:I think it depends by what you think is core or fundamental, as well as what you think the rights of the Vatican are.
Originally posted by Think²:
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.
quote:I do not equate 'orthodox' with either 'conservative' or 'traditionalist'. Orthodoxy is a wide room whereas narrowing down is the product of heresy.
Originally posted by Pancho:
[QBassumes 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
[/QB]
quote:I agree with you 100% on that statement opaWim. I get the heeby-jeebies with those who try to re-create a kind of pastiche Church. I spend a lot of time helping young people who are trying to discern a vocation. I tend to try and discourage quite a few because I think they are dreaming of a kind of picture post-card type of religious life.
Originally posted by opaWim:
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.
quote:By liberal I mean the radical forard thinking aspects of Christianity rather than conservative. I agree that liberal is the wrong word. But major radical positions in 1800 included abolitionism and womens sufferage. Issues that are now so thoroughly settled that the thought that they were issues at all, let alone that many Christians were arguing for the status quo is seen as scandalous.
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Back to the discussion:-
Justinian wrote:quote: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?
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.
quote:My comments were addressed to a tangent the thread had taken, not the OP, and were addressed to the specific comments of SeraphimSarov I was replying to. I might think that the Roman Catholic Church would be a lot better an organisation if it held much more to the doctrines the nuns are professing (although see my rebuke to the liberal church and not offering any causes). But this is an internal Roman Catholic fight and although I agree with the nuns rather than the CDF on just about everything, Rome is Rome, and the CDF is doing its job, and appears to be (so far as I can tell) doing its job properly. And although I agree with just about everything they are doing, what they are doing is not Roman Catholic.
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
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.
quote:ego enim accepi a Domino quod et tradidi vobis
Originally posted by leo:
That's the path to authentic faith as opposed to somebody else's truth handed down.
quote:It isn't the right belief I am arguing about, I am arguin that if you *choose* to submit yourself to a defined religious life, then find that you no longer believe in it you should just say so.
Originally posted by QLib:
quote:I think it depends by what you think is core or fundamental, as well as what you think the rights of the Vatican are.
Originally posted by Think²:
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.
A church isn't a club - it's about what is true. How irritiating do you find the people who attack liberalism faith by saying things like 'if you're going to have a faith, at least have a proper one'? Yet that's what you're effectively doing here. These radical liberal Catholics aren't stupid (neither, of course, are Trisagion & co) - there is an argument to be had here and Quakers above all people shouldn't be pretending that there isn't.
quote:That may stand up while we believe 'of the Lord' reflects some actual communication from God. Once that magic's gone, claims like this sound hollow and empty. Then we have to look at Christian faith differently for it to remain authentic.
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, (1 Cor 11: 23)
quote:Not if you were given to understand that particular religious life embodied a commitment to, say, truth. If it was the life as an expression of, say, truth you were signing up to, opting out would be breaking your vows.
Originally posted by Think²:
I am arguing that if you *choose* to submit yourself to a defined religious life, then find that you no longer believe in it you should just say so.
quote:There is no Catholic religious order where vows are taken to work out one's own truth.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Not if you were given to understand that particular religious life embodied a commitment to, say, truth. If it was the life as an expression of, say, truth you were signing up to, opting out would be breaking your vows.
quote:Thats quite a statement, and one that sits so uneasily with me. I guess it's maybe one of the major differences of our traditions that I have never really reflected on that much. I might be misunderstanding a lot of it too, but it seems like the Roman Catholic church is going further into classification of what constitutes being a Roman Catholic. It feels like (but I might be very wrong), the church is wanting to beyond that sense of belonging in the Christian community and force that belonging and unity in Christ through ever increasing detail on the very aspects of religious practice and belief and what each individual person should think on almost every aspect of life. As I understand it that tendency led to the first reformation, and indeed it is now what those same reformed churches are now experiencing splits over due to the very same approach.
When will these people either display an ounce of humility and a grain of integrity and accept that it is the office of the Bishops in the Church that gets to determine what is in accordance with the deposit of faith not them
quote:I have to say that I believe this to be one of the most honest and open postings by any Roman Catholic that I've read on these boards and its important to restate it because so many people on these boards flippantly (and in my view disrespectfully) suggest that skipping off to another pasture is easy and good. It's one of the reasons why I'm glad that the Church of Ireland hasn't been careless and insensitive or overly triumphalist about 'converts'. When you love a church and when it has nurtured you - even when it irritates the hell out of you, for a lot of people sticking with it is far better than the prospect of walking away. We are such a shop around culture and in many ways that can destroy local communities, and churches too, and things that are good and wholesome - even those dissenting voices that make us stiffen - can be lost and the church and community is all the poorer for it.
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.
Why would we leave the RCC?
Because we should leave a bunch of self-inflated officials to improve our church into fruitless stone-dead perfection?
Because other churches have less faults?
Because not being a member of a church is preferable?
quote:I am fully aware that Vatican II was a moderate document - that was part of the point I was making. I'm not one of those that thinks Vatican II means lets do church with a Hindu shrine in one corner and a reinvented Mass in the other corner.
No. It means that the "Spirit of Vatican II" can stop distorting that Council's very moderate decisions for their agendas
quote:I doubt leo was suggesting that.
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
The "path to authentic faith" is not simply working it all out for oneself.
quote:I don't think I disagree with that. I prefer though to not ignore the results of that engagement if it shows what has been handed down to be outdated or simply false.
A large part is receiving that which is handed on and engaging with it. It's that damned Catholic and in operation again: it's Fides et Ratio, Faith and Reason.
quote:I should hope not. Truth is what it is. Mere Catholic truth would be equally empty.
There is no Catholic religious order where vows are taken to work out one's own truth.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:That may stand up while we believe 'of the Lord' reflects some actual communication from God. Once that magic's gone, claims like this sound hollow and empty. Then we have to look at Christian faith differently for it to remain authentic.
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, (1 Cor 11: 23)
quote:But I don't think they would say it's a question of not believing in it. Perhaps a different understanding of their belief, of what their vows mean. For example, as discussed upthread, of what it means to be obedient.
Originally posted by Think²:
quote:It isn't the right belief I am arguing about, I am arguin that if you *choose* to submit yourself to a defined religious life, then find that you no longer believe in it you should just say so.
Originally posted by QLib:
quote:I think it depends by what you think is core or fundamental, as well as what you think the rights of the Vatican are.
Originally posted by Think²:
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.
A church isn't a club - it's about what is true. How irritiating do you find the people who attack liberalism faith by saying things like 'if you're going to have a faith, at least have a proper one'? Yet that's what you're effectively doing here. These radical liberal Catholics aren't stupid (neither, of course, are Trisagion & co) - there is an argument to be had here and Quakers above all people shouldn't be pretending that there isn't.
quote:In your opinion only.
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
quote:"think for themselves " is merely a pretty dressing for "I'm made uncomfortable by those old fashioned values of poverty, chastity , and obedience"
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Maybe because younger people are immature and so are attracted to conservative groups whereas those who think for themselves stay out of it.
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.
quote:It is equally nonsense. A woman does indeed have to right to determine what is happening with her body.
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.
quote:I just wish that someone in the congregation had turned round and asked why, if you give a rat's arse about abortion in the RCC, you campaign against the single thing that has the biggest impact on the abortion rate - contraception. If that is genuinely one of your issues, the works of the LCWR will do far, far more to prevent abortion than the acts the CDF approves of.
Originally posted by Trisagion:
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.
quote:
Originally posted by kiwimacahau:
Oh, and as for this,quote:It is equally nonsense. A woman does indeed have to right to determine what is happening with her body.
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.
quote:I rest their case.
originally posted by kiwimachau:
In your opinion only.
quote:Agreed.
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
I think the problem is between what Rome understands by the Vow of Obedience and what the nuns don't want that to be, Beeswax Altar.
quote:Oh, the Roman Catholic Church certainly tries to transform lives. Transforming them for the better seems to be optional. And I do mean optional - with strictly deontological ethics, whether things actually turn out for the better doesn't matter. (Catholic teaching on Social Justice does transform lives for the better. On contraception it's for the worse).
The renewed Roman Catholic Church, hopefully purged of the gross evil of paedophilia, may not be cute and furry in modern eyes, but it might just transform lives.
quote:Yes. Unfortunately a lot of the last few hundred years of Western Society involves attempts up to and including wars to get away from the influence of the Roman Catholic Church.
As the largest and original Western Christian Church it has been central to the foundation of Western Society.
quote:I agree with all of the above except that I'd add two letters - "un" before the "fortunately".
I'm not sure, if it changed the way the liberal nuns want it to, it would fulfil what I believe it sees to be its divine mandate. I believe it would self-destruct. Fortunately, I don't see this happening.
quote:I'll believe that when the Pope sells the Vatican. Or do you mean the post-Constantine roots?
I think, under the present Pope, that Church is returning to its true roots.
quote:Actually, I think in the context of religious vows it's about submitting to the guidance of your superiors and the authority of the Church. With respect, your definition sounds like a modern spin which subverts the intention of the vow, rather than fulfilling it.
Originally posted by leo:
the word 'obedience' needs teasing out. At root, it is about listening and discerning. Is this listening to an external authority only or is it to one's own experience and conscience, weighing up scripture, tradition, reason etc.?
It is not the same as the childish 'do what you're told' sort of obedience.
quote:The thread, like all threads on the Roman Catholic Church, was destined for silliness. In virtually every thread on the Roman Catholic Church, somebody will eventually say something along the lines of, "Fuck the Vatican. It's just a bunch of misogynistic, homophobic, pedophiles bent on intercising children from their daemons and keeping humanity from harnessing the power of Dust." And so it goes.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
There is often an identifiable point at which a thread gets silly.....this is that point
quote:Why, authors have written entire trilogies of YA novels about that very point!
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:The thread, like all threads on the Roman Catholic Church, was destined for silliness. In virtually every thread on the Roman Catholic Church, somebody will eventually say something along the lines of, "Fuck the Vatican. It's just a bunch of misogynistic, homophobic, pedophiles bent on intercising children from their daemons and keeping humanity from harnessing the power of Dust." And so it goes.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
There is often an identifiable point at which a thread gets silly.....this is that point
quote:Ya forgot the parts about old, men, and dresses. Ya can't forget the dresses.
Beeswax Altar tells us:
The thread, like all threads on the Roman Catholic Church, was destined for silliness. In virtually every thread on the Roman Catholic Church, somebody will eventually say something along the lines of, "Fuck the Vatican. It's just a bunch of misogynistic, homophobic, pedophiles bent on intercising children from their daemons and keeping humanity from harnessing the power of Dust." And so it goes.
quote:And I care why? The fact is the RCC is quite happy to enable paedophiles, quite happy to insist in 3rd world countries that Condoms spread diseases, quite happy to insist on women not being ordainable and then they think they have some divine right to tell people that abortions are out of the question? Sod them and the sodding ass they rode in on!
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
For the record, kiwimachau, I'm not Roman Catholic and I disagree with the Roman Catholic position on Dead Horses. However, in the spirit of ecumenism, I'm going to refute your argument for them. Let's see...
quote:
Originally posted by kiwimacahau:
Oh, and as for this,quote:It is equally nonsense. A woman does indeed have to right to determine what is happening with her body.
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.quote:I rest their case.
originally posted by kiwimachau:
In your opinion only.
quote:Phooey. Does that mean I have to have a Modern Brewer's, too, if I'm to keep up?
Triple Tiara shows pity:
see here TSA
quote:Good polemic "chop job" Justinian.
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:Agreed.
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
I think the problem is between what Rome understands by the Vow of Obedience and what the nuns don't want that to be, Beeswax Altar.
quote:Oh, the Roman Catholic Church certainly tries to transform lives. Transforming them for the better seems to be optional. And I do mean optional - with strictly deontological ethics, whether things actually turn out for the better doesn't matter. (Catholic teaching on Social Justice does transform lives for the better. On contraception it's for the worse).
The renewed Roman Catholic Church, hopefully purged of the gross evil of paedophilia, may not be cute and furry in modern eyes, but it might just transform lives.
quote:Yes. Unfortunately a lot of the last few hundred years of Western Society involves attempts up to and including wars to get away from the influence of the Roman Catholic Church.
As the largest and original Western Christian Church it has been central to the foundation of Western Society.
quote:I agree with all of the above except that I'd add two letters - "un" before the "fortunately".
I'm not sure, if it changed the way the liberal nuns want it to, it would fulfil what I believe it sees to be its divine mandate. I believe it would self-destruct. Fortunately, I don't see this happening.
quote:I'll believe that when the Pope sells the Vatican. Or do you mean the post-Constantine roots?
I think, under the present Pope, that Church is returning to its true roots.
quote:Many do care -- and the church leadership is making it harder for them to reconcile what Jesus was/is about and what the majestic magesterium of their church (or their branch of it) is about
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
And Roman Catholics should care what you think why?
quote:Most of the nuns i have known personally have been very dedicated to serving real people in real need. Which to some these days seems to class them as "liberal". God bless these nuns, and all the many, many other Roman Catholics clerical and lay, for trying to be God-loving and God-serving human beings in an ever more dehumanised and dehumanising ecclesiastical institution.
Originally posted by aumbry:
How many of these liberal nuns are there? A dozen? A few hundred?
quote:You are trying to equate nuns that work with the poor as "liberal" which does not follow. I suspect that most of those nuns are pretty faithful to the teachings of the catholic church. The church should be strict in enforcing orthodoxy otherwise chaos takes hold. Perhaps the Episcopalian Church would be the best place for these liberals although I suspect that being catholics gives them a kudos and weight to their utterances which would not be noticed once they were in that fold.
Originally posted by malik3000:
quote:Most of the nuns i have known personally have been very dedicated to serving real people in real need. Which to some these days seems to class them as "liberal". God bless these nuns, and all the many, many other Roman Catholics clerical and lay, for trying to be God-loving and God-serving human beings in an ever more dehumanised and dehumanising ecclesiastical institution.
Originally posted by aumbry:
How many of these liberal nuns are there? A dozen? A few hundred?
quote:Wow, talk about melodrama.
Originally posted by Mary LA:
Coming back to this thread on an autumnal Monday morning and seeing the predictably entrenched and polarised positions. I personally feel relieved that there are a number of bishops who live and work out in southern Africa who wouldn't tell their congregants to go without condoms while the communicable Aids plague rages, and who are perhaps less worried about abortion than infant mortality in rural areas. And a surprising number of informed local Catholics support the idea that the way to stop unwanted pregnancies and abortion is to educate women and work to end sexual violence. Many lay Catholics, as in the West, would want to ensure safe and reliable contraception.
As reported in NPR, Sr Simone Campbell's reply to the Vatican edict:
"And it's not about the giving up but it's about the fidelity to the call to be faithful to the Gospel and have that so unseen and to have this edict never mention the Gospel, never mention the responsibility to be God's arms and hands with people who are poor and suffering, the people at the fringes, people who suffer injustice, to have that not at all seen is extremely painful."
NPR on Simone Campbell's reply
So there are those who will vilify the LCRW and those who will support them. The real losers may not be the nuns or the Vatican hierarchy but the poor. As usual.
quote:There are very important differences between the obedience that is required of those who have taken vows and the obedience that is demanded of children.
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:Actually, I think in the context of religious vows it's about submitting to the guidance of your superiors and the authority of the Church. With respect, your definition sounds like a modern spin which subverts the intention of the vow, rather than fulfilling it.
Originally posted by leo:
the word 'obedience' needs teasing out. At root, it is about listening and discerning. Is this listening to an external authority only or is it to one's own experience and conscience, weighing up scripture, tradition, reason etc.?
It is not the same as the childish 'do what you're told' sort of obedience.
quote:What others say can be very enlightening for the RCC and RC's. Remember how the RCC handled (sexually active) pedophile priests before outsiders began to report on it? The self-cleaning capacity of the RCC has never been impressive when outside criticism was absent or could be ignored.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
And Roman Catholics should care what you think why?
quote:Ad hominem? Pique?
Originally posted by Mary LA:
How can somebody calling her/himself Triple Tiara accuse anyone of melodrama?
quote:Relevance? I thought this was about the LCWR not about you.
Nice to meet you too. I'm not your Western armchair activist or ME generation.
quote:opaWim, I think Beeswax was responding in kind to the first line of this post.
Originally posted by opaWim:
quote:What others say can be very enlightening for the RCC and RC's.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
And Roman Catholics should care what you think why?
quote:Which is why I am an Old Catholic Priest.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
There are other perfectly good churches that believe none of those positions....
quote:Over the top criticism indeed, and painful, and embarrassing.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:opaWim, I think Beeswax was responding in kind to the first line of this post.
Originally posted by opaWim:
quote:What others say can be very enlightening for the RCC and RC's.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
And Roman Catholics should care what you think why?
quote:But apparently not for Old Catholics in New Zealand.
originally posted by opaWim:
What others say can be very enlightening for the RCC and RC's.
quote:To which, Roman Catholics, in the Spirit of kiwimacahau, could simply respond...
Originally posted by opaWim:
quote:Over the top criticism indeed, and painful, and embarrassing.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:opaWim, I think Beeswax was responding in kind to the first line of this post.
Originally posted by opaWim:
quote:What others say can be very enlightening for the RCC and RC's.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
And Roman Catholics should care what you think why?
But all the same not completely untrue.
We were told that the truth shall make us free.
That belief is not invalidated when the truth turns out to be embarrassing and/or painful.
quote:Yes - my mention of 'handed down' invited that comment. But both Judaism and Christianity see tradition as dynamic and evolving, which is why Chalcedon could use the term 'homoousios', borrowed from Greek philosophy, to describe something not explicit in the bible.
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
quote:ego enim accepi a Domino quod et tradidi vobis
Originally posted by leo:
That's the path to authentic faith as opposed to somebody else's truth handed down.
For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, (1 Cor 11: 23)
quote:The ARCIC Final Report
Through the Spirit....the power of what is remembered is made present afresh, and succeeding generations appropriate the event remembered....From the earliest times also the prophetic role has been linked to the apostolic, since the Spirit reminds us what may have been forgotten
quote:I see tradition as a passing on of skills and resources, tools for induction into a way of belonging.
Tradition has been viewed in different ways. One approach is primarily concerned never to go beyond the bounds of scripture. Under the guidance of the Spirit undiscovered values and truths are sought in the Scriptures to illuminate the faith according to the needs of each generation. This is not slavery to the text of Scripture. It is an unfolding of the riches of the original revelation. Another approach, while different, does not necessarily contradict the former. In the conviction that the Holy Spirit is seeking to guide the Church into the fullness of truth, it draws upon everything in human experience and thought which will give to the content of revelation its fullest expression and widest application. It is primarily concerned with the growth of the seed of God's word from age to age
quote:The "unsearchable riches of Christ" (Ephesians 3:8)are bigger than our current understanding of them.
The tradition..and in particular the doctrinal tradition, is truly itself only when it throws itself away. That is, it is not the last word, just as it is not the first word. It is only within the dynamism of history as the place and the time of irreversible personal decisions that the Word is truly heard, and faith truly active
quote:I do not care about the hungry wolves howling outside the village walls...
Originally posted by Evangeline:
The church covering up for and tolerating priests raping children- the Vatican won't condemn this but they'll come down like a ton of bricks on women whose experiences in bringing Christ's love to those who most need it, lead them to question the hardline doctrines dreamed up by men in ivory towers.
quote:... and the mad yapping of the mutt next door is a mere nuisance ...
Originally posted by leo:
Once they choose to challenge these, in conscience, what's to stop them challenging everything else? That's the path to authentic faith as opposed to somebody else's truth handed down.
quote:... but when the family dog bites the children, then I get worried.
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
I spend a lot of time helping young people who are trying to discern a vocation. I tend to try and discourage quite a few because I think they are dreaming of a kind of picture post-card type of religious life.
quote:I first heard this view of 'obedience' from a Benedictine abbot.
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:Actually, I think in the context of religious vows it's about submitting to the guidance of your superiors and the authority of the Church. With respect, your definition sounds like a modern spin which subverts the intention of the vow, rather than fulfilling it.
Originally posted by leo:
the word 'obedience' needs teasing out. At root, it is about listening and discerning. Is this listening to an external authority only or is it to one's own experience and conscience, weighing up scripture, tradition, reason etc.?
It is not the same as the childish 'do what you're told' sort of obedience.
quote:here:
Monastic obedience begins with a personal relationship, not an organizational structure. Monastic obedience is a relationship between the monastic and the monastic leader, and then extends to the relationship with all of the monastic community in mutual obedience. The object of monastic obedience is the seeking of God. The monastic leader is a "director of souls," not a work boss nor a manager
quote:
The Vatican notion of authority exerts power and control out of a false sense of unity inspired by fear. Benedictine obedience and authority, on the other hand, are achieved through dialogue between a community member and her prioress in a spirit of co-responsibility. Obedience has a higher meaning than merely following orders from a legitimate superior
quote:I will give you the hermeneutical key to understand the document: ecclesiology.
Originally posted by Fuzzipeg:
There is a Support the Sisters petition on line. Chris Chatteris SJ Spiritual Director at St Francis Xavier Seminary in Cape Town signed it and posted it on Facebook. I noticed that one person forcibly declined and another signed happily.
TT, that'll teach you! I do have a problem with the sisters issue because everything out of Rome is a generalisation, not explained and not at all specific with the exception, possibly, of the choice of speakers but I fail to see that as an issue. Guest speakers are guest speakers and you don't have to agree with what they say. If everyone did there wouldn't be much point in inviting them! Does this mean that if I invite an Imam to address a Catholic group I am being disloyal to the Church?
I'm sure, TT, that you have reservations about the statement because it is so vague.
quote:Really? I thought it was about a page before. I stayed out while it was going somewhere.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
There is often an identifiable point at which a thread gets silly.....this is that point
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:I first heard this view of 'obedience' from a Benedictine abbot.
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:Actually, I think in the context of religious vows it's about submitting to the guidance of your superiors and the authority of the Church. With respect, your definition sounds like a modern spin which subverts the intention of the vow, rather than fulfilling it.
Originally posted by leo:
the word 'obedience' needs teasing out. At root, it is about listening and discerning. Is this listening to an external authority only or is it to one's own experience and conscience, weighing up scripture, tradition, reason etc.?
It is not the same as the childish 'do what you're told' sort of obedience.
quote:It makes a nice quip, but given that Catholic families are no longer raising one child for the church--with the expectations made clear from a very young age--and given that those with overly romanticized views of the call are now being discouraged, it's not exactly fair, is it?
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
And how is that view of obedience working for his house? How many vocations a year are they receiving, compared to--say--100 years ago?
quote:Without the rocket fuel of unreasonable enthusiasm, no higher calling ever gets off the ground, whether medical, scientific or religious. Yes, some will burn out prematurely and drop back to the ground, and some will even explode mid air. But if you want to reach the stars, then risk is involved. Some will get hurt. Thats strictly "shit happens". It is reasonable to assess whether the abilities of a candidate are up to the job. In particular for something like the priesthood, where ample opportunity exists to hurt others than oneself. But if a young person enters any training for a vocation without being high on romantic idealism, then they should be kicked out on those grounds. The last thing we need is the old hands requiring their "realism" of newbies. That's just forgetting that they weren't always the cynic fat bastards that they have become.
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
I'm also not quite sure what IngoB meant above. Is he suggesting that discouraging anyone from the priesthood or religious life is somehow undermining the Catholic Church? Having met a few people who thought they would make good priests, I think the best thing any church can do is make certain that a call is based on something more solid than watching "The Bells of St. Mary's" and reading "In This House of Brede"!
quote:Leo - have you actually read the CDF document about this?
Originally posted by leo:
There was a nun of Radio 4's 'Sunday' programme yesterday who said that the hierarchy is not used to dealing with highly educated women. Pius 12 urged women's education. Vatican 2 urged engagement with the world. But the hierarchy doesn't understand those who obey these things.
On the specific issue of healthcare, she said that 2 US federal courts had established that abortion was not part of it.
The nuns invited the Vatican to dialogue with them in 2010.
It would, thus, seem that the Vatican prefers its own monologue.
quote:They could do far worse then reading "In This House of Brede" no simpering, cOokie-cutter characters there (many based on nuns at Stanbrook). They were indeed small-o orthodox but of the best kind.
Originally posted by RuthW:
No kidding! In This House of Brede made the teen-aged me want to be a nun! The fact that we were Baptists was a bit of a problem, especially since I thought you had to be born Catholic - I didn't know they took converts. But I still wanted to be a nun.
quote:The full paper is downloaded .here
This is the obedience that is needed today, and especially after 9/11. It is not an obedience which is the blind submission to the dictates of religious superiors. It is rather that deep attentiveness to those who speak different languages, and live by different sympathies and imagination. It is that ascetic exposure to other geographies of mind and heart, even within our own communities, so that we may be drawn out from the narrow prisons that separate human beings from each other. It is a creative obedience, in which together we seek new and old words, which offer fresh air and mutual ease. Religious communities should be the crucibles of renewed language. - Timothy Radcliffe, OP
quote:I have but perhaps you were not talking to me?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:But apparently not for Old Catholics in New Zealand.
originally posted by opaWim:
What others say can be very enlightening for the RCC and RC's.
Try reading the entire conversation.
quote:The fact that you are quoting Tim Radcliffe undermines the point you are trying to make given that when he was Master of the Dominicans he cassated the current Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship when the latter was elected Provincial of the Eastern Province of the US.
Originally posted by DitzySpike:
Broadening the discussion on 'Obedience' started by Leo. Here's take on the concept from the religious order of another tradition:
quote:The full paper is downloaded .here
This is the obedience that is needed today, and especially after 9/11. It is not an obedience which is the blind submission to the dictates of religious superiors. It is rather that deep attentiveness to those who speak different languages, and live by different sympathies and imagination. It is that ascetic exposure to other geographies of mind and heart, even within our own communities, so that we may be drawn out from the narrow prisons that separate human beings from each other. It is a creative obedience, in which together we seek new and old words, which offer fresh air and mutual ease. Religious communities should be the crucibles of renewed language. - Timothy Radcliffe, OP
quote:That is as maybe, but what is abundantly clear is that progressive Catholics now will have to be clandestine when dealing with the Vatican and those who will secretly report their non-conformance to them.
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
Mary LA, could I ask you, or anyone else who actually knows South Africa, what the real situation is in regard to AIDS transference there?
I gather it is not mainly spread by genuinely monogamous couples? Especially not mainly monogamous Roman Catholic couples in the Republic, as I believe most South African Christians are Protestant.
I can understand the nuns social welfare initiative, aimed at damage minimization and societal improvement amongst the most disadvantaged (those in the townships?), who are not necessarily Roman Catholic and therefore neither subscribe to nor follow its tenets, clashing with official Vatican teaching, which is primarily aimed at Roman Catholics and certainly not binding on those who do not adhere to the Catholic Faith.
As someone officially outside the Church I see a titanic clash of wills on this one.
My gut feeling is that the Vatican will hold fast. I guess progressive Catholics will either have to take it or lump it. Speaking as an outside observer, I suspect that the Vatican will match the PR of progressive Catholics and their outside supporters.
quote:Is that the case? It wasn't in any part of Africa I've had dealings with.
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Again, speaking as an outsider: Is the Vatican also cracking down on, say, syncretic beliefs and practices of churches in non-Christian-dominant countries? Because if this sudden urge to clean theological house is only directed toward American nuns, not also, say, toward developing-world churches where devotion to the indigenous religion of the area is tacitly or even explicitly a part of the belief/practice of local clergy and religious...then isn't this really not about theology and ecclesiastical obedience after all? In other words, is the Vatican equally concerned about nuns in the US who aren't being faithful enough foot soldiers to the political party line they're expected to convey to those whom they serve, and priests/religious in some, say, sub-Saharan country who for all intents and purposes have mingled Christianity with the animistic local belief system in a way that would make it difficult to identify a congregation, to an objective outsider, as an RC congregation in good standing with Rome? Is there a different standard for these two situations, and if so why?
quote:The Holy Father himself isn't concerned with numbers. He'd rather have a smaller, remnant church that a bigger, compromising institution.
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:I first heard this view of 'obedience' from a Benedictine abbot.
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:Actually, I think in the context of religious vows it's about submitting to the guidance of your superiors and the authority of the Church. With respect, your definition sounds like a modern spin which subverts the intention of the vow, rather than fulfilling it.
Originally posted by leo:
the word 'obedience' needs teasing out. At root, it is about listening and discerning. Is this listening to an external authority only or is it to one's own experience and conscience, weighing up scripture, tradition, reason etc.?
It is not the same as the childish 'do what you're told' sort of obedience.
And how is that view of obedience working for his house? How many vocations a year are they receiving, compared to--say--100 years ago?
quote:To put it very simplistically Rome is currently trying to deal with the source of the loopy syncretism in the Developing World, i.e. heterodox/heretical Western clergy and religious who exported warped theologies through the missions. Asia has suffered particularly badly in that regard at the hands of the Jesuits (a particularly bilious old gasbag based in Tokyo comes to mind). Cut the root and the weed will die.
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Again, speaking as an outsider: Is the Vatican also cracking down on, say, syncretic beliefs and practices of churches in non-Christian-dominant countries? Because if this sudden urge to clean theological house is only directed toward American nuns, not also, say, toward developing-world churches where devotion to the indigenous religion of the area is tacitly or even explicitly a part of the belief/practice of local clergy and religious...then isn't this really not about theology and ecclesiastical obedience after all? In other words, is the Vatican equally concerned about nuns in the US who aren't being faithful enough foot soldiers to the political party line they're expected to convey to those whom they serve, and priests/religious in some, say, sub-Saharan country who for all intents and purposes have mingled Christianity with the animistic local belief system in a way that would make it difficult to identify a congregation, to an objective outsider, as an RC congregation in good standing with Rome? Is there a different standard for these two situations, and if so why?
quote:The Pope never said he'd rather that, he merely posited that a smaller, "purer" Church may be inevitable for a variety of reasons.
Originally posted by leo:
The Holy Father himself isn't concerned with numbers. He'd rather have a smaller, remnant church that a bigger, compromising institution.
quote:I have absolutely no idea what this is in reference to.
Originally posted by opaWim:
Feeling better after venting your bile?
quote:Almost certainly, this post by CL just above?
Originally posted by tclune:
I have absolutely no idea what this is in reference to.
with saying, "whatever," optional.quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:To put it very simplistically Rome is currently trying to deal with the source of the loopy syncretism in the Developing World, i.e. heterodox/heretical Western clergy and religious who exported warped theologies through the missions. Asia has suffered particularly badly in that regard at the hands of the Jesuits (a particularly bilious old gasbag based in Tokyo comes to mind). Cut the root and the weed will die.
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Again, speaking as an outsider: Is the Vatican also cracking down on, say, syncretic beliefs and practices of churches in non-Christian-dominant countries? Because if this sudden urge to clean theological house is only directed toward American nuns, not also, say, toward developing-world churches where devotion to the indigenous religion of the area is tacitly or even explicitly a part of the belief/practice of local clergy and religious...then isn't this really not about theology and ecclesiastical obedience after all? In other words, is the Vatican equally concerned about nuns in the US who aren't being faithful enough foot soldiers to the political party line they're expected to convey to those whom they serve, and priests/religious in some, say, sub-Saharan country who for all intents and purposes have mingled Christianity with the animistic local belief system in a way that would make it difficult to identify a congregation, to an objective outsider, as an RC congregation in good standing with Rome? Is there a different standard for these two situations, and if so why?
Fortunately the clean up has also started in these areas under a newer generation of bishops, such as Cardinal Ranjith in Sri Lanka.
quote:No doubt at all
originally posted by Genevieve:
No doubt other posters will suggest I am going off track, not taking the debate seriously, throwing in a red herring, etc. and yadda yadda.
quote:Yes, and just at the cusp of Vatican II - in fact, the novel is basically an overview in microcosm of that era in Catholic Church history just before and just after VII.
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
quote:They could do far worse then reading "In This House of Brede" no simpering, cOokie-cutter characters there (many based on nuns at Stanbrook). They were indeed small-o orthodox but of the best kind.
Originally posted by RuthW:
No kidding! In This House of Brede made the teen-aged me want to be a nun! The fact that we were Baptists was a bit of a problem, especially since I thought you had to be born Catholic - I didn't know they took converts. But I still wanted to be a nun.
quote:That is only a part of what I meant, though I fail to understand what is particularly progressive about that. Surely you don't mean to say that inquiring why their opponents are angry isn't the done thing for non-progressives?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
You don't? This is opaWim's version of the now classic progressive retort, "Why are you so angry?"
quote:Pardon me for forgetting that this forum isn't part of the Catholic blogosphere where my reference wouldn't need to be spelled out as it would be blindingly obvious who I was talking about - Fr Joseph O'Leary of Sophia University; devotee of Rahner, Schillebeeckx and Buddha.
Originally posted by opaWim:
quote:That is only a part of what I meant, though I fail to understand what is particularly progressive about that. Surely you don't mean to say that inquiring why their opponents are angry isn't the done thing for non-progressives?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
You don't? This is opaWim's version of the now classic progressive retort, "Why are you so angry?"
I wouldn't have bothered to react to the gratuitous biliousness of that -for all I know possibly even unwarranted- minispeech, were it not that CL neglected to supply the name of that "particularly bilious old gasbag based in Tokyo". In fact, he didn't supply any name at all, apart from the name of the good guy, which left it all hanging in a vacuum.
Is wondering who attacks are directed against progressive too?
In hindsight I should have just asked CL outright who he meant, but I'm only human.
quote:To be both blunt and honest, the Vatican is one of those institutions human history would be much, much better without. It's insistence on the maintenance of male power structures, it's handling of those who disagree, it's desire to see itself as the sole vehicle of divine grace all point to it's overweening pride and arrogance.
Originally posted by CL:
quote:The Pope never said he'd rather that, he merely posited that a smaller, "purer" Church may be inevitable for a variety of reasons.
Originally posted by leo:
The Holy Father himself isn't concerned with numbers. He'd rather have a smaller, remnant church that a bigger, compromising institution.
quote:Ah, so your problem with this man would seem to be that he does not deal with others via the usual politics of power that the Vatican uses.
Originally posted by CL:
quote:Pardon me for forgetting that this forum isn't part of the Catholic blogosphere where my reference wouldn't need to be spelled out as it would be blindingly obvious who I was talking about - Fr Joseph O'Leary of Sophia University; devotee of Rahner, Schillebeeckx and Buddha.
Originally posted by opaWim:
quote:That is only a part of what I meant, though I fail to understand what is particularly progressive about that. Surely you don't mean to say that inquiring why their opponents are angry isn't the done thing for non-progressives?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
You don't? This is opaWim's version of the now classic progressive retort, "Why are you so angry?"
I wouldn't have bothered to react to the gratuitous biliousness of that -for all I know possibly even unwarranted- minispeech, were it not that CL neglected to supply the name of that "particularly bilious old gasbag based in Tokyo". In fact, he didn't supply any name at all, apart from the name of the good guy, which left it all hanging in a vacuum.
Is wondering who attacks are directed against progressive too?
In hindsight I should have just asked CL outright who he meant, but I'm only human.
quote:
Originally posted by kiwimacahau:
quote:To be both blunt and honest, the Vatican is one of those institutions human history would be much, much better without. It's insistence on the maintenance of male power structures, it's handling of those who disagree, it's desire to see itself as the sole vehicle of divine grace all point to it's overweening pride and arrogance.
Originally posted by CL:
quote:The Pope never said he'd rather that, he merely posited that a smaller, "purer" Church may be inevitable for a variety of reasons.
Originally posted by leo:
The Holy Father himself isn't concerned with numbers. He'd rather have a smaller, remnant church that a bigger, compromising institution.
quote:That is an uncannily close account of what has happened at and to Stanbrook in the last ten or so years.
Originally posted by windsofchange:
quote:Yes, and just at the cusp of Vatican II - in fact, the novel is basically an overview in microcosm of that era in Catholic Church history just before and just after VII.
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
quote:They could do far worse then reading "In This House of Brede" no simpering, cOokie-cutter characters there (many based on nuns at Stanbrook). They were indeed small-o orthodox but of the best kind.
Originally posted by RuthW:
No kidding! In This House of Brede made the teen-aged me want to be a nun! The fact that we were Baptists was a bit of a problem, especially since I thought you had to be born Catholic - I didn't know they took converts. But I still wanted to be a nun.
It's one of my favorites too, but I think it's time for a sequel, in which Dame Phillipa is now Phillipa, the Coordinator.
Cecily, driven to the point of insanity by too much Marty Haugen and Cary Landry, has finally left and set up housekeeping with an elderly but still vital Dame Maura (now just "that old dame").
And Hilary? She's still in the kitchen, peeling potatoes and enjoying the knowledge that she really doesn't HAVE to do any of this if she doesn't want to. Some things never change.
quote:"The truth will out"? Ultimately.
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:That is an uncannily close account of what has happened at and to Stanbrook in the last ten or so years.
Originally posted by windsofchange:
quote:Yes, and just at the cusp of Vatican II - in fact, the novel is basically an overview in microcosm of that era in Catholic Church history just before and just after VII.
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
quote:They could do far worse then reading "In This House of Brede" no simpering, cOokie-cutter characters there (many based on nuns at Stanbrook). They were indeed small-o orthodox but of the best kind.
Originally posted by RuthW:
No kidding! In This House of Brede made the teen-aged me want to be a nun! The fact that we were Baptists was a bit of a problem, especially since I thought you had to be born Catholic - I didn't know they took converts. But I still wanted to be a nun.
It's one of my favorites too, but I think it's time for a sequel, in which Dame Phillipa is now Phillipa, the Coordinator.
Cecily, driven to the point of insanity by too much Marty Haugen and Cary Landry, has finally left and set up housekeeping with an elderly but still vital Dame Maura (now just "that old dame").
And Hilary? She's still in the kitchen, peeling potatoes and enjoying the knowledge that she really doesn't HAVE to do any of this if she doesn't want to. Some things never change.
quote:Just curious, how/why could/would you forget that?
Originally posted by CL:
Pardon me for forgetting that this forum isn't part of the Catholic blogosphere
quote:Thankfully I'm no longer part of the Catholic Bogosphere, and after googling "Fr. Joseph O'Leary", I am once again reminded why I don't care to be.
where my reference wouldn't need to be spelled out as it would be blindingly obvious who I was talking about - Fr Joseph O'Leary of Sophia University; devotee of Rahner, Schillebeeckx and Buddha.
quote:Having just googled on that, I fully sympathise.
Thankfully I'm no longer part of the Catholic Bogosphere, and after googling "Fr. Joseph O'Leary", I am once again reminded why I don't care to be.
quote:I said some consider caring for the poor as something liberal (hence the quotes). I don't. I consider it exercising Christianity (not that caring for the poor is limited to Christians)
Originally posted by aumbry:
quote:You are trying to equate nuns that work with the poor as "liberal" which does not follow. I suspect that most of those nuns are pretty faithful to the teachings of the catholic church. The church should be strict in enforcing orthodoxy otherwise chaos takes hold. Perhaps the Episcopalian Church would be the best place for these liberals although I suspect that being catholics gives them a kudos and weight to their utterances which would not be noticed once they were in that fold.
Originally posted by malik3000:
quote:Most of the nuns i have known personally have been very dedicated to serving real people in real need. Which to some these days seems to class them as "liberal". God bless these nuns, and all the many, many other Roman Catholics clerical and lay, for trying to be God-loving and God-serving human beings in an ever more dehumanised and dehumanising ecclesiastical institution.
Originally posted by aumbry:
How many of these liberal nuns are there? A dozen? A few hundred?
And I have no horse in this race as I am not a Roman Catholic.
quote:Seems wise to me.
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
I spend a lot of time helping young people who are trying to discern a vocation. I tend to try and discourage quite a few because I think they are dreaming of a kind of picture post-card type of religious life.
quote:Absolutely. That's one of the best things about it.
The truth is there is an enormous breadth in the Catholic Church and very deep well-springs to draw upon.
quote:Whew!
Believe it or not, I am no ultra-traditionalist Captain Catholic!
quote:Except...J23 said the Church needed "to open a window". ISTM that a) some people want to close the window and the shutters, put in an iron grate, and bolt a metal plate over the whole thing; b) some refuse to acknowledge that the building needs serious disinfection; and c) many don't consider that God might want to open another window, to help air out the place and let people breathe.
But I do think there are boundaries and limits, and occasionally it is necessary to point out that someone has gone way beyond the boundaries. I treasure the Second Vatican Council and the energy it released in the Church. I am saddened when people trot out "Vatican II" as if the Council mandated an anything goes policy. It did nothing of the sort.
quote:Actually, definitely so, God is trying very hard to open another window, to help air out the place from the smoke of Satan and let people breathe. As Paul VI said:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
c) many don't consider that God might want to open another window, to help air out the place and let people breathe.
quote:I'm so glad that you are putting the Vatican crack-down into proper perspective here, it is indeed opening a window to let out the poisonous fumes of the modernist heresy, so that the faithful can breathe clean air again.
Ninth Anniversary of the Coronation of His Holiness / Homily of Paul VI / Solemnity of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul / Thursday, 29 June 1972:
... Referring to the situation of the Church today, the Holy Father affirms that he has a sense that “from some fissure the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God.” There is doubt, incertitude, problematic, disquiet, dissatisfaction, confrontation. There is no longer trust of the Church; they trust the first profane prophet who speaks in some journal or some social movement, and they run after him and ask him if he has the formula of true life. And we are not alert to the fact that we are already the owners and masters of the formula of true life. Doubt has entered our consciences, and it entered by windows that should have been open to the light. Science exists to give us truths that do not separate from God, but make us seek him all the more and celebrate him with greater intensity; instead, science gives us criticism and doubt. Scientists are those who more thoughtfully and more painfully exert their minds. But they end up teaching us: “I don’t know, we don’t know, we cannot know.” The school becomes the gymnasium of confusion and sometimes of absurd contradictions. Progress is celebrated, only so that it can then be demolished with revolutions that are more radical and more strange, so as to negate everything that has been achieved, and to come away as primitives after having so exalted the advances of the modern world.
This state of uncertainty even holds sway in the Church. There was the belief that after the Council there would be a day of sunshine for the history of the Church. Instead, it is the arrival of a day of clouds, of tempest, of darkness, of research, of uncertainty. We preach ecumenism but we constantly separate ourselves from others. We seek to dig abysses instead of filling them in.
... How has this come about? The Pope entrusts one of his thoughts to those who are present: that there has been an intervention of an adverse power. Its name is the devil, this mysterious being that the Letter of St. Peter also alludes to. So many times, furthermore, in the Gospel, on the lips of Christ himself, the mention of this enemy of men returns. The Holy Father observes, “We believe in something that is preternatural that has come into the world precisely to disturb, to suffocate the fruits of the Ecumenical Council, and to impede the Church from breaking into the hymn of joy at having renewed in fullness its awareness of itself. Precisely for this reason, we should wish to be able, in this moment more than ever, to exercise the function God assigned to Peter, to strengthen the Faith of the brothers. We should wish to communicate to you this charism of certitude that the Lord gives to him who represents him though unworthily on this earth.” Faith gives us certitude, security, when it is based upon the Word of God accepted and consented to with our very own reason and with our very own human spirit. Whoever believes with simplicity, with humility, sense that he is on the good road, that he has an interior testimony that strengthens him in the difficult conquest of the truth.
quote:Seemed like a fair summary to me. Perhaps you'd like to elaborate on why you found it so funny?
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by kiwimacahau:
To be both blunt and honest, the Vatican is one of those institutions human history would be much, much better without. It's insistence on the maintenance of male power structures, it's handling of those who disagree, it's desire to see itself as the sole vehicle of divine grace all point to it's overweening pride and arrogance.
quote:Which South Africa is this? The one where the Church did nothing in the anti-apartheid struggle and the ANC has remained steadfast to its founding principles without hint of corruption or favouritism? And where the church rails against the LGBT community in contrast to the great tolerance shown in the wider community outside the church?
Originally posted by Mary LA:
South Africa is moving quite rapidly towards becoming secular society and in part that is because the church has failed black people, women and the LGBT community.
quote:With the greatest of respect Mary, I say once again that the situation in South Africa is not what this thread is about. May I suggest you start another one which focuses entirely on that? You will then find a very different response I suspect.
Originally posted by Mary LA:
What was more painful than anticipated was the cheery indifference to conditions in Africa and that is probably because many UK- and US-based posters have no idea who the poor are. I do voluntary work....
quote:
The Vatican has appointed an American bishop to rein in the largest and most influential group of Catholic nuns in the United States, saying that an investigation found that the group had “serious doctrinal problems.”
quote:Okay Mary, let me show what I mean about passive aggression from the very post in which you say you are not. Passive aggression happens when negative emotions and feelings build up and are then used to require acceptance by those with whom one is in conflict.
Originally posted by Mary LA:
TT, I am not passive aggressive and I am sorry you find my posts read that way.
quote:This thread is about a very particular situation which relates to the United States. Here you are taking a massive swipe, saying the issues important to you are deemed irrelevant because, presumably, you think there are too many "Western armchair activists". I would call that passive aggressive. You want to make the issues important to you central here. I suggested a separate thread because the issues in Africa that you feel so passionate about are of great magnitude - but they are not the subject of this thread. So you dismiss what I am saying by saying I am some cosy Westerner out of touch with reality in Africa. See what I mean?
Issues to do with Africa are often seen on UK- or US-based forums as marginal or irrelevant or requiring a separate thread because they are perceived as having nothing to do with the way issues are defined in the West.
quote:Again, I would say that is passive aggression. "I am angry because you are not validating my opinion, so I will throw in a little slur on you to justify my own position".
And if you feel confident generalising from a niche ecclesial position, then I don't see why I shouldn't be able to bring my personal location and experience to bear
quote:Hardly! They did not block papal intervention at all! They drew the sting from the intervention by co-operating. So in answer to moonlitdoor, here is an account by Fr Vincent O'Keefe, who was Vicar General at the time and hardly a Vatican stooge, or particularly unbiased. And again here. The 1975 General Congregation had expressed the Jesuit mission as the "Service of Faith and the Promotion of Justice". The more activist members of the Society had really grasped the nettle of promoting justice, while some others thought they were thereby neglecting the essential vocation of serving the Faith. It was Arrupe's stress on the need for both to go hand in hand that brought the matter to resolution.
Originally posted by Fuzzipeg:
Here, though we are dealing with two large influential religious orders who were able to block papal intervention.
quote:But ANC and Thabo Mbeki are not the church. It is the secular government that has been disappointing there.
Originally posted by Mary LA:
mdijon wrote: Which South Africa is this? The one where the Church did nothing in the anti-apartheid struggle and the ANC has remained steadfast to its founding principles without hint of corruption or favouritism? And where the church rails against the LGBT community in contrast to the great tolerance shown in the wider community outside the church?
mdijon, this kind of hostile tone makes it hard for me to respond and not feel defensive.
The ecumenical and more progressive church groupings played a significant role in the struggle against apartheid, I agree with you. The ANC has been a disappointment and is currently understood by many of us as corrupt and despotic. The denialism of Thabo Mabeki around Aids delayed the introduction of retrovirals in SA and caused an estimated 400 000 deaths.
quote:I think throughout most of Africa the church has been dreadful in supporting LGBT rights. However South Africa might be one of the few countries where the church comes across as less homophobic then the society it is in. Desmond Tutu and Allan Boesak have been particularly vocal.
Originally posted by Mary LA:
One of the most debated and tragic failures of the church to respond to lesbian and gay persecution has been in cases involving the 'corrective rape' of lesbians in townships and the murder of lesbian women -- it took four years for the killers of lesbian Zoliswa Nkonyane to be brought to court. In February 2006, her killers were sentenced to 18 years in prison. Zoliswa's mother spoke of how the church had ostracised her and her family after her daughter's murder and criticised the churches for not speaking out against the murders.
quote:With the deepest respect to you and all other posters here, my own personal feeling is that this thread might, in some cases, have become so emotive-by-association that we are sometimes tempted to cross examine other posters as hostile witnesses in an almost-not-pretend trial of Crimes Against Humanity.
Originally posted by mdijon:
...I think throughout most of Africa the church has been dreadful in supporting LGBT rights. However South Africa might be one of the few countries where the church comes across as less homophobic then the society it is in. Desmond Tutu and Allan Boesak have been particularly vocal.
Sorry if my tone was overly confrontational. Probably I was feeling defensive regarding the South African church's record.
quote:Well maybe, but on the other hand things were being said about the church in South Africa that I thought were simply factually incorrect.
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
my own personal feeling is that this thread might, in some cases, have become so emotive-by-association that we are sometimes tempted to cross examine other posters as hostile witnesses in an almost-not-pretend trial of Crimes Against Humanity.
quote:I fear, on this thread, which touches on the rather horrible situation in RSA re STDs and the way they are spreading like wildfire there, we all need to tread carefully.
Originally posted by mdijon:
... on the other hand things were being said about the church in South Africa that I thought were simply factually incorrect.
It could have been challenged without sarcasm, I accept, but I think it was reasonable to challenge the inaccuracy.
quote:I'm still trying to understand what the Vatican cracking down on liberal nuns in the United States has to do with AIDS in South Africa. The two aren't related. The Roman Catholic Church isn't responsible for the spread of AIDS in South Africa or any other nation. Even if it was, and it isn't, the Vatican response to nuns in the United States still wouldn't be remotely connected to it. Might as well just start a thread titled, "Why I hate the Roman Catholic Church."
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
quote:I fear, on this thread, which touches on the rather horrible situation in RSA re STDs and the way they are spreading like wildfire there, we all need to tread carefully.
Originally posted by mdijon:
... on the other hand things were being said about the church in South Africa that I thought were simply factually incorrect.
It could have been challenged without sarcasm, I accept, but I think it was reasonable to challenge the inaccuracy.
Challenging the facts others present is no problem to me.
quote:That is exactly why we discuss all the same issues on any thread critical of the RCC. I have my own poorly-informed criticisms of the RCC and I'm not catholic. However it does dispirit me that every thread on the RCC ends up on child-abuse, HIV in Africa and Dan Brown.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Might as well just start a thread titled, "Why I hate the Roman Catholic Church."
quote:What planet do you live on? AIDS can be averted by barrier contraceptives (ie cap or condom). The RCC forbids their use. it's than simple.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:I'm still trying to understand what the Vatican cracking down on liberal nuns in the United States has to do with AIDS in South Africa. The two aren't related. The Roman Catholic Church isn't responsible for the spread of AIDS in South Africa or any other nation.
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
quote:I fear, on this thread, which touches on the rather horrible situation in RSA re STDs and the way they are spreading like wildfire there, we all need to tread carefully.
Originally posted by mdijon:
... on the other hand things were being said about the church in South Africa that I thought were simply factually incorrect.
It could have been challenged without sarcasm, I accept, but I think it was reasonable to challenge the inaccuracy.
Challenging the facts others present is no problem to me.
quote:No, it's the spittle-flecked rantings of a bigot.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Seemed like a fair summary to me. Perhaps you'd like to elaborate on why you found it so funny?
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by kiwimacahau:
To be both blunt and honest, the Vatican is one of those institutions human history would be much, much better without. It's insistence on the maintenance of male power structures, it's handling of those who disagree, it's desire to see itself as the sole vehicle of divine grace all point to it's overweening pride and arrogance.
quote:The question of whether the Catholic Church is culpable in the spread of AIDS in Africa seems unrelated to the Vatican's dealings with American nuns.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:What planet do you live on? AIDS can be averted by barrier contraceptives (ie cap or condom). The RCC forbids their use. it's than simple.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I'm still trying to understand what the Vatican cracking down on liberal nuns in the United States has to do with AIDS in South Africa. The two aren't related. The Roman Catholic Church isn't responsible for the spread of AIDS in South Africa or any other nation.
quote:RCC forbids all sorts of sexual activities. Don't engage in any of activities the Roman Catholic Church forbids and you likely won't get AIDS. Selectively follow the Roman Catholic Church's teaching on human sexuality and your chance of getting AIDS increases. The Roman Catholic Church is not responsible for those who selectively follow its teaching on human sexuality getting AIDS.
originally posted by leo:
What planet do you live on? AIDS can be averted by barrier contraceptives (ie cap or condom). The RCC forbids their use. it's than simple.
quote:Actually, the RCC officially only forbids contraceptives for conjugal relations, i.e., for sex between husband and wife. Of course, she also forbids any other kind of sex. However, someone having non-martial sex anyway by RC lights does not necessarily add to the sin by using a condom. Arguably, that generally lessens the harm done and hence the severity of the sin.
Originally posted by leo:
AIDS can be averted by barrier contraceptives (ie cap or condom). The RCC forbids their use. it's than simple.
quote:No. Mrs. X may be totally faithful to Mr. X. Trouble is, Mr. X has been with with prostitutes without her knowing. There have been many transmissions of HIV that way, especially in Africa.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:RCC forbids all sorts of sexual activities. Don't engage in any of activities the Roman Catholic Church forbids and you likely won't get AIDS.
originally posted by leo:
What planet do you live on? AIDS can be averted by barrier contraceptives (ie cap or condom). The RCC forbids their use. it's than simple.
quote:Yes - and i seem to remember some cardinal actually promoting condoms for those having extra-marital sex - not encouraging the sex but facing up to the reality of it.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Actually, the RCC officially only forbids contraceptives for conjugal relations, i.e., for sex between husband and wife. Of course, she also forbids any other kind of sex. However, someone having non-martial sex anyway by RC lights does not necessarily add to the sin by using a condom. Arguably, that generally lessens the harm done and hence the severity of the sin.
Originally posted by leo:
AIDS can be averted by barrier contraceptives (ie cap or condom). The RCC forbids their use. it's than simple.
quote:OK, leo, let's think this one through...
originally posted by leo:
No. Mrs. X may be totally faithful to Mr. X. Trouble is, Mr. X has been with with prostitutes without her knowing. There have been many transmissions of HIV that way, especially in Africa.
quote:And if he or she acquires it in a way not in contradiction to the church's moral law (or even if he or she doesn't but admits it to the spouse before the spouse is infected) is the other spouse condemned to run the risk or do they have to abstain?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Again, we are talking about faithful Roman Catholics. The purpose of marriage is about procreation. A marriage in which you don't trust your spouse enough to have sex for the purpose of procreation is likely invalid (Trisagion or Chesterbelloc can correct me if I'm wrong).
Now, if she's cheating and wants him to wear a condom so that he doesn't get AIDS, then she's committing adultery. Roman Catholics are against adultery. How is it the fault of the Roman Catholic Church if she and her husband contract AIDS because she only followed part of the Roman Catholic teaching on sexuality? It isn't.
quote:So to clarify, you're saying that the Vatican doesn't have a problem with women priests and bishops, handles those who disagree (these nuns, say) with care and tact, and sees itself as merely one of many vehicles of divine grace?
Originally posted by CL:
quote:No, it's the spittle-flecked rantings of a bigot.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Seemed like a fair summary to me. Perhaps you'd like to elaborate on why you found it so funny?
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by kiwimacahau:
To be both blunt and honest, the Vatican is one of those institutions human history would be much, much better without. It's insistence on the maintenance of male power structures, it's handling of those who disagree, it's desire to see itself as the sole vehicle of divine grace all point to it's overweening pride and arrogance.
quote:There also seems to be a difference in speed and severity in cracking down on male priests - ala the abuse scandals that were swept under the rug for decades. Social justice nuns hardly constitute a problem in book - but then I've never held that the RCC is the "one true church" with the Pope as head over all.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:So to clarify, you're saying that the Vatican doesn't have a problem with women priests and bishops, handles those who disagree (these nuns, say) with care and tact, and sees itself as merely one of many vehicles of divine grace?
Originally posted by CL:
quote:No, it's the spittle-flecked rantings of a bigot.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Seemed like a fair summary to me. Perhaps you'd like to elaborate on why you found it so funny?
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by kiwimacahau:
To be both blunt and honest, the Vatican is one of those institutions human history would be much, much better without. It's insistence on the maintenance of male power structures, it's handling of those who disagree, it's desire to see itself as the sole vehicle of divine grace all point to it's overweening pride and arrogance.
quote:You might want to look into the LCWR's role in the cover-up of abuse by women religious.
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
quote:There also seems to be a difference in speed and severity in cracking down on male priests - ala the abuse scandals that were swept under the rug for decades. Social justice nuns hardly constitute a problem in book - but then I've never held that the RCC is the "one true church" with the Pope as head over all.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:So to clarify, you're saying that the Vatican doesn't have a problem with women priests and bishops, handles those who disagree (these nuns, say) with care and tact, and sees itself as merely one of many vehicles of divine grace?
Originally posted by CL:
quote:No, it's the spittle-flecked rantings of a bigot.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Seemed like a fair summary to me. Perhaps you'd like to elaborate on why you found it so funny?
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by kiwimacahau:
To be both blunt and honest, the Vatican is one of those institutions human history would be much, much better without. It's insistence on the maintenance of male power structures, it's handling of those who disagree, it's desire to see itself as the sole vehicle of divine grace all point to it's overweening pride and arrogance.
quote:I've got no doubt that there were nuns, as well as other women of faith, who abused others. I've seen documented proof of abuse that happened at orphanages. Any cover up is wrong, I just note that within the RCC hierarchy the women tend to get pounced on more than the men. The "sins" of the social justice nuns hardly warrant the crack down, IMO. Take care of the serious matters first.
Originally posted by CL:
quote:You might want to look into the LCWR's role in the cover-up of abuse by women religious.
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
There also seems to be a difference in speed and severity in cracking down on male priests - ala the abuse scandals that were swept under the rug for decades. Social justice nuns hardly constitute a problem in book - but then I've never held that the RCC is the "one true church" with the Pope as head over all.
quote:Then you haven't been paying attention.
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
quote:I've got no doubt that there were nuns, as well as other women of faith, who abused others. I've seen documented proof of abuse that happened at orphanages. Any cover up is wrong, I just note that within the RCC hierarchy the women tend to get pounced on more than the men. The "sins" of the social justice nuns hardly warrant the crack down, IMO. Take care of the serious matters first.
Originally posted by CL:
quote:You might want to look into the LCWR's role in the cover-up of abuse by women religious.
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
There also seems to be a difference in speed and severity in cracking down on male priests - ala the abuse scandals that were swept under the rug for decades. Social justice nuns hardly constitute a problem in book - but then I've never held that the RCC is the "one true church" with the Pope as head over all.
quote:What Golden key said.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:OK, leo, let's think this one through...
originally posted by leo:
No. Mrs. X may be totally faithful to Mr. X. Trouble is, Mr. X has been with with prostitutes without her knowing. There have been many transmissions of HIV that way, especially in Africa.
Why would Mrs. X want Mr. X to use a condom? They are married. Married people, even Protestants, have unprotected sex. Why? They want children. Well, because Mr. X is seeing prostitutes. Like you said, Mrs. X doesn't know he's seeing prostitutes. How does the issue of a condom come up in the first place? If Mrs. X doesn't know he's seeing prostitutes, why would she be worried about AIDS?
quote:Get real. We are all sinners, even 'faithful Roman Catholics'. Nobody obeys every tenet of the Church's teaching 24/7. Even the saints were sinners.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Again, we are talking about faithful Roman Catholics. The purpose of marriage is about procreation. A marriage in which you don't trust your spouse enough to have sex for the purpose of procreation is likely invalid (Trisagion or Chesterbelloc can correct me if I'm wrong).
Now, if she's cheating and wants him to wear a condom so that he doesn't get AIDS, then she's committing adultery. Roman Catholics are against adultery. How is it the fault of the Roman Catholic Church if she and her husband contract AIDS because she only followed part of the Roman Catholic teaching on sexuality? It isn't.
quote:You are wronger than a wrong thing. Very few religious women have ever been "pounced on", as you put it. But many men have. Heck, upthread I posted how the Jesuits were called to order not so very long ago. This is the first instance in a VERY long time that women religious have been called to account. Just because they are women does not mean they are immune. And this does come AFTER the whole matter of sexual abuse by priests has been, and is being, comprehensively addressed. There is a way to go, but to suggest it has not even been considered is just so plain ridiculous. On the FRONT PAGE of the Vatican website is a link to the issue of the abuse of minors. Nothing there which says "Beware of women". It's a trivial defence to say "They are women so they should not be accountable".
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
I've got no doubt that there were nuns, as well as other women of faith, who abused others. I've seen documented proof of abuse that happened at orphanages. Any cover up is wrong, I just note that within the RCC hierarchy the women tend to get pounced on more than the men. The "sins" of the social justice nuns hardly warrant the crack down, IMO. Take care of the serious matters first.
quote:What I said to Golden key.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:What Golden key said.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:OK, leo, let's think this one through...
originally posted by leo:
No. Mrs. X may be totally faithful to Mr. X. Trouble is, Mr. X has been with with prostitutes without her knowing. There have been many transmissions of HIV that way, especially in Africa.
Why would Mrs. X want Mr. X to use a condom? They are married. Married people, even Protestants, have unprotected sex. Why? They want children. Well, because Mr. X is seeing prostitutes. Like you said, Mrs. X doesn't know he's seeing prostitutes. How does the issue of a condom come up in the first place? If Mrs. X doesn't know he's seeing prostitutes, why would she be worried about AIDS?
quote:Yes, we are all sinners.
originally posted by leo:
Get real. We are all sinners, even 'faithful Roman Catholics'. Nobody obeys every tenet of the Church's teaching 24/7. Even the saints were sinners.
quote:You said that "faithful Catholics" wouldn't worry about this kind of thing--and if they did, their marriage might be invalid.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Yes, we are all sinners.
What's your point?
quote:You said that "faithful Catholics" wouldn't worry about this kind of thing--and if they did, their marriage might be invalid.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Yes, we are all sinners.
What's your point?
quote:You argument as it stands would make a lot of sense if humans were rational agents. Since they are not, at least not purely (or as some would say, not mainly), the argument really is a lot more complicated than that. Likewise, an argument can be made that handing out condoms can increase the risk of spreading AIDS, depending on circumstances. Essentially, humans tend to explore higher margins of safety with riskier behavior, which paradoxically can lead to a net increase of risk by introducing safety measures.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Barrier contraception reduces the risk of AIDS transmission but does not eliminate it. Are organizations passing out condoms responsible for the spread of AIDS if those condoms fail? Makes as about as much sense as blaming the Roman Catholic Church.
quote:I feel I shouldn't bite on this hook because I have a strong suspicion you are jangling it now simply because you are getting a kick out of arguing from a ridiculous point of view.....at least I hope so. The other option is that you really are as thick as your arguments make you appear.
Roman Catholics who acquire AIDS for selectively following their church's teaching have nobody to blame for it but the person who transmitted it to them and possibly themselves.
quote:Indeed. By all accounts that I have heard so far, this is however not an issue, i.e., plenty of other organisations take up the slack in the supply chain that Catholic opposition to condoms could have caused. Part of the reason for this is of course simply that condoms are comparatively cheap and easy to store and distribute, in contrast to say AIDS medication.
Originally posted by mdijon:
What also has to be considered is how often the Church's teaching affects supply lines - such that certain institutions following the Church's line do not supply condoms where they otherwise might, and therefore reduce the access to condoms by those who don't care for the Church's teaching.
quote:Yes, I have.
Originally posted by CL:
quote:Then you haven't been paying attention.
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
quote:I've got no doubt that there were nuns, as well as other women of faith, who abused others. I've seen documented proof of abuse that happened at orphanages. Any cover up is wrong, I just note that within the RCC hierarchy the women tend to get pounced on more than the men. The "sins" of the social justice nuns hardly warrant the crack down, IMO. Take care of the serious matters first.
Originally posted by CL:
quote:You might want to look into the LCWR's role in the cover-up of abuse by women religious.
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
There also seems to be a difference in speed and severity in cracking down on male priests - ala the abuse scandals that were swept under the rug for decades. Social justice nuns hardly constitute a problem in book - but then I've never held that the RCC is the "one true church" with the Pope as head over all.
quote:Actually I think there is insufficient supply of condoms in many areas of Africa. But even if there were sufficient supply, one would have to factor in the impact of being told that institutions x, y and z don't supply them.
Originally posted by IngoB:
i.e., plenty of other organisations take up the slack in the supply chain that Catholic opposition to condoms could have caused.
quote:The secular West as made assumptions and has its biases, but I don't think this is a necessary one in supplying condoms. It is quite possible to make the argument from utilitarian grounds with getting into rights. (i.e. that humans will express their sexuality regardless of what they are told about the morality or risks of doing so, therefore providing technology to mitigate the risk is sensible).
Originally posted by IngoB:
The secular West has basically decided that "free expression of sexuality" is a human right, hence that access to "enabling technology" (like condoms) is a necessity.
quote:Women have, and continue to be "pounced on" by not only RCC, but other major denominations as well as other religions. My only problem with the issue with the priests is that it took decades to be addressed - and to a degree it's still not adequately being addressed. The same does hold true for some of the orphanage abuse run by nuns as well as other religious women and IMO any nun or priest caught abusing children should be bounced from positions of authority. That includes a certain Cardinal from the U.S. who got promoted to the Vatican even after it was proved that he covered up a multitude of abuse cases, ignoring the irreparable harm caused to children and their families. Nuns don't generally hold positions of authority and certainly not within the Vatican. And social justice issues certainly don't cause the harm the abuse cases have. It's just not an issue that just has to dealt with RIGHT NOW while other stuff waits.
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
quote:You are wronger than a wrong thing. Very few religious women have ever been "pounced on", as you put it. But many men have. Heck, upthread I posted how the Jesuits were called to order not so very long ago. This is the first instance in a VERY long time that women religious have been called to account. Just because they are women does not mean they are immune. And this does come AFTER the whole matter of sexual abuse by priests has been, and is being, comprehensively addressed. There is a way to go, but to suggest it has not even been considered is just so plain ridiculous. On the FRONT PAGE of the Vatican website is a link to the issue of the abuse of minors. Nothing there which says "Beware of women". It's a trivial defence to say "They are women so they should not be accountable".
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
I've got no doubt that there were nuns, as well as other women of faith, who abused others. I've seen documented proof of abuse that happened at orphanages. Any cover up is wrong, I just note that within the RCC hierarchy the women tend to get pounced on more than the men. The "sins" of the social justice nuns hardly warrant the crack down, IMO. Take care of the serious matters first.
quote:AIUI the RCC objection to Obamacare is that it would require Catholic institutions to pay for birth control and abortions for their employees even though they believe that these are wrong.
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
With respect to RCC's direct objection to the health care law passed (referred to as Obamacare) I understand it is because of birth control and abortion.
quote:If I'm correct, if that was originally the case, it has been fixed - and it always would have been through negotiation. No need for completely opposing providing health care for those in need.
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:AIUI the RCC objection to Obamacare is that it would require Catholic institutions to pay for birth control and abortions for their employees even though they believe that these are wrong.
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
With respect to RCC's direct objection to the health care law passed (referred to as Obamacare) I understand it is because of birth control and abortion.
Moo
quote:Or Christian Science employers refuse to provide any health insurance, and claim a religious exemption from the penalty for that?
Originally posted by mdijon:
Employers often provide healthcare insurance for employees in the states.
Does this mean that RC employers can stipulate that the insurance cover for their employees excludes birth control and abortion?
quote:Several people have responded to your purist stance and have understood my point. if you read what they have said, maybe you will understand my point as well as they have. Maybe you might even change your mind. After all, our God is a generous God who illuminates the hearts and minds of all true believers.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:What I said to Golden key.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:What Golden key said.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:OK, leo, let's think this one through...
originally posted by leo:
No. Mrs. X may be totally faithful to Mr. X. Trouble is, Mr. X has been with with prostitutes without her knowing. There have been many transmissions of HIV that way, especially in Africa.
Why would Mrs. X want Mr. X to use a condom? They are married. Married people, even Protestants, have unprotected sex. Why? They want children. Well, because Mr. X is seeing prostitutes. Like you said, Mrs. X doesn't know he's seeing prostitutes. How does the issue of a condom come up in the first place? If Mrs. X doesn't know he's seeing prostitutes, why would she be worried about AIDS?
quote:Yes, we are all sinners.
originally posted by leo:
Get real. We are all sinners, even 'faithful Roman Catholics'. Nobody obeys every tenet of the Church's teaching 24/7. Even the saints were sinners.
What's your point?
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by beeswax:
quote:I feel I shouldn't bite on this hook because I have a strong suspicion you are jangling it now simply because you are getting a kick out of arguing from a ridiculous point of view.....at least I hope so. The other option is that you really are as thick as your arguments make you appear.
Roman Catholics who acquire AIDS for selectively following their church's teaching have nobody to blame for it but the person who transmitted it to them and possibly themselves.
Anyway, the point I was hoping to make was that before you make these ridiculous sweeping statements about other peoples' morality, perhaps you should listen to what they have to say - their experiences, difficulties and their desire to be faithful to the church and their faith - and maybe, just maybe, you should be a tiny bit more aware of the facts of certain countries that struggle in regard to an AIDS epidemic. As it is you are making yourself look more and more of a fool the more you post, but hey thats your bag and your free choice - I know many a faithful Catholic who wouldn't.
quote:You must not be a true believer.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Several people have responded to your purist stance and have understood my point. if you read what they have said, maybe you will understand my point as well as they have. Maybe you might even change your mind. After all, our God is a generous God who illuminates the hearts and minds of all true believers.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:What I said to Golden key.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:What Golden key said.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:OK, leo, let's think this one through...
originally posted by leo:
No. Mrs. X may be totally faithful to Mr. X. Trouble is, Mr. X has been with with prostitutes without her knowing. There have been many transmissions of HIV that way, especially in Africa.
Why would Mrs. X want Mr. X to use a condom? They are married. Married people, even Protestants, have unprotected sex. Why? They want children. Well, because Mr. X is seeing prostitutes. Like you said, Mrs. X doesn't know he's seeing prostitutes. How does the issue of a condom come up in the first place? If Mrs. X doesn't know he's seeing prostitutes, why would she be worried about AIDS?
quote:Yes, we are all sinners.
originally posted by leo:
Get real. We are all sinners, even 'faithful Roman Catholics'. Nobody obeys every tenet of the Church's teaching 24/7. Even the saints were sinners.
What's your point?
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:That is an uncannily close account of what has happened at and to Stanbrook in the last ten or so years.
Originally posted by windsofchange:
I think it's time for a sequel, in which Dame Phillipa is now Phillipa, the Coordinator.
Cecily, driven to the point of insanity by too much Marty Haugen and Cary Landry, has finally left and set up housekeeping with an elderly but still vital Dame Maura (now just "that old dame").
And Hilary? She's still in the kitchen, peeling potatoes and enjoying the knowledge that she really doesn't HAVE to do any of this if she doesn't want to. Some things never change.
quote:Well, at least they found men of unimpeachable moral character to lead up this inquisition.
Three respected Catholic publications are reporting that Cardinal Bernard F. Law, the controversial former Boston archbishop, played a key role in the Vatican’s decision to tighten its grip on the largest association of Catholic nuns in the United States.
The Vatican announced its initiative on April 18, naming three American prelates to ensure that US nuns conform to Church doctrine, which has grown more conservative under Pope John Paul II and his successor, Pope Benedict XVI.
Earlier this week, a columnist for The Tablet, a British Catholic weekly, reported that the Vatican’s initiative was sparked by Archbishop William E. Lori, who was recently named to lead the Archdiocese of Baltimore, who "formally petitioned" the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to investigate the nuns.
The Tablet also reported that Law was "the person in Rome most forcefully supporting Bishop Lori’s proposal."
quote:There is much wisdom indeed in that statement, Fuzzipeg. Though it does apply to both sides of a dispute.
There is a big difference between theory and a pragmatic approach.
quote:I'm effectively "bumping" this thread for consideration of Anglican_Brat's quoted post above. Originally, a new thread was started, but it seemed better to add this post to the existing mix.
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat on another thread:
What's with the Vatican these days in going after nuns?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/05/us/sister-margaret-farley-denounced-by-vatican.html?_r=1
I just got her book now. From initial impressions, Sr. Farley in no way pretends that her book should be taken as official Catholic church teaching. She is writing as an academic, expressing her own point of view. She isn't a bishop or a priest, so no one would confuse her views with the views of the Church as a whole.
quote:In other news, there again have been reports of a bears shitting in woods... More interesting is this bit
The Vatican’s doctrinal office on Monday denounced an American nun who taught Christian ethics at Yale Divinity School for a book that attempted to present a theological rationale for same-sex relationships, masturbation and remarriage after divorce.
quote:Liar, liar, pants on fire... (Pants, not habit.)
Sister Farley ... responded in a statement: “I can only clarify that the book was not intended to be an expression of current official Catholic teaching, nor was it aimed specifically against this teaching. It is of a different genre altogether.”
quote:Why do you call her a liar in this case. Do you really think she represented this book as being official teaching?! Or is it the pants that bothers you the most...?
Originally posted by IngoB:
From the article linked to above:
quote:In other news, there again have been reports of a bears shitting in woods... More interesting is this bit
The Vatican’s doctrinal office on Monday denounced an American nun who taught Christian ethics at Yale Divinity School for a book that attempted to present a theological rationale for same-sex relationships, masturbation and remarriage after divorce.
quote:Liar, liar, pants on fire... (Pants, not habit.)
Sister Farley ... responded in a statement: “I can only clarify that the book was not intended to be an expression of current official Catholic teaching, nor was it aimed specifically against this teaching. It is of a different genre altogether.”
quote:Nope, it's indeed unlikely that she did that. However, that was not the only thing she claimed.
Originally posted by Comper's Child:
Why do you call her a liar in this case. Do you really think she represented this book as being official teaching?!
quote:She also claimed that it wasn't aimed against the teaching, thus the call of "liar"
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Nope, it's indeed unlikely that she did that. However, that was not the only thing she claimed.
Originally posted by Comper's Child:
Why do you call her a liar in this case. Do you really think she represented this book as being official teaching?!
quote:The thousand year reign of Christ? That's the time between the Second Coming and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issuing a responsum ad dubium (reply to doubt) "Whether the one who has come is Christ? Affirmative."
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
I know that it's good to be thorough, but 6 years?? If the book is that bad shouldn't they have acted earlier??
quote:Why quote one thing and then call her a liar for saying something else altogether?!
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Nope, it's indeed unlikely that she did that. However, that was not the only thing she claimed.
Originally posted by Comper's Child:
Why do you call her a liar in this case. Do you really think she represented this book as being official teaching?!
quote:WTF? I precisely quoted what I called her a liar for. She just happened to say something in the same breath that probably is correct. Here, let me try to help your reading comprehension by removing the likely correct part from what I did quote, leaving the one I think she lied about: "I can only clarify that the book was not ... aimed specifically against this teaching. It is of a different genre altogether."
Originally posted by Comper's Child:
Why quote one thing and then call her a liar for saying something else altogether?!
quote:Well I haven't read the book so I can't say exactly what she wrote, but if she states it's not intended to be official teaching and it is clear that it is at odds with official teaching and if, one assumes, the book in question does not include any statement claiming her opinions therein expressed to be official Catholic teaching why all the fuss?
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:WTF? I precisely quoted what I called her a liar for. She just happened to say something in the same breath that probably is correct. Here, let me try to help your reading comprehension by removing the likely correct part from what I did quote, leaving the one I think she lied about: "I can only clarify that the book was not ... aimed specifically against this teaching. It is of a different genre altogether."
Originally posted by Comper's Child:
Why quote one thing and then call her a liar for saying something else altogether?!
quote:I think my question is basically this:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
I am completely at a loss to understand what there is to discuss here. Sr Farley is a member of a religious institute. She teaches theology. As a theologian and particularly as a theologian who is a religious, she has an obligation to teach the Catholic faith. She writes a book in which she proposes a number of positions that are contrary to or not consonant with the Catholic faith. The Vatican dicastery charged with oversight of the work of Catholic theologians conducts a thorough review of the work, including obtaining clarifications from Sr Farley. At the end of that review the dicastery issues a notification saying that the positions proposed in Sr Farley's book are contrary to or not consonant with the Catholic faith. Sr Farley says she wasn't trying to teach the Catholic faith.
The only question that seems to be unanswered is why Sr Farley thinks that, as a member of a religious institute, she is free to teach theology but doesn't have the obligation to teach the Catholic faith?
quote:Why should Farley be upset? The Roman Catholic Church teaches the same thing about human sexuality it's taught since way before Farley became a nun. "The Spirit of Vatican II" didn't and isn't going to change it.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
"I'm not a rebel. I'm just saying my piece!" Heck, I've used that one. Real meaning. "I AM a rebel but I don't like the thought of leaving".
Is it a lie, IngoB? Probably. But it's also a cry of pain from within. YMMV about whether that has any value at all.
quote:Yes. That's very clear. From my nonconformist understanding, if you seek to dissent openly, you can do so as a matter of conscience, but you mustn't wriggle! "Say your piece, and take your lumps" is the price you pay for the exercise of conscience.
Originally posted by Trisagion:
The rights, duties and obligations of Catholic theologians are helpfully set out in this document. It seems clear to me that Sr Farley understands her vocation very differently. She is, of course, entirely free so to do. What she seems less inclined to do is to face the consequences/pay the price for the choice she has made.
quote:While I respect your intellect no end, I disagree with you that this can ever be a valid statement. Of course, that may be why I am not Catholic and you are. I understand the argument that the tradition of the Church is to be seen as true and important; more important than the latest trend in theological thought.
Originally posted by Trisagion:
When will these people either display an ounce of humility and a grain of integrity and accept that it is the office of the Bishops in the Church that gets to determine what is in accordance with the deposit of faith not them, that it has decided and that is an end to it, or face up to the fact that they've moved beyond the Catholic faith and it's communion and face the consequences.
quote:If a chief officer of the Atheist Society Incorporated wrote a book "... designed to help people, especially atheists but also others, to think through their questions about spirituality. It suggests the importance of moving from what frequently functions as a taboo religion to a religion and spirituality based on the discernment of what counts as wise, truthful, and recognizably just worship. Although my responses to some particular spiritual questions do depart from some traditional atheist responses, I have tried to show that they nonetheless reflect a deep coherence with the central aims and insights of these intellectual and spiritual traditions."
Originally posted by Comper's Child:
Well I haven't read the book so I can't say exactly what she wrote, but if she states it's not intended to be official teaching and it is clear that it is at odds with official teaching and if, one assumes, the book in question does not include any statement claiming her opinions therein expressed to be official Catholic teaching why all the fuss?
quote:Re humility, Jesus said, "Blessed are the meek (i.e., the humble)" but i guess the Magesterium (i.e., the Office of Bishops) interprets that as not applying to themselves.
Originally posted by Trisagion:
When will these people either display an ounce of humility and a grain of integrity and accept that it is the office of the Bishops in the Church that gets to determine what is in accordance with the deposit of faith not them, that it has decided and that is an end to it, or face up to the fact that they've moved beyond the Catholic faith and it's communion and face the consequences.
quote:No, it doesn't.
originally posted by malik3000:
(and apologies for the tangent, but it speaks to the point made)
quote:In what way do you see that working? Is there a way of Bishops exercising the authority that the same Jesus gave them to loose and bind and to protect those in their pastoral charge in such a way that meets your definition of meekness? Could you also explain how according to your definition Sr Margaret Farley should behave?
Originally posted by malik3000:
Re humility, Jesus said, "Blessed are the meek (i.e., the humble)" but i guess the Magesterium (i.e., the Office of Bishops) interprets that as not applying to themselves.
quote:Bollocks. Your argument is nothing other than prejudice and bigotry clothed in pretended righteous anger. Your suggestion that it speaks to the subject under discussion is an insultnto the intelligence of your shipmates and is nothing more than a disingenuous attempt to camouflage malice.
Re integrity, (and apologies for the tangent, but it speaks to the point made) it is rich to use the word "integrity" in reference to that, as a whole, child-molester-enabling crew (yes, based on observable fact, that crew as a whole has cruelly demonstrated that it is more interested in protecting the criminals than ministering in a Christ-like way to the innocent victims.).
Humility and integrity indeed.
quote:What a remarkably frank and unflattering way to put it.
Originally posted by Trisagion:
As Cardinal Levada said yesterday: “Too many people crossing the LCWR screen, who are supposedly representing the Catholic church, aren’t representing the church with any reasonable sense of product identity."
quote:I didn't think it necessarily called for one, to be honest. And I'm with Trisagion on this, just from the other side of the fence. The nuns are trying to have it both ways -- be in the Catholic Church somehow but not stand up for everything that entails. I know a lot of people admire the sisters who agitate for change from within, but I think they should vote with their feet, which is why I quoted the stock phrase from the TEC signs: "The Episcopal Church welcomes you." But that's me, a Protestant.
Originally posted by Siegfried:
I have yet to see any response to Ruth's comment WAAAAAY back on page 1 or 2
quote:-- is an unfair characterization. The nuns are adults with free will living in a free country, and they're smart and educated. They really can make a free choice to submit to the discipline of the Catholic Church, discipline that the church is clear about, and if they don't like the set-up, they really can leave. I'm sure leaving would be a difficult road, with a lot of heartbreak involved in leaving a church they evidently love and to which they feel a great deal of loyalty. But saying that the Catholic Church should change to suit them is saying that the Catholic Church shouldn't be what it is, which makes me wonder what they think the church is in the first place.
They could just toe the line like good little nuns and listen to their betters. Or, at least to the people GOD Himself* has chosen to make the rules.
quote:In what sense can "virtual silence" be considered "espousing", "promoting", or even reasonable proof of "holding" a view? That seems to be a roundabout way of calling for "more time opposing abortion and same sex marriage", to borrow from Siegfried's post.
Originally posted by Trisagion:
The CDF note praises their work in many areas of social justice but notes their virtual silence in the face of the holocaust of abortion.
<snip>
If you were, you would would not be entitled to hold, espouse or promote such views.
quote:How does one "advocate" and yet be "virtually silent"? Some sort of sign language? Examples, please?
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Croesus, their silence, when taken with those they have honoured and the pro-choice advocacy of some of the LCWR leadership over the years counts very much as espousal.
quote:And does the Vatican really want to start playing Six Degrees of Evil Separation?
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Croesus, their silence, when taken with those they have honoured . . .
quote:Godwin's Law anyone.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:And does the Vatican really want to start playing Six Degrees of Evil Separation?
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Croesus, their silence, when taken with those they have honoured . . .
quote:Not applicable. Godwin's Law covers Nazi analogies. It's not supposed to be used to suppress discussion of the actual Nazi party.
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:Godwin's Law anyone.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:And does the Vatican really want to start playing Six Degrees of Evil Separation?
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Croesus, their silence, when taken with those they have honoured . . .
[code edited]
quote:It's not only okay, it is a Gospel imperative. But "occasional" association is quite different from the systematic, continuous and long-standing association with and the adoption of the positions of those who hold positions contrary not just to Rome but to the Catholic Church. That is what the US bishops complained to Rome about, that is what the CDF were asked to investigate and that is what they found considerable evidence of as a result of that investigation. They also found - as Sr Simone Campbell appears to admit - that they have dissociated themselves from those who hold positions in agreement with the Catholic Church are seeking to help protect the lives of the unborn.
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
I find it more in keeping with the story of the Good Samaritan.
If, in order to help the poor and needy, they have to occasionally associate with those who hold positions contrary to Rome, is it okay?
quote:Why?
Originally posted by RuthW:
Godwin's Law isn't applicable to that post, as it says long online discussions inevitably lead to comparisons to Hitler and the Nazis, and Croesus didn't compare the Catholic Church to the Nazis. He said the Catholic Church signed a treaty with the Nazis, which they did. They are rather asking for that history to be brought in when they refer to the "holocaust" of abortion.
quote:Whereas I entirely agree with your earlier post about "The Episcopal Church welcomes you", I think you are way off the mark here.
Originally posted by RuthW:
Godwin's Law isn't applicable to that post, as it says long online discussions inevitably lead to comparisons to Hitler and the Nazis, and Croesus didn't compare the Catholic Church to the Nazis. He said the Catholic Church signed a treaty with the Nazis, which they did. They are rather asking for that history to be brought in when they refer to the "holocaust" of abortion.
quote:And as the US becomes more and more polarized, and those who seek to help those in poverty are more and more hand in hand with those who are pro-choice, and those who are pro-life and anti-gay marriage become more and more for the poor to help themselves, and for the sick to have to care for themselves, then what?
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:It's not only okay, it is a Gospel imperative. But "occasional" association is quite different from the systematic, continuous and long-standing association with and the adoption of the positions of those who hold positions contrary not just to Rome but to the Catholic Church.
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
I find it more in keeping with the story of the Good Samaritan.
If, in order to help the poor and needy, they have to occasionally associate with those who hold positions contrary to Rome, is it okay?
quote:Not unless the word "holocaust" means one thing and one alone. I would have thought that on these boards, at least, one could avoid that.
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
I have to add one comment that it wasn't Crœsos who first mentioned the Holocaust if one is going to accuse violation of Godwin's law...
quote:The very first thing that comes to mind for a majority of people is that "one thing". We've tried in other instances to invoke holocaust and it generally fails to invoke the same passion as that one. When one brings up the word, there are going to be responses referring to the Nazis and those who were associated with them
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:Not unless the word "holocaust" means one thing and one alone. I would have thought that on these boards, at least, one could avoid that.
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
I have to add one comment that it wasn't Crœsos who first mentioned the Holocaust if one is going to accuse violation of Godwin's law...
quote:I was more referring to BA's post in my reply. What would satisfy the Vatican at this point? Would it be enough for them to working with other groups while making it known they still hold fast the teachings of their church? In the case of Obama Care the reason they aligned themselves is pretty much that they want health care available to all and it became evident that that goal wouldn't be met any other way. The current law has objectionable parts in it for everyone, but no one is budging and people are suffering. Sometimes you have to work with people you don't necessarily agree with to gain a greater good for all.
Originally posted by Trisagion:
No one is accusing the Sisters of breaking their vows. They are being called to respond to them.
quote:Err...huh? Clarification please. That sounds like, "You aren't breaking the law, but you need to follow it." Which makes no sense....
Originally posted by Trisagion:
No one is accusing the Sisters of breaking their vows. They are being called to respond to them.
quote:The CDF's document is nothing to do with the Affordable Health Care Act. You should read the relatively short document here.
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
I was more referring to BA's post in my reply. What would satisfy the Vatican at this point? Would it be enough for them to working with other groups while making it known they still hold fast the teachings of their church? In the case of Obama Care the reason they aligned themselves is pretty much that they want health care available to all and it became evident that that goal wouldn't be met any other way. The current law has objectionable parts in it for everyone, but no one is budging and people are suffering. Sometimes you have to work with people you don't necessarily agree with to gain a greater good for all.
quote:It goes something like this: the CDF says to the LCWR (note to them, not to the individual sisters), "The reason for your existence as a Conference is to promote and facilitate collaboration between your member organisations, the US Bishops and us, under our authority. Your behaviour is not doing that. We require you to amend that behaviour."
PataLeBon originally posted:
Err...huh? Clarification please. That sounds like, "You aren't breaking the law, but you need to follow it." Which makes no sense....
quote:Very true. And I'm amazed that anyone considers referring to the government of the Third Reich as "Nazis" to be a Godwin violation. Reminds me of a satirical blog post I came across once portraying Churchill's war room trying to discuss military strategy without violating Godwin's Law.
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Croesus's analogy sought to suggest that if I were to condemn the LCWR for their lauding of pro-abortion advocates, I'd have to deal with the objection that in signing the Reichskonkordat, the Vatican stood in the same position to the Nazis.
quote:Pretty much. If you're going to play guilt-by-association, it helps to not have a history of cozying up to a group widely considered to be the worst people ever. I still haven't heard a decent explanation from you for why the Vatican gets to live by a different standard than it imposes on others.
Originally posted by Trisagion:
That is to say that if I believe some of the LCWR are complicit fellow travellers with the pro-choice advocates, I have to accept that the Catholic Church is a complicit fellow-traveller with the Nazis.
quote:Ah, but it is part of the issue as a whole based on the documentation. The issue came up prior to the legislation, but is part and parcel of the same discussion. My question still stands. Is there any way they can be part of a movement advancing women's health issues while making clear they still stand by the RCC's theology.
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:The CDF's document is nothing to do with the Affordable Health Care Act. You should read the relatively short document here.
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
I was more referring to BA's post in my reply. What would satisfy the Vatican at this point? Would it be enough for them to working with other groups while making it known they still hold fast the teachings of their church? In the case of Obama Care the reason they aligned themselves is pretty much that they want health care available to all and it became evident that that goal wouldn't be met any other way. The current law has objectionable parts in it for everyone, but no one is budging and people are suffering. Sometimes you have to work with people you don't necessarily agree with to gain a greater good for all.
quote:Not entirely. The vows of every religious are vows to God and the church. Religious are representatives and examples to the whole church. Their consecration to God does not make them exempt from certain parts of church law. Actually, the exact opposite is true. If you read the documents of Vatican II and those after it on the religious life, religious are integral to the ministry of the church. They are consecrated to the church, and to the church's mission, whatever ministry they work has to be in accordance with and under the approval of the church. That's just the way it works. Male or female, it doesn't matter. Just taking a look at John Paul II's Vita Consecrata, AT THE SECTION ON THE COMMUNION BETWEEN RELIGIOUS AND THE CHURCH,probably the most important paragraph is this:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
BTW, since it was mentioned, isn't the nuns vow to God primarily and not just the Catholic church?
quote:In other words, whether people agree or not, becoming a consecrated religious means consecrating oneself to upholding the party line. I completely deny that any religious formed after Vatican II was unaware of this fact.
A distinctive aspect of ecclesial communion is allegiance of mind and heart to the Magisterium of the Bishops, an allegiance which must be lived honestly and clearly testified to before the People of God by all consecrated persons, especially those involved in theological research, teaching, publishing, catechesis and the use of the means of social communication.Because consecrated persons have a special place in the Church, their attitude in this regard is of immense importance for the whole People of God.
quote:She also makes the point that theology is
The method of critique adopted by the authors of the notification does not effectively promote either the specific contents of Catholic sexual teaching or the basic idea of objective morality based on the natural law. The notification simply asserts that Farley's views are not official Catholic teaching, then reiterates official positions without engaging any of the substantive arguments for or against them. This strategy creates the unfortunate impression that engaging Farley's arguments is superfluous because the condemnation of her book was predetermined and the investigation a mere formality. It raises the suspicion there are, in fact, no reasonable arguments to back the positions asserted by the notification, and even that the CDF itself has abandoned the grounding of moral theology in objective reasoning – relying, instead, on the sole authority of past conclusions.
quote:There once was a Catholic Church that encouraged this, but not, it seems, any longer. Ms. Farley's sin seems to be that she understands that there are theological questions inherent in the present age, while the Magisterium (as opposed to the Pope, interestingly) is still obsessed with a different age.
a process of seeking, inquiry and exploration in a dynamic and critical relation to other theological positions. Theologians do not see or present their work as "official Catholic teaching" and few of the faithful are confused about this fact
