Home » Opinion » The war between the Vatican and American nuns is about bad theology, not gender oppression
The war between the Vatican and American nuns is about bad theology, not gender oppression
Tags
Related Posts
About the author
Will no one rid the Catholic Church of these turbulent American nuns? Earlier this month, the Vatican rebuked the liberal Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) for its unorthodox positions on female priests, contraception and homosexuality. Refusing to back down, one Catholic group has hit the road on a tour called Nuns on the Bus, which aims to show what the modern nun is all about. Apparently, it’s not prayer or charity. Instead, it’s lobbying against federal budget cuts and, by implication, re-electing Barack Obama. So far, there hasn’t been a wimple in sight.
It’s tempting to see the nuns vs Vatican story through the prism of gender politics. Given the American Church’s history of covering up child abuse by priests, it must be galling that the male leadership is taking such a public stance against a group of religious women who are simply fighting for what they regard as equality. From the nuns’ perspective, it’s frustrating that the Church’s teachings on social justice are being subordinated to an obsession with patriarchal orthodoxy.
But this row is about theology, not identity politics. The Catholic Church is one of the few institutions left in the West that simply cannot change. Its theology is like a delicate spider’s web: remove one strand and the entire structure would collapse. It can’t be done.
If, for example, the Church permitted female priests, two possible conclusions would be drawn. First, that God can change his mind. That’s patently absurd, as it undermines faith in the Almighty – God can’t make mistakes. Alternatively, if an exclusively male priesthood was never really part of God’s plan, then perhaps the Church got God wrong? If so, what else has it messed up? Might it be wrong about the resurrection or the virgin birth? How can we trust any doctrinal statement that the Church makes in the future? And without any doctrinal yardstick to measure things by, might female priesthood be an error, too? Is it time for a mature debate about ordaining parrots?
For the Catholic Church, the integrity of its catechism is all. Without it, it really is a bunch of paradoxes that can easily be undone by science or cultural change. That the nuns stop at critiquing its views on sexual identity is oddly arbitrary. Surely reason and empiricism make transubstantiation a nonsense, too?
But, say the sisters’ supporters, the Church has changed its mind on other stuff – so why not this? On that point they are totally wrong, at least when it comes to matters of religious doctrine. Take slavery, which is regularly invoked as an example of something that civil society compelled the Church to reconsider. In fact, Catholicism has always regarded it as immoral. In the 1300s, Saint Thomas Aquinas concluded that slavery was a sin (he made the same judgement of serfdom) and the Vatican upheld this position, culminating in three major pronouncements against slavery by Pope Paul III in 1537. It was Paul III who stated that the natives of the Spanish American Empire were humans and thus could not be enslaved. It is true that several popes traded in slaves. But never confuse the moral failings of individual Catholics with their theological doctrine. Those men erred – just as the modern priests who abused children erred.
In short, the Catholic Church cannot change and it cannot indulge rumours of past error. Arguably, it doesn’t have to because it has never been proven theologically wrong.
If this is obvious to a layman, then why do the American nuns persist with their theological innovation? Alas, the answer is that some of them simply aren’t very Catholic. Or, at least, their Catholicity takes a second place to their political liberalism. [More]
SOURCE
Tim Stanley/The Telegraph
Leave a Comment
Photo Archive
-
May 21, 2013 1:32
Church Whistle-Blowers Join Forces on Abuse
-
May 20, 2013 5:17
Maine Catholic church closing its doors
-
May 20, 2013 5:14
Muslim leaders in US facing challenges inside and outside the faith
-
May 17, 2013 5:43
Archbishop clarifies remarks about Cuomo
-
May 17, 2013 5:40
Fr. Gary Meier goes public with clergy experience
-
May 17, 2013 5:37
Predator priests paid to pray for unsuspecting families
-
May 16, 2013 1:56
Cleanup of Bridgeport, Conn., diocese begins in earnest
-
May 16, 2013 1:38
Archbishop Presses Cuomo Over Abortion
-
May 16, 2013 1:26
Deal reached in Catholic lawsuit
-
May 16, 2013 1:13
N.Y. matriarch moves closer to sainthood
44 Comments
Both environmental and animal rights factions have criticized bass fishing in recent years for being both harmful to native species and cruel to the bass themselves. Most bass are no longer caught for sustenance, but simply as a sport, and largemouth bass are generally let go after the catch…”
My favorite blog
<http://www.foodsupplementcenter.com
Courageous. Logical. Beautiful. A pleasure to read.
The Catholic Church has ALWAYS believed in the True Presence and it does not change on issues of faith and morals. It may clarify or reaffirm but it does not change.
Try the Catechism, 1776 to 1802, especially 1776 and 1800.
Yes, the Church has changed some of its positions over time, both doctrinal and moral. My favorite instance as a sacramental theologian was the requirement of the eleventh-century Synod of Rome that Catholics believe in Christ’s physical presence in the Eucharist—that Christ’s bones are ground by the teeth of the faithful. It took a century or so for theologians to make that inoperative.
The classic study (still good) is Newman’s Development of Christian Doctrine. John Noonan has explored the development of several moral issues in A Church That Can and Cannot Change. Stanley misrepresents both Aquinas (who upheld slavery as the consequence of human sin) and the sixteenth-century popes (who prohibited enslavement of American Indians but not of Africans, though they put some restrictions on trafficking).
There are many examples historically of how magisterial teaching was not “received” by the faithful and was consequently reformulated.
That may be, Father, but you cannot therefore logically assume that means the Church ever will change her Magisterial teachings with regard to women’s ordination, homosexuality, masturbation, or contraception — as these heretical nuns such as Farley want to do.
Also, with regard to your assertion about the Synod of Rome — I am not familiar with that, but even assuming you have accurately represented the issue, there are explanations for that. For example, there was no printing press back then, and therefore written language was not refined as it is today. Perhaps what was meant by “physical presence” was, in fact, what the Church teaches today: Jesus’ essential presence, even though the “accidents” of the Eucharist are unchanged. So, it may have been a problem of hte wrong choice of a word. The 11th century is quite remote; I doubt we can accurately reconstruct what happened back then.
The church can and has changed, otherwise we would be religious jews.
Jesus sent mary out to tell the hiding men! The house churches were the dominion of womean leadership. Mary, Jesus’s mom was a leader!
If the church can’t change the priests would have Mom-in-laws like Peter in the NT. Female saints have challenged errant popes, see Catherine of Siena!
Catechism change/develope as understandings do also.
To say change would be thinking God was wrong is rediculous, the author assumes the interprtations he agrees with are/were perfect. That’s obnoxious!
The author should go back to Dueteronomy and follow all of those rules!
PT
Right on Pat. The author’s understanding of Church history is seriously defective. Church doctrine HAS changed many times and properly so as it interpreted new knowledge supported by the guidance of the Holy Spirit as Jesus promised. And new knowledge caused it to reverse many of its strongly held positions. Infallibility is limited to only a few doctrines under the hierarchy of truth, like the divinity of Jesus, And even those, while not essentially changed, are better explained as the task of theologians.
Well, Pat, what you say about women beings leaders disagrees with Pius XI’s 1930 Casti Connubii, which indicates (correctly) that men are the head of the home and women are the heart. Also, research supports the encyclical. Women innately connect; men innately lead. You can’t have two captains of the ship; the ship will just go in circles.
Addendum to Pat: your insistence on women usurping men’s headship is one of the central forces that has resulted in the destruction of the family in the latter half of the 20th century. I will defend the integrity of the family, even if that offends you and other women. You need to live out the plan GOD has for your life — not YOUR plan for your life. When it was not good for Adam to be alone, God created a woman (Genesis 2:18). He could have created a man, a fishing buddy for Adam, but he didn’t — he created a woman, and he gave her the gifts to connect and relate in a way he did not give men. Men will never be able to do as well as women what God created women to do; but at the same time, women never will be able to do as well as men what God created men to do.
I wish my name was Jim. Then I could never be wrong in anything I thought, said, or wrote no matter what other people said. I could also judge everyone else infallibly.
Ron — you seem to be judging me — are you?
Also, Ron, I never have claimed to be infallible — and I am specifically disavowing that here and now. But, I am performing the first spiritual work of mercy: to admonish the sinner (Luke 17:3). If I (and you, once you know the truth) don’t do that, God will hold me (and you) accountable (Ezekiel 33:7-9).
Can God change His mind? I recall that at the wedding feast at Cana He was reluctant to intervene in the wine issue, but after being lobbied by the Blessed Virgin Mary solved the problem.
Indeed, Greg, but that is not a matter of dogma. If one believes prayers are effective, then it seems prayers also change God’s mind. The truth is, why prayers work is a mystery — but we believe they do, and we believe they make a difference in the outcome. But again, the Blessed Mother was not lobbying her son to permit women to be ordained or to allow sexual sins such as homosexuality or masturbation — she was, if you will, praying for a favor.
I’m from the south and when our mamma tells us to do something, we do it. I’ve always pictured Mary looking at Jesus with this “do it, Son” look on her face while addressing the “Do what ever He tells you to do” statement to the helpers
So, yeah. I guess God can change His mind, eh?
Societies and Governments have come and gone. The Catholic Church has survived for over 2000 years. The Holy Spirit guides the Church, especially the Heirarchy who are the successors to the Apostles. The fact that we have survived so long is because we did not go with every whim and fancy that governments and societies have thrown on us. Thanks be to God for Pope Benedict XVI who is bringing us back to Vatican II. (The documents, I mean,and no the spirit of vatican II which was an excuse among liberals to do whatever they want.) Thanks Jim for being a defender of the faith! You can cut me down but you can’t shake my Faith in Christ and His Church.
Michael — given what you just posted, I hope I haven’t cut you down — have I?
What is a well-formed conscience? If, as the Church currently seems to hold, it is basically agreement with the Church: no well-formed conscience could disagree with the hierarchs. This means that THERE IS NO RIGHT OF CONSCIENCE. A more liberal view would be that a conscience is well-formed if it has considered the teachings and culture of the hierarchs, but still disagrees. The hierarchs do not permit this.
When God establishes Truth, Carl, you are free to agree or disagree with that Truth; but, if you disagree, you are wrong. If someone tells me their conscience tells them that jumping off a cliff is a good thing to do, I need to tell them the truth to protect them. This is all the Church’s Magisterial teachings do: they tell us the way. The Magisterium is God talking to us; why would you want to disagree with God? Lucifer felt complelled to disagree as well — he was unwilling to give up his right to do the wrong thing. And we can see the results of that course.
Your position, Carl, essentially is that there is no source of inerrant truth on Earth; my position is that there is a source of inerrant truth on Earth, and it is the Magisterial teachings of the Catholic Church.
Catechism 1795:”Conscience is man’s most secret core, and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths.” It may not be a “right” but certainly seen as part of our nature. Seems to me that revelation “comes through” human beings, i.e. is mediated by time and place which includes gender, culture, etc. For us to think that we have the complete understanding of things is a bit arrogant on our part. Perhaps even Pharisaical. God may or may not change God’s mind, but human beings certainly come to greater understanding of things as time, learning, experience tells us.It is interesting that Aquinas is quoted. 13th C. how different from Paul in his letter to Philemon. OH! Did we as people come to a better understanding of things?
Good point about humanity coming to a better understanding of God’s truths. However, that does not make one’s own conscience primary, as some have asserted here. To illustrate the folly of such a position: my conscience diagrees with Carl’s conscience — and how can that be, if the same, unchangeable Holy Spirit is speaking to both of us?
Jim, I can’t speak for who or what is speaking to you. But if there is evidence of a difference among people of conscience, then one can hardly, credibly, appeal to The One Unchangeable Truth.
Not true at all, Carl — what you say does not follow logically. When there is a difference between two people (e.g., you and me), here are the logical possibilities: (1) you are right and I am wrong; (2) I am right and you are wrong; (3) we are both wrong. I believe the Catholic Church is right, and that it is God speaking to us.
Addendum: notice, BTW, that it could not be the case that we are both right.
Catechism 1783: “Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.” Wow, look at that last sentence: “The education of conscience is indispensible for human beings who are …. tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.” Read, heed and weep, Carl, Tony, Florian et al.
I rest my case.
And that simply makes my case, Fr Jim, that there is no real conscience in the Catholic Church — just obedience, sheep-like, and fearful of authority.
The beginning of wisdom is fear of the Lord, Carl — and St. Paul talked about working out his salvation in fear and trembling. So, if St. Paul is trembling about his salvation — it suggests we should too.
There you go again, mentioning me by name, please don’t do that. We areeg not to direct our comments to one another individually. Thank you
Okay, Tony, will do — you are right. In the future I will refrain from mentioning you by name, but I will mention others.
Try 1776 and 1800
Jim, what about the ultimate resource for moral choice; the individual’s formed conscience? You are very free with consigning people to hell. And I could wish that you would listen instead of dominating every question.
Hey Stephen, I am here to help others; thank you very much. With regard to formation of conscience: the Church clearly teaches that the conscience must be properly formed; it does NOT teach the primacy of one’s own conscience. Notice that the Vatican is discipling these heretical nuns who claim that they have formed their own conscience. You can follow the nuns to Hell if you like, but, “for me and my house, we will worship the Lord.” With regard to dominating the conversation: I believe Tony has posted as much as I have. And, if we count liberal cafeteria Catholic posters like yourself vs. faithful-to-the-Magisterim posters such as myself, our posts are outnumbered. Try an atheist chat room — you’ll find a lot of sympathy for your view there.
Try the Catechism, numbers 1776 to 1802, especially 1776 and 1802.
I meant 1776 and 1800.
Well, those paragraphs must be read in the context of 1783 — thus, 1800 in this context reads: “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his (well-formed) conscience.” And, that conscience is well-formed by following the teachings of the Catholic Church. To illustrate by metaphor: the reason why opiates are given by the prescription of a third-party (the treating physician) is because most people would over-prescribe narcotics to themselves. As paragraph 1783 notes, our sinful nature will cause us to malform our conscience unless we have inerrant truth, as taught to us by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, as our guide.
You liberals are all alike — you are in favor of free expression until it conflicts with your own. Wise up.
Look at the final sentence above: “If this is obvious to a layman, then why do the American nuns persist with their theological innovation? Alas, the answer is that some of them simply aren’t very Catholic. Or, at least, their Catholicity takes a second place to their political liberalism.” I couldn’t have said it better. Bravo!
It says that humans are flawed and God’s Church is perfect, Florian — the principles on which He created the world do not change, as God Himself stands outside of time. Sorry you’re waiting for the number of protons in a hydrogen atom to change; or perhaps you’re waiting for people to be able to breathe underwater.
Change is universal among living beings and societies. No exceptions here. What does that say to a church which “does not/ can not change”?
Beg to differ with you.
The Church knows that it is both divinely created and inspired as well as being a human structure capable of sin. Read the CCC on this topic for further explanation.
BTW, what do you think all of the Ecumenical Councils, including Vactican II, were all about? Councils have two basic purposes: defend the faith and seek the truth. This implies and has been shown that the Catholic Church sometimes has had to realize that it must change the way it thinks about a certain issue or a cluster of issues. If memory serves me, I think there have been 21 such councils… including the Council of Jerusalem (in Acts).