Nuns Weigh Response to Scathing Vatican Rebuke
Tags
Related Posts
About the author
American nuns are preparing to assemble in St. Louis next week for a pivotal meeting at which they will try to decide how to respond to a scathing critique of their doctrinal loyalty issued this spring by the Vatican — a report that has prompted Roman Catholics across the country to rally to the nuns’ defense.
The nuns will be weighing whether to cooperate with the three bishops appointed by the Vatican to supervise the overhaul of their organization, the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, which represents about 80 percent of women’s Catholic religious orders in the United States.
The Leadership Conference says it is considering at least six options that range from submitting graciously to the takeover to forming a new organization independent of Vatican control, as well other possible courses of action that lie between those poles.
What is in essence a power struggle between the nuns and the church’s hierarchy had been building for decades, church scholars say. At issue are questions of obedience and autonomy, what it means to be a faithful Catholic and different understandings of the Second Vatican Council.
Sister Pat Farrell, the president of the Leadership Conference, said in an interview that the Vatican seems to regard questioning as defiance, while the sisters see it as a form of faithfulness.
“We have a differing perspective on obedience,” Sister Farrell said. “Our understanding is that we need to continue to respond to the signs of the times, and the new questions and issues that arise in the complexities of modern life are not something we see as a threat.” [more]
SOURCE
Leave a Comment
Photo Archive
-
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
-
May 16, 2013 1:07
Alvare talk on women, religious freedom, draws hundreds to seminary
-
May 15, 2013 2:31
US bishops announce 2nd Fortnight for Freedom
-
May 15, 2013 2:15
Black clergy call for abortion investigations, chastise NAACP, CBC for ignoring life issue
183 Comments
Jim,
1…There has been much “magisterial teaching” of the past that we Catholics, today, can no longer accept. For example, definite papal teaching, from the past, that salvation is only for those who are subject to the Bishop of Rome. There are teachings in Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors that we cannot accept today. Then there was the Pope who declared Jovinian a heretic because Jovinian taught that married Christian women were as holy as celibate nuns.
2…Re the word “heresy” : a Greek word which, in the New testament, often has the neutral sense of “school”.
3…The Magisterium must listen to the sensus fidei.
4…Academics have a duty to explore and to ask questions etc, even if it makes us uncomfortable.
5…How can social justice be excessively emphasised? It seems to me that’s what Jesus was on about and is at the core of his message re the Kingdom. But then, the fellows in the Vatican with their fancy costumes probably wouldn’t know what Social Justice was if it popped out of their morning cereal.
Francis: regarding your second point: go to dictionary.com, plug in the word “heretic”, and see what you get. Your third point: the Church needs to listen, but then allow God to guide them. I could care less if everyone else said gay sex is right or women should be ordained — this is exactly what the Protestants do: they vote to determine what the truth is. I could care less about people’s opinions. In fact, probably the reverse: if most people think it, it probably is not true. Look how Noah was mocked by the entire population while he built his ark. Do we want to get a sensus fidei from those people doing the mocking? Again, I don’t care what people think, I care what God thinks. Your point four: I could care less about academics — most of them are proud, and some are heretics. I read in the last year about a priest from Notre Dame (I believe one of those academics to which you are referring) who said Eucharistic Adoration is a hinderance. With priests like that, who needs the devil?
Jim,
What about my first point?
Re the word “heresy”…Go to Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Vol 1 and see what you get.
Re my third point: I did not say the Church needs to listen because I do not equate “church” with hierarchy. I said the magisterium must listen to the sensus fidei. Do you not believe in the sensus fidei?
You seem to spend a lot of your energy judging people. I must say you come across as somewhat of a pharisee.
Thanks for your kind words, Francis. With regard to your first point: I don’t have enough information to respond. There almost always is tons of context that significantly alter one’s understanding of something. For example, the whole deal with Galileo: this almost always is grossly misunderstood by those who mention it; when you learn the context and nuances, your opinion about the Church’s handling of the situation shifts significantly. With regard to Kettel’s — I agree that heresy also is akin to a school of thought; that doesn’t change the fact that the most direct meaning of the word is to disagree with Church teaching. With regard to your third point: who determines Magisterial teachings? It is the hierarchy — not everyone in the hierarchy, but certainly it always is some members of the hierarchy that are determining Magisterial dogma.
Jim,
Re my first point. Surely you could do some research and educate yourself. I do agree that much papal teaching is conditioned by historical context, the limitations of knowledge etc. That is why the Church can never be tied for all time to mere human interpretation, whether by a pope or anyone else.
To disagree with Church teaching is not the same as “heresy” (in the common understanding of the word). The “Church” has taught many things over the centuries that we must disagree with today.
Re the third point: discover what “sensus fidei” means.
Francis — disagreeing with Church teaching is most definitely the same as heresy in the common understanding of the word — dictionaries contain the common understanding — that is precisely what a dictionary is all about. Go to dictionary.com, input the word “heretic”, and see what you get. With regard to “sensus fidei” — I went to Wikipedia to ensure my understanding of this Latin term was up to snuff, and indeed it was / is — so, I understand and did understand what this term means, and it doesn’t change anything I’ve said. The “faithful” can be wrong en masse — as they are on the issue of contraception. I’m sorry that you think that sinful, selfish people can corporately discern God’s will. One selfish person plus one selfish person plus one selfish person does NOT equal three unselfish people. You don’t get a good apple out of combining three bad apples. So again, I could care less what most people think — most people usually are wrong. With regard to your first point — well, there is an infinite amount of history to be learned. I know it well enough to know that the teachings of the Church never change, alhtough their understanding might change in light of new knowledge. But, things like gay sex, contraception, and women’s ordination NEVER could be understood to be morally licit, regardless of any new knowledge that might be acquired.
Jim,
You ignore the truth that we must
not only ignore some hierarchical teaching from the past – and I gave only a few examples – but we must reject them. Surely, it would be “heretical” not to do so.
You seem to reject the sensus fidei on the grounds, as you put it, that sinful, selfish people cannot corporately discern God’s will. Are bishops not sinful, selfish people as well or are they somehow so ontologically changed that they are above ordinary humans.
You have shot down your own argument.
Thanks for drawing the conclusion that I “have shot down (my) own argument” — but BTW, that conclusion is unwarranted. The short answer to your question about bishops being “ontologically changed” — well, I’m not sure if ontological is the right word, but what I am asserting is that God does not allow the Church to teach false doctrine. So, the bishops are sinful humans (but presumably, much much less sinful than most other humans), but God Himself will not let them err. With regard to my ignoring the erroneous doctrines issued by the Vatican in the past: as I have said before, I am not an expert in this area. However, what I do know is that there ALWAYS is oontext and nuance to everything, and this typically is not rendered in full and accurately, if it is rendered at all. So, as I also said before, the Church’s disagreement with Galileo has been grossly distorted by virtually all (but not all) those who write about it. My money remains on the Magisterium, Francis — not on the sensus fidei or on you.
And Francis, as an addendum: to show you how reliable the sensus fidei is — in 1929, the sensus fidei of all Protestants was that artificial birth control was wrong. Less than 50 years later, it was virtually unanimous if not unanimous that, per their sensus fidei, artificial birth control was okay. That’s weird, how God changes his mind like that. If you want to go with the sensus fidei, Francis, join a Protestant church — frankly, that’s how they determine doctrine, and it’s also how they decide to keep (or fire) a pastor. Again, I could care less what people think; what I do care about is what GOD thinks.
One other comment about your third point: again, I could care less what the majority of people think. For example, most people who call themselves Catholic practice artificial birth control. EVERY ONE OF THEM IS WRONG. Again, I have no respect for sinful man, and give his opinions no weight; I only care about the Truth — what God says.
Wow, if you have no respect for sinful man you sure as hell must have NO respect for the bishops of our church who transfered priests and gave them new opportunities to abuse young children.
Tony — you seem to be having difficulty understanding the simple distinction between a sinful bishop and God’s capacity to speak inerrantly through the sinful bishop. From where did you get your master’s degree? More to the point, though — it is likely you got your degree from a liberal instxtxtion populated by proud theologians who want to twist God’s Truth to be more to their own liking; theologians who “became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened. While claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes. Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever.
(Romans 1:21b-25). I am interested in what GOD says, not in what some puffed-up heretic with a degree in theology says.
Jim,
But if the “sinful bishop” is in mortal sin, how can God speak through him for, as the Catechism says, it results in the “privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace”.
Francis — the Church also teaches that a priest in mortal sin, when he consecrates the Eucharist, confects a valid Eucharist. So, as is common sense, God’s grace trumps man’s sinfulness.
Jim,
Celebrating the sacraments whilst not in a state of grace is NOT the same as teaching inerrantly. Do bishops always teach “inerranntly”? Wow, history is full of examples when they have not.
Francis — of coursre those two things are not the same. But what IS the same is that God’s Will always is accomplished, in spite of the imperfections of man. So, His Will is accomplished through a priest in mortal sin confecting the Eucharist; and His Will is accomplished through sinful bishops considering Magisterial teachings.
Jim,
You state that you “only care about the Truth — what God says”. Or is it your understanding of “truth” that you care about.
Nope, Francis, I only care about what the inerrant Magisterium teaches — I yield to the Magisterium. It is not about me — it is about God as He speaks to us through an inerrant Magisterium.
Jim,
How do you know when the magisterium is inerrant and when it is not or is it always inerrant? So when the magisterium said it was OK to torture people that was inerrant truth and still must be obeyed? Or that non-RCs cannot be saved?We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull, Unam Sanctum, 1302.)
” The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches that NONE of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics [Protestants] and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, UNLESS before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, NO ONE, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church. (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441). Is this inerrant teaching which must still be obeyed?
Francis — in 2012, here is what the RC Church teaches: all who go to Heaven go via the Catholic Church. So, that teaching remains the same. The more nuanced understanding (and perhaps Pope Eugene IV had this understanding as well) is that, even if not nomially Catholic while alive, after death, when judged by the God of perfect Justice, if they have, considering their circumstances, the proper attxtxde with regard to God, then they are saved through the RC Church.
I think salvation is said to be assured through the HOLINESS of the the Church. Then we can look at who is a member of the church and conclude that all good people even if the neverheardof Chist are saved through the church. in the church salvation is assured but outside the church salvation is possible but again, through the church.
Jim
Where does the Catholic Church teach this. Does this mean that, in order to enter heaven, all non-Catholics must become RC?
Francis: see post below, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 846-848, 851. If you see the post below, it provides the nuance here.
addendum to the above post in response to Francis: the following comes from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_Ecclesiam_Nulla_Salus: The Church’s understanding of the significance of the phrase: “Outside the Church there is no salvation” is expressed in its Catechism of the Catholic Church, 846-848, 851 as follows:
“Outside the Church there is no salvation” – How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
“Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it” (Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, 14).
This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and His Church:
“Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience — those too may achieve eternal salvation” (Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, 16).
“Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him (Hebrews 11:6), the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men” (Second Vatican Council, Ad Gentes, 1).
Great detailed explanation Jim, thank you for your research add quotes from the Council.
Jim
Proved my point, thanks. The contemporary Church has overridden previous popes who held that only RCs could be saved. Now we say that that even atheists can be saved.
Francis — again, the devil is in the context and the nuances. It remains the case that all who go to Heaven go via the Catholic Church.
But Franics, look, if you want to strike out on your own because you are unwilling to accept some of the teachings of the Church, then go ahead — at your own peril. That is the real issue behind your disagreement with the Church: you want to do your own thing, and feel justified in doing so. However, you can’t fool the Holy Spirit who dwells in your soul. You never will have peace until you are stiving to live according to God’s Will.
addendum: the way you can know God’s Will: listen to the Magisterium.
Jim,
You’re always on about “context and nuances”. These apply to your own sentiments as well although I think you’re ducking and weaving. To suggest that all who go to heaven go via the Catholic Churc h is nonsense. Do they become honorary Catholics? If not, how does it work.
Your judgementalism is breathtaking.
The fact is the Catechism DOES NOT state what you state. See #847. Read Lumen Gentium.
The Magisterium has said many things in past ages that we can no longer accept. The magisterium is fallible.
One has only to read the decree of the dCouncil on the Eastern Gchurces to see Orthodox Orders are Valid.
It woul seem that the know it all on this site either is a HERITIC
Tony — being in error about the validity of the Orthodox Eucharist is not the same as being a heretic. Go to dictionary.com, look up the definition of the word “heretic”, and you will see that my error concerning the Orthodox churhes does not represent heresy.
You have badgered me and others with no mercy before you claim to be an authority on all thins Catholic on this site, it is either your way or no way, you are not always correct Jim, Get down off your high horses and learn humility. Take the same medicine you attempt to dish out to others on this site.
Tony — I never have claimed to be “an authority on all things Catholic” — so quit making up reality. However, I know a lot about a lot of things, including about Catholic doctrine — I’m sorry you are so jealous and resentful of my accomplishments.
Jim, if you don’t break the tension and tell the discussion exactly in what precise areas you are expert in ‘things Catholic’ the reader will just have to accept the sheer gift you are as the resident franchisee of the Magisterium.
What tension, David???
Did you look up the definition of the word “heretic” at dictionary.com, Tony? It will take less than one minute. Then, respond to my post above which asserts my error about the Orthodox churches does not represent heresy. I expect a retraction from you, and an admission that you were wrong to call me a heretic. That designation of my by you, BTW, just gets added to the long list of hateful things you and others have said about me.
And, Tony, with regard to me “getting off my high horse” — truly, what on Earth is wrong with you? You are an unhappy, complaining man who apparently sees mostly the negative in others. I specifically acknowledged I was in error about the Orthodox churches in my response to Francis, as well as in my response to you at 4:45 A.M. And then, your response to my admission of error is to tell me to get off my high horse? Again, Tony, what is wrong with you? You cannot possibly be a happy man. May I suggest you increase your time at Adoration to at least one hour per week?
You wrongly claim that Sister Farley is a heritic for her valid work in theology. You wrongly claim that the Sisters on the Bus are Heritics for their stands.You have publicly denied the teachings of the Vatican Council II, the Popes and others on the validity of Orthodox Orders, on the validity of the celebration of the Eucharist in the Orthodox Church It would seem that you have exhibited every action of a Heritic. You know, “If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it’s a duck.”
Tony — you and Concerned are very similar in that neight one of you can think straight. Let’s take apart your 8:37 A.M. post: (1) that I claim Farley “is a heretic for her valid work in theology” — well, of course I don’t claim she is a heretic for her VALID work — by definition, you’re not a heretic when you say valid things. But, when you state INVALID things — i.e., things that disagree with Church Magisterial teachings — then you become a heretic. So, let’s use an example. Suppose I say 99 things that agree with what the Church teaches, and one thing that directly contracdicts what the Church teaches, such as asserting — as Farley has done — that gay sex can be morally licit. That person is a heretic, not for the 99 things they said that agree with Church teachings, but for the one thing they said that disagreed. Go to dictionary.com, Tony, and look up the definition of “heretic” and you will see it exactly characterizes Farley. (2) the sisters on the bus: the bus trip itself is not heretical, but other things these sisters have said IS heretical. They have been rebuked by the Vatican for excessively emphasizing social justice and being silent on things like gay sex. (3) “You have publicly denied the teachings of Vatican COuncil II, the Popes and others on the validity of Orthodox Orders etc” — you are a distortion machine, Tony — this likely is related to your chronically unhappy state. NEVER did I deny the teachings of Vatican II. It is true that I was IGNORANT of those teachings as related to the Orthodox churches, and because of my ignorance what I said about the Orthodox was in error. But I never do what you and others do, which is to KNOW what the Magisterium says, and then disagree with it. I have retracted my comment about the Orthodox Churches — so, I was in error as a result of my ignorance, but never did I deny the teachings of the Church once I became aware of those teachings. In fact, when I became aware of them, I immediately retracted what I had said. In conclusion, I have exhibited NO action of a heretic, and therefore your conclusion I am a heretic is — as is typically the case with your assertions, Tony — in error. I look forward to a retraction from you concerning your assertion that I am a heretic. If you don’t admit you’re wrong when you are wrong, Tony, it doesn’t speak well of your character.
And, to clarify point two above: the silence of the sisters about gay sex, in the context of their loud proclamations about social justice, implies that they support gay sex. Also, I have read, by their own words, that they privately support female ordination, but publicly have refrained from making statements about it. In their support for female ordination, these nuns on the bus are heretics.
How’s your mother tonight?
Waite till Cardinal Burke and Bishop Blair see the error you are writing on this site regarding the Orthodox Orders and Eucharist.
Jim,
Re the validity of Orthdox Church sacraments, try this for size: In the year 1948, Roman Catholic newspapers carried an article by the Very Rev. Francis J. Connell of the Catholic University of America, who stated: “The clergy of the Orthodox Church are true priests and bishops for the ceremony of ordination has been carried out validly in the centuries.” Fr. Felic Rich, O.S.B. in a leaflet, “Defenders of the Faith,” writes: “Eastern Orthodox Churches have real bishops who administer the Sacrament of Holy Orders in a proper manner and with the right intentions. The priests of the Eastern Churches therefore, are real priests with valid orders.
The leading Roman weekly, “Our Sunday Visitor,” made this significant statement in its issue of August 24, 1947: “The so-called Eastern Church, has, therefore, a true priesthood, a true sacrifice of the Mass, and valid sacraments hence its claim to our attention.
AQlso this, from Pope John Paul II in a General Audience August 09, 1995: “A certain intercommunion is possible, since the Eastern Churches possess true sacraments, especially the priesthood and the Eucharist. On this sensitive point, specific instructions have been issued, stating that, whenever it is impossible for a Catholic to have recourse to a Catholic priest, he may receive the sacraments of Penance, the Eucharist and the Anointing of the Sick from the minister of an Eastern Church (Directory 123)”
Jim, you contradict the Catechism, and Pope John Paul II Are you a dissenter?
Jim, I can understand that some RCs wish to live in an exclusive club where they believe that they, and only they, have the fullness of truth and are thus, superior, to others. But, this is not the way of Christ.
Francis — I sincerely appreciate your careful documentation and citing of sources. I believe your response is the best researched and most thorough of any I have received to any of my posts on this blog to date.
Presuming you are quoting your sources accurately, my prior posts about the Orthodox have been in error, and I hereby retract them.
In fairness to myself, however, I never contadicted the Catechism, as you claim I did in your penultimate sentence in the post above. I simply reported / quoted the Catechism, paragraph 838. Obviously, the Catechism does not contain the information you have posted above. Again, thank you for your comprehensive and carefully documented post.
One final point: I do NOT hereby retract what I said about Henry VIII’s church. Should you be able to produce similar credible documentation on the king’s church, I will stand corrected again; but until that time I continue to assert it is a secular church.
This is clearly a “power” struggle. Believing that they are infallible, the bishops aren’t going to change their ideas or relinquish any power. They would rather see a split with the nuns of the Roman Catholic Church than admit they are wrong in anyway. If the nuns truly believe their consciences are leading them in a different direction and will not follow blind obedience and absolute orders of the hierarchy, then they should just split off, do their work in a secular way, and be done with it.
Recovering — it would be wrong for the bishops to “admit” they are wrong when they are not at all wrong — these nuns clearly have departed from Catholic teaching, they are heretics, and they are disobedient. Thank God we have bishops willing to say and do what needs to be said and done. As another poster (Michael) has said many times, those groups that split from the Church wither and die, usually in short order. That is exactly what will happen to the LCWR if they are foolish enough and too proud to admit they are wrong and split with the Church.
Jim,
You contradict yourself.
Re “I feel confident they do not believe they have a valid Eucharist.” (August 02). Of course the “they” refers to the RC Church. I never suggested otherwise, but you are wrong for the RC Church accepts the full validity of the Orthodox Sacraments. So, you see, you are the one who is reading somewhat incompetently. I would suggest that you critique your own posts or, in the words of Jesus, “pull the log out of your own eye…”
Re your comment:the (RC) Church is saying there is a closeness with the Orthodox Churches and their Eucharist, but it is NOT equivalent — as the Catechism notes, their Eucharist lacks a “little” of the fullness of grace in the Catholic Eucharist. What nonsense is this? What “little” of the fullness of grace is lacking. Do they receive 90% of the grace that RCs receive? Or 80%? In fact, the Catechism teaches that RCs who lack charity are not saved even if they receive the Eucharist. So, perhaps a lot of RCs do not receive the fullness of grace either. Do you Jim?
Your post “Point three” is a real laugh. thanks for the humour. So, you agree that Jesus is present when non-RC Christians gather. How very nice of you. Does Jesus have to get your permission to grace their lives with his presence or is he just there doing nothing?
Your point four is nonsense. If non-Rc Eastern Orthodox priests can celebrate a valid Eucharist then that torpedoes your argument that only a RC priest can celebrate a valid Eucharist. So sorry for you Jim that you are still living back in the dark ages. May the light of Christ’s love open your eyes to the truth.
Re your Point Five. This is irrelevent. Of course I don’t deny Henry’s divorce. But under Queen Mary the Anglican Church and Rome were reconciled and remained reconciled until Elizabeth 1.
Re your statement: “Also, the Catechism contradicts, or at least is silent on, your various assertions, including from your 08/05 2:28 A.M. post that “the RC Church accepts the validity of Orthodox Church orders.” Where does the Catechism contradict my assertion that Orthodox sacraments are accepted as valid?
Francis — instead of systematically refuting what you have written in your 2:44 A.M. post earlier today, I think it is more efficient to go right to the heart of the matter. Here is what you said to me in your 08/05 2:28 A.M. post (as an aside — getting to bed so late is not healthy, you know!): “I’m sure you’ll find the RC Church accepts the validity of Orthdox Church orders, Eucharist etc.” Well, as you know, I consulted the Catechism (paragraph 838), but in fact the Catechism contradicts what you said. The RC does NOT accept the validity of the Orthodox Eucharist, in that it notes it lacks a “little” compared to the RC Eucharist. Also, I found zero indication to support your claim that the RC Church accepts the validity of Orthodox holy orders; the Catechism, as far as I can tell, is silent on this. Since the Orthodox Eucharist lacks a “little,” by extension so does the Orthodox priest consecrating it. Point two: you yourself have offered no proof to support your assertions. So, until you can quote me from the Catechism or some other credible RC source that the RC Church does in fact accept as fully valid the Orthodox Eucharist and holy orders, my point stands.
The Roman Catholic recognizes as valid Orthodox Orders and the celebration of Eucharist.
You would do well to read the Documents of Vatican II on the Eastern Churches……another reason why you can’t relie on the Catechism for all things Catholic.
I’d have to see the exact language, Tony, as the Catechism — the definitive document of what the Church teaches — disagrees with your assertion, as I’ve described above.
Jim,
Your comments are often astounding. Your comments re the Anglican Church are historically simplistic. Your comments re the Churches of eastern Orthodoxy “I feel confident they do not believe they have a valid Eucharist” are unreal. Don’t you think you should check your facts? Read the Catechism. I’m sure you’ll find the RC Church accepts the validity of Orthdox Church orders, Eucharist etc.Your comments re Jesus’ promise to be where two or three are gathered in his name are, scripturally, nonsense. If Jesus is truly present then, surely, the fullness of God’s grace is present. Nowhere did Jesus say a RC priest was necessary for Eucharist anyway. In fact, no Christian priests are mentioned in the New testament anyway. The RC Church recognises that we are in a certain communion with all other baptised Christians that we are in
Francis — I did not say what you said I said — in particular, you ripped the following sentence out of context: “I feel confident they do not believe they have a valid Eucharist.” (August 02, 8:28 A.M. post — see below). The “they” in that sentence referred to the RC Church, NOT the Orthodox. Given this grade-school level on your part, is it necessary for me to critique the rest of your post? You can’t even read and correctly interpret what I posted — does that give you any confidence in any of your other utterings?
Point three, Francis — your accusation that my post was “scriptural nonsense.” Well, you know, Francis, all verses of the Bible need to be interpreted in the context of the entirety of the Bible. I never disputed that Jesus is present when two or three are gathered in His name — after all, why would I be so foolish as to disagree with what Scripture says? But, as the true, valid, RC Church teaches, the Eucharist is the “source and summnit” of the Christian life. The RC Church teaches, therefore, that graces are MOST abundant in the Catholic Eucharist. So, you can disagree with this if you want, but I have rendered accuarately what the Catholic Church teaches. So, again, rail all you want against the Magisterial teachings of the Catholic Church — but you will continue to be in error if you do.
Point two, Francis: I will, indeed, take you up on your challenge and investigate in detail what the RC Church teaches about the Orthodox; and in particular, if the Church teaches that their holy orders are valid. As I said in my earlier post, I feel confident the RC Church does not teach their orders are valid; but, I will of course stand corrected if I am incorrect. I do not have a Catechism handy at the moment — but I will be able to check it in the next day or two.
Point four, Francis — your post says “nowhere did Jesus say a RC priest was necessary for Eucharist anyway.” I’m not going to take the time to detail why an RC IS necessary to confect the Eucharist — if you want to know the answer, go take an RCIA course. But, indeed, only a Catholic priest in communion with Rome can confect the Eucharist. Only a Catholic priest has been ordained by a Catholic bishop in communion with Rome, and that Catholic bishop was ordained by another bishop who ultimately can trace their lineage back to Jesus Christ. With the exception of the Orthodox, no other religion can make this claim. So, sorry for you, Francis, that Jesus has not yet brought you to the realization of this most important truth.
Point five, Francis, regarding my “historical simplicity” — (1) do you deny that Henry VIII, a Catholic, wanted a divorce, the Catholic bishop refused to grant one, he killed the bishop to have his own way, then started the Church of Henry VIII (now called the Anglican / Episcopalian Church)? You can’t validly deny any of that. So, call it what you want, but what you can’t call any of that is “inaccurate.” So, you can continue to follow Henry VIII, and I will continue to follow Jesus Christ.
Francis — okay, I have now had time to check the Catechism concerning the Church’s stance on Orthodox religions, and the primary material is in paragraph 838, which reads in part as follows: “The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.” (read: Orthodox and Protestants). And now continuing from the Catechism: “Those who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. With the Orthodox Churches (note the plural here, Francis — this is as it is rendered in the Catechism), this communion is so profound that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.” Thus, the Church is saying there is a closeness with the Orthodox Churches and their Eucharist, but it is NOT equivalent — as the Catechism notes, their Eucharist lacks a “little” of the fullness of grace in the Catholic Eucharist. So, the Church does NOT teach that the Orthodox Eucharist is equivalent to the Catholic Eucharist — exactly what I said previously. Also, the Catechism contradicts, or at least is silent on, your various assertions, including from your 08/05 2:28 A.M. post that “the RC Church accepts the validity of Orthodox Church orders.” Therefore, Francis, your post, in which you trashed me, is in error — not a surpise, though, because whenever anyone trashes me, it is always the case that they are wrong.
I also support our wonderful nuns.
Jim,
You refer to the Anglican Church as being the Church of Henry VIII. The Anglican and RC Churches were subsequently reconciled under Mary. It was the pope who excommunicated ElizabethI and England. So, to rabbit on about Henry VIII ignores subsequent history.
Your strange idea that only the RC Church has a valid Eucharist is bizarre. Are you not ignoring the great churches of Eastern Orthodoxy? Anyway the Lord promises to be present where two or three gather in his name so please stop telling our Lord what he may and may not do.
Francis — I never have heard of that to which you refer: the reconciliation of the Anglican and Catholic Churches under (I’m assuming Queen) Mary — but, it doesn’t matter, given your notation that the Anglicans were again excommunicated. Thus, they remain excommunicated, and thus their clergy are not being ordained by any bishop in communion with Rome; and therefore their clergy cannot confect the Eucharist. And, it remains the case that the Anglican Church was started by Henry VIII. So, that point stands. Point two: the issue of a valid Eucharist in the Orthodox churches is, for me, an open question. Clearly, the Orthodox are not in communion with Rome; and, here in the United States, the orthodox are a disconnected group of churches — they do not have the marks of the true church, which include unity (“one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic” — the “one” referring to unity within the church). To be honest, I’m not 100% sure what the true Church — the Roman Catholic Church — teaches about the Orthodox, but I feel confident they do not believe they have a valid Eucharist. Point three: with regard to the Lord being present where two or three are gathered in His name: obviously, since this was uttered by the Lord Himself, you won’t find any disagreement from me. However, it is clearly the case that God’s grace abounds much more fully in certain situations and circumstances. For example, the Catholic Eucharist being “the source and summit” of our Christian life (per the Catechism) indicates that there is no richer source of grace on Earth. If God’s grace abounded equally everywhere, then it would make no sense to receive the Eucharist — in other words, if I can access God’s grace by staying home and praying with my wife (that’s two people), why would I waste my time and gas by driving to church?
Woah! Let’s remember who the LCWR is!!! Attacking their statements or those of their staff is not an attack on American Sisters, but on those few people. Same as Priests Councils of New York State, a group I was an important member of. We got our comeuppanc when Bishop Brzana told us, “You don’t represent the Priests of New York State. You speak for yourselves– all 15 of you, and no one else.” And he was right! LCWR is NOT American Sisters. They speak for themselves, whatever their number– and no one else!! How dare they present themselves as speaking for all American Sisters!!!
Thanks, Monsignor, for that insider’s input. I have read similar things elsewhere, but it is nice to hear it confirmed.
If I am a member of the Elks, or AARP or the CubScouts or Zthe Girl Socouts and one of those organizations make a statement I by vertue ofmy membersihip share in ownership of that statement.
Well, good point, Tony — thus, we need to hold all of these sisters accountable for their membership — even if they are somewhat reluctant members.
Yes, each is accountable but I would be proud to be part of a group that advocates the Social Gospel of Jesus.
The real underlining issue why Rome is so upset with women religious sisters is “Women Ordination” I havs not met one women who questions me as to why they cannot be priests and bishops. This is and will be the main battle for years to come. A few weeks ago a women deacon from the Episcopalian church die and was buried from the Episcoplian Cathedral. She was a former Roman Catholic Dominican sister. It is not Birth Control, or homosexuality issues, its “Women Ordination” I am aware of both sides of the issue and see this as the number one issue.
Well, that sister made the wrong decision, and now she knows the truth. And she knows that it is not our specific role here on Earth that makes the difference, but rather how well we bloom where God has planted us. I truly am sorry for that errant, misled sister.
Thank you for your very eloquent words. Excellent perspective.
I mean, just think about it, Joseph Francis — she chose to join a church started by Henry VIII after killing a Catholic bishop who would not grant him a divorce. And this sister gave up the Eucharist and the Sacrament of Reconciliation to be a deacon in Henry VIII’s church? An incredibly foolish decision.
Let’s hit this with a logic bat, shall we?
After a great deal of reflection, joining a church that one believes preaches something closer to the truth than other faiths is not an incredibly foolish decision, it is something everybody should do. It would be an incredibly foolish decision to continue to be counted as Catholic when one does not follow or believe the Catholic Church’s teachings as much as a one believes the teachings of another church.
Furthermore, it is a little foolish for somebody who appears to be Catholic to look down on other religions for things the founder, previous leaders, or other followers have said or done. If that is true, then you, as a Catholic, are making an incredibly foolish decision to join and remain a member of an organization that is responsible for the Crusades, the Inquisition, the millions of people who have died in Africa due to the prevention of the prevention of the spreading of the HIV virus and AIDS due to decreased usage and demonization of birth control methods, and every single child that was raped, molested, or inappropriately touched by a Catholic priest in the history of the Church.
Fact: By bailing, you do without all the rich graces that flow from the sacraments. A Catholic relies on and needs these graces to get though life, to rise above the torrents and, ultimately, to gain eternal life.
Thanks, martyls — you saved me the trouble of responding to Mr. Logical Bat. But, I do want to add one thing: I do agree with leaving a church you don’t believe in and joining one you do. However, that said, it remains the case that the richest source of grace on Earth is in the Eucharist of the Catholic Church. So, even if she was following her (ill-formed) conscience, she still made an incredibly foolish mistake. Wow, prefering Henry VIII’s church to Jesus Christ’s Church — amazing.
She may not believe that the richest source of grace on Earth is in the Eucharist of the Catholic Church, or she may not believe that the Catholic Church is Jesus Christ’s Church and that Henry VIII’s church preaches messages that are closer to what she believes is the truth. So, again, why should she stay in an organization with which she fundamentally disagrees?
Blag — here’s why that former sister should have stayed in the Catholic Church: because really, the issue is not following what you believe to be true; the issue is following what IS true. So, even if I (at least consciously) stopped believing in the Catholic Church, I still am making a wrong decision to leave it. The reason I say it is a “conscious” decision to leave is because, in her soul, she KNEW the truth — she knew the Catholic Church is the true Church of Jesus — but in her sinfulness, she rebelled, just like Eve — thinking her way is better than God’s way. Had she not been so sinful, she would not have arrived at the decision that she no longer was in accord with the Catholic Church — in other words, her own sinfulness led her to the false conclusion that the Episcopalian Church had more truth than the Catholic Church — and that sinful decision hurt her.
Yes, but how does every individual figure out what IS true? They have to form their own idea of what they think is the truth. And following what they believe is the truth is more important than being obedient or not being stubborn to any church. I haven’t seen an indication that she thinks her way is better than God’s way, all I have seen is the fact that she thinks her way IS god’s way. Your arguments to make people see your point of view and draw them back to the Catholic church don’t matter much if you cannot understand what and why they disagree to begin with.
That’s true, but if you don’t consider yourself Catholic or if you don’t believe in grace or sacraments, then why would you continue to support a church that does?
Why did this woman give up Eucharist? When Henry VIII “defected” he took bishops with him. They have the ability to ordain priests validly, which is why they can be incardinated into Roman Catholicism. An, just as fuel for my personal curiosity, are you a Canon lawyer, or at least a member of the cleric state?
Father Mark — if your question was directed to me: no, I am neither a canon lawyer nor clergy; so, it appears you know more about this issue than I. My assumption was that Episcopalian bishops who ordain Episcopalian priests, since they do so not in communion with Rome, are not in fact validly ordaining anyone. If I am mistaken, then I am. However, again, my understanding is that the Episcopalian Eucharist is not truly Jesus Christ in His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. Also, if you look at the wreckage in the Episcopalian Church (allowing a practicing homosexual to be a bishop; allowing women to be ordained priests), it is clear to me that they do not have the grace that the Roman Catholic Church does.
It is wreckage in your opinion, sir, not in theirs. I suggest you invite an Episcopal priest out to lunch…he’ll be glad to explain our subtle differences. And, as to the real presence, while it is the foundation of my faith, a recent poll in Ireland (hugely Roman Catholic) indicated that less than 38% of the people who identify as Catholic believe in transubstantiation, so even if the Anglican view is in error, I seriously doubt that they are alone in their beliefs. You raise many valid points, my friend, but I ask that you, to quote the founder of my order, “Listen with the hear of your heart.” The church is in great pain now, an great deal of which has been caused by the bishops and, and it needs us to be tolerant and understanding, not judgmental and condemning, even if we are in serious disagreement. Remeber that no one has a “lock” on God’s grace, it is earned by our actions, not our affiliation.
May God’s peace come upon you, and draw you into His light.
Thanks for your kindness, Father Mark. Here is my response: (1) about 25 years ago, a good friend of mine (he moved and we have since lost contact) was an Episcopalian priest. Very nice man. He was raised Roman Catholic — I can’t remember if he had been in a Catholic seminary before leaving the Catholic Church; (2) with regard to what the Irish (or anyone else) think about the Eucharist: irrelevant. If less than 38% of people believe the light coming at you is not a railroad train, and you don’t get off the tracks, you’ll be hit anyway. Belief does not determine truth; the Truth is the Truth, whether or not even one human being believes it; (3) does OSB stand for Order of St. Benedict? I’m trying to figure out who is the founder of your order. I have great respect for St. Benedict — he is one of my favorite saints, and I seek his intercession often; (4) with regard to grace being “earned” by actions — well, if you are a Catholic priest in good standing with the Church, I don’t want to be argumentative with you, but, by definition, grace is a free gift from God and can’t be earned. There is no richer source of grace on Earth than in the Catholic Eucharist, which, as you know if you’re a Catholic priest, is the “source and summit” of our spiritual life. It is true God’s grace exists in other religions, but it is much more abundant in the Catholic Church; (5) with regard to your caution about the great pain in the Church — well, I will consider what you said, and probably will moderate my comments a little more circumspectly in the future. Sometimes, quite frankly, I’m just having fun with people who think they are logical but who truly are illogical and misinformed (I won’t mention any names here — see, Father, I’m already taking your advice!). Other times, I am upset that so many people attack the Church with impunity. The first spiritual work of mercy is to admonish the sinner; and, as we learn at Ezekiel 33:7-9, if we DON’T admonish, God will hold us personally accountable for the loss of the other. So really, my initial intent in posting comments was to help lead others to the Truth. I also think that your approach and my approach are different. It is documented that St. Louis de Montfort literally beat various individuals up on at least three occasions who were mocking the Church. And, you probably know he had a great devotion to the Blessed Mother, and is a great saint. So, using him as my model, I can justify my comments on this site. Jesus called the Pharisees a brood of vipers, and he cursed a fig tree that wasn’t in season and thus wasn’t producing when He was upset that there were no figs for Him to eat, and it subsequently died. He also literally flipped over the tables of the merchants in the temple — He did not ask them nicely to leave. So, when the Son of God resorts to such things, I think they are acceptable under the right circumstances. I am convinced we don’t know the real Jesus — we have feminized Him, but he was not at all feminine (although, certainly, he could be tender, etc. when the situation called for it) — He was a real man Who said what needed to be said — all oout of love and concern for the others, even if it was not perceived that way.
The Church of the past was a corrupt theocracy ran a power elite in love with their own magnitude then humble local priest and nuns rebelled along with the poor forming base communities as the center of the Church.
“A theology of the Church in the world should be complemented by a theology of the world in the Church” (Gutierrez). Joining in solidarity with the oppressed against the oppressors is an act of “conversion,” and “evangelization” is announcing God’s participation in the human struggle for justice.
G. Gutierrez, A Theology of Liberation
The syster of higher education in this country is a power elite in love with their own magnitude. Evidence: 53% of recent college graduates are unemplolyed or underemplyed, yet saddled with lots of debt. Meanwhile, college professors who have lived comfortably off their salaries have the luxury of posting liberal rants on this website. It’s just not fair. Let us rebel against the educated elite, and return power to the people.
Let’s hit this with a logic bat, shall we?
Blaming the employment status of the recently graduated squarely on the supposedly liberal elite professors living comfortably off of their salaries and posting liberal rants on this website would seem to be a slight oversimplification at best, and a gross mischaracterization at worst.
Due to an implicit agreement between the banks and the government to lend money in the way of house loans to needy people who would probably default on their mortgages on the premise that the loan packages could be traded and commoditized yet still have the backing of the US government lead to an inherently unstable situation known as a bubble where some investors realized exactly how to get rich by socializing losses and privatizing profits to themselves. The end result was an unavoidable collapse of the US housing economy sending ripples of uncertainty into the rest of the US market, and then into the greater world market. The resulting deep recession necessitated a very generous bailout by the US government (always true to their word) to US and multinational conglomerate companies that needed a cash infusion to keep from going into bankruptcy and causing the further collapse of the economy.
After Republicans have endlessly stalled and watered down any form of government spending to help stabilize and re-energize the US economy, the economy has not recovered nearly as well as could be hoped, the result of which is that businesses across the country are scared to hire any new employees in case they are a further cost to the company.
That is why the recently graduated do not have employment, or are underemployed at this time.
Now, as to the “college professors living comfortably off their salaries and posting liberal rants to this website” – I have a few questions for you.
1) Why should professors act against their own interest and not pursue jobs at which they can make a comfortable living?
2) Are you talking about poster in particular, or if it a more general statement, do you have any evidence or citations to back up your claims?
3) Who determines who is the “educated elite”? And what power do they hold that would be returned to the people?
I look forward to your open and honest answers to my questions, and I hope I have explained the current state of the economy to you, as apparently others have tried and failed.
Disclaimer: I am not a college professor, nor do I consider myself to be particularly liberal in my political persuasions.
Hey blag, you say you’re not particularly liberal, but you are: I can tell you read and listen to liberal media (which is virtually every media source except Fox News and the WSJ). How do I know this? For you to accuse the Republicans of stalling is liberal propaganda. And, with regard to your “logic bat” (I kinda like that phrase, I must admit): well, truth be told, I agree that my post was not logical. I simply wanted to give MJF a taste of his own medicine. I can’t say about him what I’ve said in the past, as the editors of this site have threatened to kick me off — suffice it to say I do not like him and believe virtually every position he takes is 180 degrees from the truth.
Well Jim, if it is liberal propaganda, then please enlighten me with a well-cited source.
And I can also play this game:
For you to not realize that the Republicans have been stalling the economic recovery indicates that you have bought the conservative propaganda.
Blag — here’s some data. When they have surveyed people who work for the news media, about 90% of them vote Democrat. Yes, I heard that on Fox News — Bill O’Reilly — but O’Reilly doesn’t make things up. Here’s another fact: one day before the 2008 presidential election, on one of the various despicable media outlets (CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, etc. — they’re all the same), they interviewed someone who was going to vote for McCain who changed their mind and decided to vote for Obama. Now, one day before the election, don’t you think it would be reasonable to find another person who switched from supporting Obama to supporting McCain? Reasonable, yes, but these media outlets are despicable — so if course there was no balancing interview. I saw that myself on one of the garbage networks — that is not second hand information. So, I have now provided one anecdote (I have numerous others) and one empirical study to support my contention that, almost without exception, the media is despicably liberal. Frankly, I wouldn’t care that they are liberal if they’d just be upfront and tell us the truth — but they disguise themselves and claim to be “objective.” That is one of the biggest fairytales in America.
Please use a factual comment, not Bill O’Reilly! If you honestly believe that he only tells facts, you’re in fairy land.
Sorry, Father Mark, we don’t see eye to eye on this one. I am not claiming Bill O’Reilly is always accurate, but I think he is much more accurate than anyone on the despicable garbage networks (CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, etc.). Also, O’Reilly was not stating a personal opinion when he repeated this fact; he was referring to a study that was done of the issue. Other corroborating evidence: look at anything Bernie Goldberg, with CBS for 30 years, has writtten or said. He knows first hand the gross media bias in virtually every major media outlet.
And, Father Mark, as I said earlier, I have multiple other pieces of evidence. For example, look at how the Right to Life March in Washington DC is portrayed. If you listen to any of the despicable media outlets, they don’t even mention it — even though it the largest demonstration in Washington DC every year — or, they imply that the pro-choice folks were equally as numberous — which is such a gross distortion that it is certainly conscious deception on their part. Again, I have other evidence as well. But, if you want more “hard” data, read Bernie Goldberg.
I would review the study you cited, but alas, you did not. I do not think the study was unbiased, simply because it was used by Fox and O’Reilly to begin with. I’m not saying I will never believe it, because I can change my mind after reviewing it, but I cannot do so because you have only referenced the study, not cited it.
BTW, blad, sorry I do not have the time to peruse your post and make a more detailed response. Perhaps I will get the time in the next day or two.
I see – enough time to respond twice to my post, but not enough time to read it fully? You must be a very busy man with all the writing you do on this site.
Blag — okay, I have now carefully read your July 30 11:33 P.M. post, and will now respond. Essentially, you raise two issues in your post: (1) my statements about MJF; and (2) issues related to the Republicans and the economy. With regard to issue #1: as I said previously, I was simply trying to give MJF a taste of his own medicine, so I acknowledge that I was not being accurate or precise in my post. Why do I want to give MJF a taste of his own medicine? Because he consistently accuses the Vatican of precisely what I (inaccurately) accused him. I just changed one or two words from his post about the hierarchy, and just turned it back at him so he could experience what it’s like to be on the receiving end of his inaccuate and heretical posts. With regard to #2: it is now even more apparent to me that you are a liberal, whether or not you think of yourself as such. With regard to the Republicans stalling government spending: are you kidding me? We have overspent in the last 3.5 years more than ever in the history of this country. Obama and the Democrats, in such a short time, have taken us from $9 trillion to $16 trillion in debt — almost a doubling in less than four years. The Republicans have been grossly irresponsible for allowing that kind of deficit — which would have been much worse if Obama and the Democrats had their way. So, in summary, your assertion that the Republicans dragged their feet on government stimulus is literally the exact opposite of the truth — and, using your “logic bat”, since I have provided hard numbers to you to support my position, I have proved my position, and shown your position to be in error. Don’t go away mad, now, Blag — just admit the numbers I have provided into evidence, aas that is the right thing to do.
And this has something to do with the topic how? Why don’t you get on a political blog, not one discussing Church issues?
Father — my post was in response to a specific request of blag — that is why my post concerned politics. If you don’t like what someone posts, you can always skim it until you become aware you are not interested in reading further, then move on.
Hey Jim, the money was spent, but on a hugely inflated defense budget – not on helping the economy. And this was due to the fact that Republicans refused to vote for it unless they had their various riders attached to it. Corporate welfare at its best.
I should also ask you to refrain from accusing me of being either political party as I do not appreciate it. On top of not mattering when objectively searching for truth, you have no idea what my political views are aside from the limited factual information I have written on this site. That is not a good basis for an accusation either way.
MJF, This is the first I have heard of “forming base communities as the center of the Church.” I have only seen it as “church.” Have you any good references where I can read more?
When I read about so many people rallying for the sisters, and see pictures of them, they don’t look like a lot to me. The NY Times sure likes to inflate facts when it comes to liberals. Also, the LCWR doesn’t represent 80% of Women Religious. This,too, is inflated. I have spoken to many sisters who have told me that they have nothing to do with the LCWR. However, if they speak out against them they fear that they will be ostracized and persecuted. Trust me, these LCWR gals are not as holy and caring as they seem to be. They just want power over the Vatican and the Bishops so that they can control the church. Shame on those who speak against our Holy Father and the Bishops in communion with him. And, if you think that child abuse was limited to priests, I can guarantee you that there were just as many cases around women religious. Maybe not sexual, but how many of my friends who went to Catholic School in the 50′s and 60′s were abused mentally and phyically. Nuns bashing boys heads on blackboards or humiliating them in the classroom. Many of my Catholic School friends no longer practice the faith. They had enough of the nuns. Now the LCWR is trying to bash the heads of the Pope and the Bishops to intimidate them into getting what they want. It won’t work. In 20 years they will no longer exist.
The Sister have taught me reading, writing, arithmetic but more especially they taught me and still tech me how to be a disciple of Jesus. When I was a kid growing up corporal punishment was a give in public and Catholic schools, hitting a kid or making a kid write something a hundred times was common in both schools as was making a kid sit in the corner with a dunce cap on. To blame the nuns forcorporal punishment is wrong and unfair.
,Michael Joseph it is from being in solidarity with the oppressed and participating in the struggle that we can best experience and understand the Passover experience and the Pascal mystery of new life in freedom.
Tony — when I was a child, my family had no car, there were times we had no telephone (other times, we had a “party line”), I walked to school, and my family literally received general relief (welfare). My guess is you and Michael Joseph Francisconi never have been as poor as me. Yet, I take positions diametrically opposed to yours and Michael’s. Just doesn’t add up, does it? Unless, of course, we understand that you have a (perhaps well-intended but) misguided position.
Jim, I would say that it is perhaps you who has a well intentioned but misguided position.
are you claiming that Christ did not have a preferential option for the poor? Has someone changed it? Didn’t Pope John Paul II state the same preferential option for the poor?
Hello Michael, your claims have intrigued me and I must ask for more information. Particularly, do you have any evidence or citations for your claims that nuns bashed in people’s heads into blackboards? And how exactly were people humiliated in the classroom?
The priest abuse scandal has finally been handled by courts of justice all around the world. The standard for evidence has been the same for priest suspected of abuse as it would be for any criminal, and no priest has been given an unfair trial in the US as of yet. I don’t, however, hear the same about Catholic nuns, which to me, as I hold myself to be a logical thinker, indicates that the alleged abuse was not as bad as you make it seem, or that it was handled in a much different manner than the priest abuse scandals were.
I look forward to your citations and reply.
Bless you sisters, keep the faith don’t let these patriarchal medieval tyrants, i.e. Bishops who would like to take us back to the bad ol’ days when the Church was the problem. If this continues there will be la another anti-clerical rebellion within the Church like among the poor of Latin America before the advent of Liberation Theology. Keep the faith sisters a lot is riding on your moral courage.
I take exception with your calling the Bishops of the church patriarchal medieval tyrants. I also wish to say that I do not believe that this issue caused by these American nuns will be cause for a anti-clerical rebellion within any congration outside of the United States of America if it even causes such a rebellion within your own borders.
Male Religious Orders frequently get rebuked. (for good reasons) Are the Nuns so frail that they can’t stand reasonable (Faith Based_ ) criticism?
More correctly, Raymond, they are proud, arrogant, flawed sinners. One difference, though: as soon as women are corrected, a bunch of people (certainly including on this site) play the misogynyst card.
Can you point out anybody who has used the word “misogynist” on this website? I’m having trouble finding them, which is odd, seeing as you indicated it was a bunch of people.
I look forward to you substantiating your contribution to the discussion.
Blag — I have been called a misogynyst by TonyW. Other posters may or may not have used that specific word — but even if they didn’t use that word, they have implied that I want to put women down. Using your “logic bat”, Blag, you must realize that, since you missed at least the one certain instance of that charge being leveled at me by TonyW, then you very well may have missed others.
Yes, Jim, I missed that because I haven’t ever seen anybody do that. That’s why I asked for you to provide a link to posts where that happened. You assert that TonyW has – do you have a link to it? That is not something I can easily find with a Google search.
I would also like to point out that you may, in fact, be misinterpreting people’s statements about you. I’m not saying nobody has, all I’m saying is that I haven’t seen it. So, again, if you have citations,
please
post
link.
Thank you.
No, Blad, I don’t remember the specific thread on which that was posted, but it was within the last two or three weeks. Don’t believe me if you don’t want, but then we really can’t have a conversation; because, in essence, you are calling me a liar. I am unequivocally stating that TonyW used the exact term “misogynyst” to characterize me. So, either I am lying or out of my mind or telling the truth.
Blag — I have been called a misogynyst by TonyW. Other posters may or may not have used that precise word — but even if they didn’t use that word, they have implied that I want to put women down. Using your “logic bat”, Blag, you must realize that, since you missed at least the one certain instance of that charge being leveled at me by TonyW, then you very well may have missed others.
Man, the weeds grow quickly on this site.
almondwoodturner, Concerned & Peggy — my dear Protestant brothers and sister in Christ — greeting, fellow Christians. But, as Christians, I’m sure you’ll agree we all value truth. Here is the truth: there is literlly zero difference between you and Protestants, except that you call yourself (and think of yourself) as Catholic. Here’s how it works: (1) Protestants believe salvation comes through Jesus Christ; you believe salvation comes through Jesus Christ (as do Catholics, of course); (2) Protestants decide through their own personal contact with the “Holy Spirit” what is dogmatically true and what is not — and so do you (Catholics, of course, don’t — we understand we are flawed sinners with a dog in the race, if you will — i.e., we do not trust our own concupiscent nature, but rather submit ourselves to the Masisterial teachings of the Catholic Church). Peace, Protestant brothers and siser.
Hi Jim, under what authority do you have to speak for the Catholic church on these matters? Are you a member of the PR team, or do you have some sort of religious employment with the church or affiliated organizations?
Once again Jim shows that he has taken on the role of prosecutor, jury and judge. He decides who is Catholic and who is not. Of course this dicredits any argument that he makes. In his argument above he basically denies some of the gifts of the Spirit given through the Sacraments. It is a real shame he has not learned to use those gifts but instead to simply deny that they exist and are offered to every child of God. It would seem that this certainly goes against the teaching of the Catholic CHurch.
“We must love them both, those whose opinions we share and those whose opinions we reject. For both have labored in the search for truth, and both have helped us in the finding of it.” Thomas Aquinas
If the sisters of the LCWR continue down the same path and refuse to be faithful to the teachings of the Church they will have absolutely no vocations. The LCWR “report” to the Vatican; they are not an independent group of women religious. If we are serious Catholics we do not pick and choose what we believe. The Magisterium is the teaching body of the Church and Jesus Himself told the Apostles the Holy Spirit would lead them. It’s time for the LCWR to allow themselves to be lead by the Church.
The Sisters are being faithful to the church by challenging and sharing their reality and vision with the bishops. The bishops are comfortable with groups on the ultra right like Opus Dei and St Pius X.
But the sisters toil in the real world; rubbing elbows with everyday people; dealing with the grey issues of life. This provides them with perspectives sorely missing in the Vatican, notably women’s points of view. The nuns understand pregnancy; they understand glass ceilings; they live with being marginalized by gender. And they see how related injustices play out in the lives of real people.
The Sisters are a welcome and refreshing and important voice in the church.
but sometimes the hierarchy are not open to the promptings of the Holy Spirit. (we don’t need to go through the long list of histoorical events in the church to know this is true) Jesus said the disciples would be “led” not forced to follow. So in some things the Church needds to step back and discern with an openess to the Spirit and not simply to be right and in charge.
Thanks, dear Catholic sister in Christ. It is nice to have a fellow Catholic posting on this site. These Protestants who were raised Catholic and think of themselves (falsely) as Catholics are getting a little old.
Oh how very judgmental Jim – not mention elite. Once again the judge, jury and executioner – deciding who is and who is not Catholic. Thankfully most people don’t believe you are as grand, holy or powerful as you believe you are. But again, the Pharisees and Scribes thought they knew it all also. Now what did Jesus think of them?
Thank you, that was a wonderful comment.
Hey blag, your agreement with Concerned in her comment to me does not meet your own criteria of the “logic bat” — it is just your opinion that she is right, which is fine by me, but I’m just pointing out that at times you say things that have no evidence to support them.
Jim, I never said I agreed with anything, I simply said it was a wonderful comment. That being said, I do agree with Concerned (see, that is where I said I agree with Concerned) that you act as “the judge, jury and executioner – deciding who is and who is not Catholic” as evidenced by your post above Concerned’s post. Furthermore, I agree with Concerned that you appear to be very much like the Pharisees and Scribes who thought they knew what was important to god and what was not – evidenced by the same post as before. You also come across as judgmental and elitist instead of well reasoned and calm.
Now, what part of that do I not have evidence for? Can you not take constructive criticism well?
Blag — don’t be ridiculous. When a person says another person’s comment was “wonderful”, you can’t tell me they don’t agree with it. And, as you go on to state, you in fact DID agree with Concerned — but of course, I already knew that, and correctly inferred that you did. And, you have not made your point. What I said in my August 03 4:15 P.M. post is that you make statements that are opinions, not based on solid data. And, indeed you did just that — you say I “come across as judgmental and elitist instead of well reasoned and calm” — but you have no evidence for that claim other than your own subjective impression of me — and that is not evidence, that is just your opinion. So, my original statement stands: you don’t observe your own “logic bat” criteria all the time, but rather do make statements that can’t be supported by anything other than your subjective impression of me.
You sheer “Catholic” arrogance is disturbing to me. Try a little humility, it might go a long way. I personally know a couple of the best canon lawyers in the world, and they carry a great deal more humility than you do. Try reading the Holy Rule of St. Benedict.
Father Mark — presuming your comment was directed to me: we need to define “humility” first. If by humility you mean acting as if you’re not sure, well, that’s NOT humility. Humility is a recognition that all gifts come from God, and that we need to be open to his leading. I would agree that I could alter my manner, but frankly, I have been so trashed by others on this site that I need to defend myself. Also, the arrogance of these other posters really bothers me — most of them are actually Protestants, making up their own doctrine, and having the arrogance to assume they know better than the Church.
So, Father, if you want to level a charge of arrogance at anyone (perhaps we need to define arrogance as well), do not level it at me — arrogance is what Eve and Adam did in the Garden — assuming they know better than God (the Catholic Church’s Magisterial teachings).
The Sisters should challenge the church leaders today even as Jesus challenged the Pharasees, the religious leaders of His day.
The sisters could have no greater model than Jesus Himself.
Tony — well, if the sisters model themselves after Jesus, they never would question the hierarchy. Jesus NEVER questioned His Father. For example, when He was in the Garden and was hoping to avoid the crucifixion, He prayed that that requirement be removed (“Let this cup pass away from me”), but He finished His prayer by saying, “Let your will be done.” Jesus was OBEDIENT unto death. These sisters have been very disobedient. The hierarchy has my loyalty 100%.
I can not believe you are putting the hierarchy at the same level as God! I pray the sisters hold fast to what they see as their mission. I have supported the sisters for many years, admire and respect their good work. Wish I could say the same for our clergy, so many of whom deserve prision not respect. Yeah I know Jim that I am doomed in your opinion, but I spend time with a good friend every morning who assures me I am not doomed! Name is Jesus.
Almondwoodturner, Please see Lk 10:16; Mt 28:16-20; Jn 16:13; 1 Tim 3:15; Jn 20:20-23; 1 Cor 11:23-24; Mt 18:17-18; Jn 15:16; Jn 20-21; Mt 16:18-19; Mt 28:20; Is 9:6-7; Jn 21:17; and many more…
Powerful, DonE — thanks much.
Great, now interpret those for us, and explain why the Sister’s interpretation is incorrect. But anybody can post Biblical passages that seem to support anything – I can pull lists of rules from Leviticus that nobody follows today (even self-professed Catholics and Christians), should we use those as a basis to lambast others, or is a bit of interpretation necessary?
On the other hand, we could simply base our morality on something more than an ancient book of tribal wisdom passed down a few generations until written down, translated multiple times throughout history, and interpreted 34,000 different ways nowadays. But that would require thought, introspection, and the courage to stand up for what is righteous and just against the religious current of the present day.
Blag — my fees are $100 / hour to do the work you are requesting.
JIm, come now – the hierarchy equal to God? I believe that is a brand new teaching and not really in line with the example or teaching of Jesus. The Church has certainly not taught that the hiearchy is equal to God. “you know how it is with those in high places – how they lord it over them – making their authority felt – it shall not be so with you.” Someone rather remarkable said that.
Jesus never questioned His Father as His will was perfectly conformed to that of the Father. He most certainly DID challenge Jewish authority’s interpretation of the Father’s will, even knowing the threat to His human life as a consequence. May He grant our nuns the grace to have the same courage.
Here’s the difference, Peggy — the Jewish hierarchy were not granted infallibility by God; the Catholic hierarchy HAS been granted that by God.
Infallibility only pertains to certain things – it does not apply to evrey utterance.
Concerned — that’s true, but it DOES apply to teachings about homosexuality, birth control, and ordination of women — and those are the things we disagree about on this website.
Show me citations from the Bible, or where the church has declared these things ex cathedra and we’ll stop debating the point that the church should change. Otherwise, many people think that the church is, and always has been, quite a bit behind the times on ethics in our rapidly changing world, and that the church would do very well for itself if it was more open to discerning upon whose teachings these beliefs are based, and considering not basing beliefs on that person (eg: Thomas Aquinas) any more.
Blag — read the Catechism for the Church’s definitive teachings on homosexuality and birth control.
Reading the Catechism will do nothing for me if I disagree with the premise upon which it is based, but thanks for trying.
Agreed, Blag.
However, Blag, this makes you not a Catholic. No one is forcing you to believe the Church’s Magisterial teachings — we all have free will, and can even choose to spend an eternity in Hell — but, if you reject what the Church teaches, you are by definition NOT CATHOLIC.
Really – tell me how you make that assumption. Where have I stated my iews on any of those issues. What we disagree about is that you have any authority to judge someone as Catholic or non-Catholic. We disagree that you have the authority to judge or pronounce the status of any persons eternal soul. We disagree that you are the teaching authority of the CHurch. We disagree that you have a clear understanding of the teaching of the CHurch since you only profess blind obedience and have not given any evidence that you digest the teachings and fully understand what the Church has said. We disagree that you have been appointed by God to judge anyone. We disagree that you should not be gloating when someone is accused of something by the church. And for your information, teachings about homosexuality, birth control and ordination of women have never been declared ex cathedra – therefore they can be changed at any time.
Concerned — I appreciate your greater clarity on this particular post. With regard to some of the things you said above: I’m glad to know that (if I understood you correctly) you agree with Church teachings on homosexuality, artificial birth control, and women’s ordination. With regard to your objection that I am judging: judgments are inevitable, and frankly they are useful. For example, I judge that using crack cocaine is not a good thing. I’m sure you’ll agree with me on that. What I DON’T do is judge the degree of accountability the person will have in the eyes of God when they are judged for that sinful behavior. At Luke 17:3, Jesus tells us to rebuke our brother if he sins. Well, if we think it is improper to judge what is sinful and what is not, we never can rebuke someone who is doing something self-destructive. So, again, Concerned, it is important to distinguish between judging behavior and judging degree of culpability for that behavior. So, I do judge disagreement with the inerrant Magisterial teachings to be sinful; I just don’t know how culpable the person is for their disagreement. I assume at least some degree of culpability, at least in most cases; I just don’t know how much.
Jim, if the teachings are truly inerrant, then why haven’t then been professed ex cathedra? Until they are, they can technically be changed at any time, and Concerned’s point on that still stands.
Furthermore, regardless of whether you judge or not, your delivery could probably be better in practically every case. Be less accusatory, try to be more understanding of what people think, and don’t be condescending when they profess their disagreement.
Being a jerk rarely changed hearts and minds – it is also something Jesus never did, and as a self-professed Catholic, I imagine you strive to follow his example and his teachings.
Blag — if I call you a hypocrit in one of my posts, am I being a jerk? Yes or no?
Concerned — no, not a new teaching, but so what if it is? Since you feel at liberty to disagree with the Masisterium whenever you want, then you must grant me the same privilege.
Ugh – terribly judgmental of you Jim. But thanks for admitting that you make things up.
Wow, Concerned, your post is as clear as mud. You label my 1:50 P.M. post “terribly judgmental.” How much are you paying for your crack? Do you hear voices? And, I did not admit to making things up at all — all I said was, that IF I disagreed with the Magisterium, it should not be a big deal to you, because you do it whenever you want.
Jim, please be a good person and play nicely with other people on this website. Don’t imply that others are high on crack or hear voices, because you don’t know what other people have gone through, and your words could be very damaging to somebody who has a friend or relative who abuses drugs or needs psychological help.
I believe the point Concerned was making was that she has some sort of rationale or logical justification for her beliefs when they do not agree with the Magisterium, and yet you have not offered any rational or logical explanation of your own beliefs. So if you disagree with the Magisterium, please include a brief reasoning of _why_ you disagree, so that we can all consider your always thoughtful and insightful comments.
Blag — with regard to the following from your post: “So if you disagree with the Magisterium, please include a brief reasoning of _why_ you disagree” — well, I do not at all disagree with the Magisterim — ever. In fact, I have consistently posted this exact statement on this blog many times over. Enough said.
It’s interesting, Blag, that you drew the conclusion that Concerned likely is a woman — I have been addressing her with masculine pronouns. But, I think you’re right — Concerned is a woman. Now, it needs to be said that I truly do love women — after all, my own mother was a woman, my wife is a woman who has given me something I could not do myself, which is gestate children; and women undoubtedly add a beautiful and refined touch to everything they do. But, that doesn’t change the fact that women also think differently than men — in Pius XI’s 1930 encyclical, Casti Connubii, he correctly called men the head of the family and women the heart. These are the roles for which God has prepared men and women. So, yes, we need women by all means — but, as for men, we need to be cognizant of their limitations.
ah JIm – you have no worthy argument and as always resort to nasty coments about drugs or whatever you can so childishly dream up.
Go to bed, Concerned — and no treat for you tonight. It’s past your bedtime.
I can see, Concerned, that the last thing you want to do is be called judgmental — even though you judge me constantly. Hmmmm, I wonder what it means if someone consistently draws a certain conclusion that is not true. Could it be that the person themselves senses their own judgmentalness, can’t accept it, so accuses others of their own fault?
Jim, do you not realize that by saying “even though you judge me constantly” that you are being judgmental yourself? I suggest you take a leaf from the Bible and turn the other cheek next time somebody does something you don’t like. I believe it was also Jesus who said something about taking the plank out of your own eye before pointing out the splinters in others’ eyes. As you are a self-professed Catholic and Christian, I strongly urge you to consider those words heavily next time before responding.
Additionally, while entertaining for me to watch, your armchair psychology is obviously lacking in a rational base, and could be very off-putting for the intended target. Please consider the feelings of others before writing your accusations of their motives.
You miss my point, Blag. Whether or not I am being judgmental is not the question that was raised. The question is this: is CONCERNED being judgmental? He needs to see his judgmentalness, something he accuses me of. Now, with regard to my judgmentalness: I judge behavior ALL THE TIME, as should you. Indeed, we are commanded to do so by Scripture. What I do not do, though, is judge hearts, against which we also are commanded by Scripture.
if you do judge hearts how do you label people as heretics? If you do not judge hearts how do you make all these baseless, factless claims about certain people? Your own words judge you.
Concerned — again, you don’t have much rationality, do you? You confuse being heretical with being judgmental. Now, I am going to come back at you: are you a teenager? Your logic is about at that level. For example, let’s take your first sentence: “If you do judge hearts how do you label people as heretics?” My goodness, you can both judge hearts and call others heretical simultaneously. Your logic truly isn’t up to speed. Now, to clarify (or at least attempt to) before your confused mind jumps to conclusions (teens are impulsive) — I did not say I judged hearts — in fact, I have explicitly numerous times said the exact opposite — that I NEVER judge hearts. I also have many times said that I DO judge behavior — because we are commanded to do so. Are you able to make this distinction, Concerned? You know, judging behavior but not judging hearts? Your second sentence in the post above:”If you do not judge hearts how do you make all these baseless, factless claims about certain people?” Well, simple answer again, Concerned — you truly don’t seem capable of understanding this very simple distinction — it is perfectly logical and possible to not judge hearts yet make claims about others. For example, I am not (or at least not trying to) judging these heretical sisters hearts; who knows, maybe the superior in their convent is into all these new-age heretical theological positions, and (with some but not complete culpability on their part) they have been influenced over the years and eventually bought into it. So, there easily could be (and very like are) extenuating circumstances that excuses some of their heretical beliefs. But, that doesn’t change the fact that their beliefs are heretical. By definition, these sisters are heretics. If you go to Dictionary.com, look up the definition of the word heretic, and then compare it to what these sisters espouse, it is clear they are heretics. Enough said, Concerned. Honestly, your lack of logic and rationality is stunning. I just spent five minutes or so typing this out to you, but I am virtually certain it was a complete waste of time. I guess it is an amusement to me, though — debating those who have no logic but think they do.
And, with regard to your third sentence: “Your own words judge you” — whether they do or don’t, here’s an indisputible fact: you just judged me with that senten ce: you judged that I am judgmental. Whether or not I actually am judgmental is irrelevant to establishing the fact that you just judged me. So, Concerned, you who like to quote the Scripture about the plank in one’s own eye: stunning that you can consistently accuse me of being judgmental and not see that, in the very act of accusing me, you are judging me (at least my verbal behavior, if not my heart). Concerned, if I don’t reply much to you in the future, please don’t take that as me being incapable of totally refuting your comments. Some people (perhaps yourself) don’t have the heart to learn anything, and they’d rather be wrong while believing they’re right instead of looking honestly at what is said to them, admitting they’re wrong, and changing their ways. I’m not sure how much more of my comments you are worth.
And blag, back at you: did you “consider the feelings of others before writing your accusations of (my) motives”? It also humors me how those things of which I am accussed are being committed by my blind accuser!
there you go trying to flip things again and refusing to look at yourself.
Where have I inferred your motives? I have not done such a thing, and I don’t know how you got that impression from my post. I merely talked about what you had done (your “actions”), and cautioned you from doing so in the future. Nowhere did I infer anything about why you do those things (“motives”).
Also, I’m not blind, so please stop implying that I am.
Thanks and have a great day. Maybe you can read my informative post above, now?
Here’s more entertanment for you, Blag: why didn’t you tell concerned to “turn the other cheek” when he feels I am judging him? Seems entirely one-sided here. And again, I don’t judge hearts anyway, regardless of what you or Concerned or anyone else accuses me of.
You judge every person – but you refuse to see it. You simply try to flip every statement and charge the other person with the same thing. You believe you have the power to charge, judge and convict every person. You do not give any sound, Christian beliefs for doing these things. You attempt to spiritually bully people who disagree with you. You resort to calling people names. All of this indicates that you are denying your own sinfullness while constantly pointing out and celebrating what you believe is the sinfulnesof others.
and really Jim – sob, sob, sob, “tell Concerned to stop picking on me” sob, sob, sob. Are you really an adult? You can dish out plenty but you can’t take it at all. BUt that’s the way it is with bullies. Give them a sharp punch in the nose and they cry and go running.
Concerned — if anyone needed any evidence that you have the emotional maturity of a child, they simply need to read the above post of yours. Honestly, the last time someone responded to me the way you did, I literally think I was a pre-teen, as was the other person. You really are a 13-year-old who has access to his Daddy’s computer, aren’t you?
And, the fact that you think any of your posts have “punched me in the nose” approaches a mental illness — nothing you have said to me in any of your posts represents anything other than confused thinking, illogic, judgmentalness, and myopia (read: plank in your eye).
Actually, here’s another possiblity: you not accessing this blog through your Daddy’s computer: you’re accessing it from the ward of a psychiatric hospital. Go take your medicine, Concerned — it’s time, and the nurses will come looking for you if you don’t go to the nurse’s station right now.
1 Cor 13, The Gift of Love. “Love is patient and kind, love is not jealous or boastful, It is not irritable or resentful, it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right. Love bears all things, hopes all things, endures all things…Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully..but the greatest of these is love. (I am in no way making a judgement, I only wish to remind you: that our Lord commands us to love one another). I am number three, l. God, 2. you, 3. me.
There you go just flipping things again Jim. No real answer so you deflect, change the topic and avoid that plank in your eye.
Concerned, Please see my response to Almondwoodturner, just previous to your post.
Concerned, please see my response to Almondwoodturner, above.
Jesus has my loyalty. The hierarchy are merely men and, as evidenced by their reprehensible behavior of the past few decades, are not due my 100% loyalty, nor anyone else’s. Perhaps they might consider a life of prayer and penance, but as they say, “absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Father Mark — I am assumning by this post that you are not a Catholic priest. If I am correct about that — since this is a Catholic blog — you should inform others in which church you are clergy, so that they are not misled. Truth in labeling, Father Mark.