Mich. nuns ready for showdown with the Vatican
Tags
Related Posts
About the author
Nuns from Michigan and throughout the nation are assembling in St. Louis this week to prepare their response to a Vatican crackdown that criticized their loyalty and accused them of “radical feminism.”
This spring, the Vatican ordered a review of the umbrella group of the nation’s 55,000 nuns, the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, claiming the sisters had gone rogue, focusing on social justice issues and neglecting church teachings on subjects including contraception, abortion and homosexuality.
The rift, which has sparked a split among the faithful and a wave of sympathy for the nuns, is being felt in Metro Detroit.
One of the bishops conducting the Vatican’s review of 400 orders for American nuns is Toledo Bishop Leonard Blair, a former auxiliary bishop for the Archdiocese of Detroit.
The reports are being reviewed by Archbishop Joseph Tobin, a top Vatican official and a native Detroiter who was a priest at Holy Redeemer Catholic Church in southwest Detroit.
Sister Nancy Sylvester said nuns didn’t invite the showdown. She is a former president of the Leadership Conference and former executive director of NETWORK, a social justice group named in the written assessment.
“We don’t teach theology. This was a political assessment, not a faith assessment,” said Sylvester, a member of the Immaculate Heart of Mary religious order in Monroe who now runs the Institute for Communal Contemplation and Dialogue.
The nuns are expected to devise their next step during the Leadership Conference meeting, which runs Tuesday through Saturday. Public vigils are planned nationwide to support the nuns, including Tuesday in Muskegon and Toledo.
Sylvester said she suspects Catholic bishops are unhappy because NETWORK supported President Barack Obama’s health care plan. The church opposed the legislation because it mandates that all employers’ health care plans — including religious groups’ — cover contraception.
“(The bishops) were on the losing side, and now they are upset at us,” said Sylvester.
Detroit Archbishop Allen Vigneron is not commenting on the issue. But on the Archdiocese of Detroit’s website, he writes that he “encourages the faithful to learn the facts” and refers to a commentary from Blair.
The commentary concludes that “someone who subscribes to the teachings of the Catholic Church” will have “legitimate cause for concern about the activities” of the nuns’ group.
Blair’s letter accuses the Leadership Conference of “constantly provid(ing) a one-sided platform … to speakers who take a negative and critical position” of church teachings on the ordination of women and other social issues. [More]
SOURCE
Leave a Comment
Photo Archive
-
May 21, 2013 1:32
Church Whistle-Blowers Join Forces on Abuse
-
May 20, 2013 5:17
Maine Catholic church closing its doors
-
May 20, 2013 5:14
Muslim leaders in US facing challenges inside and outside the faith
-
May 17, 2013 5:43
Archbishop clarifies remarks about Cuomo
-
May 17, 2013 5:40
Fr. Gary Meier goes public with clergy experience
-
May 17, 2013 5:37
Predator priests paid to pray for unsuspecting families
-
May 16, 2013 1:56
Cleanup of Bridgeport, Conn., diocese begins in earnest
-
May 16, 2013 1:38
Archbishop Presses Cuomo Over Abortion
-
May 16, 2013 1:26
Deal reached in Catholic lawsuit
-
May 16, 2013 1:13
N.Y. matriarch moves closer to sainthood
168 Comments
“claiming the sisters had gone rogue”….lol, nothing worse than rogue sisters.
Abortion is not the focus of nuns on the bus, it is the welfare of those who are out of the womb, for a focus on abortion see the Sisters of Life website.
Thank God that there are these two groups of religious women and the work that each does.
Jim, have you followed the trial and conviction of a Philadelphia Monsignor? From the testimony it appears that the previous Cardinal, when apprised of a long list of priests accused of abuse, he ordered the list to be destroyed. Doesn’t that sound as though the Church was more interested in protecting its public face than in finding and helping the abused?
Stephen — without any more information, yes. However, I don’t know what went into the Cardinal’s decision — and until I do, I am giving him the benefit of the doubt. But, for the sake of argument, let’s say that, upon being given adequate information, I conclude the Cardinal made a mistake. Well, the mistake could have been just an error in judgment. When he ordered the list destroyed, I believe it was 1992 or 1993 — and back then, our awareness of the problem of pedophilia was not what it is today. Also, we don’t know what the Cardinal was advised by the experts — maybe they told him these pedophile priests were rehabilitatable. So, again, I am not in a postion to render a judgment about the case. But, let’s go to worst case scenario. Let’s say the Cardinal himself suspected these priests could offend again, and let’s presume further he knew how traumatic sexual abuse can be. Then yes, he made a terrible mistake, one that we should do all in our power to prevent such a mistake from happening in the future. I never claimed the people in the Church were perfect — in fact, I have said the exact opposite — that we all are sinners, including me and including the priests, bishops and pope. However, the dogma of the Church is inerrant.
But, Stephen, even if the Cardinal made an inexcusable, terrible mistake — these nuns on the bus still are heretics. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
For those who haven’t already, look at this nunsonthebus.org website. They pounce all over Paul Ryan but have not one thing to say about all the pro-abortion democrats who pass bills, introduce legislation, and nominate judges who support abortion and other atrocities. These are not true nuns, they are heretics and need to repent or leave the Catholic Church. It is very disturbing to see this photo of them with their fists in the air with no sign of a crucifix either around their neck or as a broach.
Ann — read this post above by Andrew. He is another person on the side of truth. Thanks for your post, Andrew; and thank you for having the courage to call these “sisters” out as being the heretics that they are.
It seldom post an openion on cath news usa. I look at it daily. It has become apparent that a person named Jim has taken over Cath news usa and made it his personal show. It is both surprising and sad that cath news usa continues to allows him to attack others who wish to express the views. It now has become a daily show between jim and Tony as they monopolize the air way of Cath News USA. The few times that I have expressed an openion, Jim had put me down as an un-educated person who needs to be educated. I have never responed to him. doing this would lower my dignity as a catholic. Jim has appointed himself “Defender of the Faith.” Each time one responds to him, he has has won. He has hooked you in. He has the audience he wants which make himself feel important. My suggestion to all concerned is to “Not responded to him, allow him to have his crazyness. To express you views inspite of him.
Joseph Francis you are correct. Jim has made this website a one man show, where he gives his audience his myopic version of the Roman Catholic Church as though he were an authority. I will take your advise and not respond to him and I hope others do the same. I apologies to all for any sense of monopolizing this site.
So, Joseph Francis, here is what I have been called on this blog to date, among other things: “closeted homosexual” (Tony); “psycho” (Tony); “misogynyst” (TonyW), and a great person for Hitler’s army (Ann). And you say I am attacking others. What I do do is dispute what others have said, and I provide evidence from Scripture or the Catechism to back up what I say. Show me where I have called people the kind of names I have been called. You should strive for fairness and a balanced view, Joseph Francis, not your obvioulsy biased version of reality.
1 Tim 5:20 As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear. 21 In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels. Also 2 Tim 4:3 warns us; For the time is comming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accmulare for themselves teachers to suit their own likings and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths…As for 1 Tim 3, I cannot find the verse you mentioned…
Jim see my 9:24 post re: 1 Tim 3
Thanks, dear Catholic Lady, for that research. I particularly like the 2 Timothy 4:3 verse — I think we’re there, and right here on this blog. I may have misread the poster on another blog (I was skimming), but I thought she referenced Scripture that indicated we should not waste too much time on those who are recalcitrant. I do know there is other Scritpural evidence for this; e.g., when Jesus told the apostles that if a town was not receptive to their evangelization, they should go to the edge of the town, shake the dust from their sandals, and move on. All of this posting I am doing here is preventing me from doing other, more important things. I don’t intend to completely abandon this blog, but I do need to spend less time here. But, once you get hooked on these conversations, it’s hard to just quit.
Tony; I have read the whole chapter many times, actually I have studied this Gospel many times along with both the New Testament and the Law and Prophets (Old Testament.)Saint Jerome said,”Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ”. Paul wrote to Timothy (1 Tim 2:12) I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. So! I am in error in having tried to teach you..please forgive me.
Come on Catholic leady., if we take a literal understanding of that we would no honor great Women like Mother Seaton Catherine of Sienna
Tony; I think perhaps mistakenly that Saint Paul was saying that he did not permit any woman to have authority over men, ie; to lord it over adult males within the Church.
Catholic Lady: the “keep silent” part is difficult to misinterpret. It has been empirically established that women think differently than men, and make decisions differently than men. Women consider a lot of interpersonal contextual factors; men tend to make decisions based on what it is or is not. Women have a tremendous role that men never can fill — but that role is not teaching, at least not within the Church. I recognize that women have been the verbal teachers since time immemorial, but it is not their role to be the leaders and articulate doctrine — that is a role God reserved for men.
Catholic Lady — I’m married for many years, and I assume you’re married, so please don’t misinterpret this comment — but women like you are IRRESISTIBLE to men. Unfortunately, the anti-women’s movement of the last 60 or so years has created a women that no man truly can want to care for.
Jim, in no way would I misinterpet your post – my husband went to be with the Lord after a battle with Cancer. I am thankful that I could nurse him in his own home – I hope to meet up with him someday in heaven..
Sorry to hear about your great loss, Catholic Lady; I’m sure you will be with your husband again. My wife sometimes gets upset about the fact that her and I won’t be married in Heaven — she’s afraid I’ll be flirting with the ladies there. But, I tell her in response, “Are you kidding me? Do you really believe I could spend almost all of my life with you here on Earth, and that in Heaven you’ll be just one other person? No way.” I also point out that the Blessed Mother remains Jesus’s mother in Heaven, and their relationship will be eternally special.
Thank you, Jim. I hope that you and your wife are blessed with a long and happy life.
Thanks, Catholic Lady. Being widowed is no fun, and especially tough on men (in the exceptional cases where we outlive our wives). Without my wife, my life would be dramatically different — although Tony and Ann would be pleased to know that, were she to die, I wouldn’t have the motivation or energy to be doing any posting here, at least not for some time. She truly has been the wind beneath my wings, the woman God gave me to be by my side throughout my life, my encourager.
Just so you know Jim — I am happily married with two sons; I simply object to your support of calling the sisters “lesbians” and “feminist heretics”. Tony rightly refers to them as having internalized the values of Vatican II. You may post all you want to the eternal delight of us all!
Here’s the thing, Ann — you walked past my barstool while I was chatting with another poster, and your overheard our conversation. You know, we were speaking like men, and sometimes (all the time?) women object to that. The fact remains that many of these sisters are heretics (go to Dictionary.com), they are feminists (rejecting the role with which God privileged women), and some of them are lesbians (go to Dictionary.com for that one as well). With regard to the charge of lesbianism: as I said earlier, I do not myself know of any specific case; but it would be enormously naive to assume that does not occur, at least on occasion. Just think about how supportive many of these sisters are of gay sex — some of them have publicly supported it, like heretic Farley. One of the reasons for their support: again, very naive to assume none of these nuns are having unnatural relations.
Amen Anne
You accuse me, Ann, of not being in the 21st century. If you hang with me long enough — if you hang on if you can — I’ll bring you up to speed. There are unnatural relations happening all the time. In Faustina’s Diary, Jesus tells her He is very disturbed by what was going on in that Polish convent in the 1920s. Faustina never tells us what that was, but it doesn’t take much imagination to figure it probably is something sexual, either masturbation or lesbian sex. And that was 1920s Poland. What do you think goes on in the convents of these feminist heretics who publicly support gay sex? Do you think they are reading Ligourian Magazine? The Catechism? Scripture? A papal encyclical? Remember, they can’t stand male authority, so how likely is it that they read documents generated by men?
Tells Jim, do any of the ten Coomadments or your Catechism say anything at all about the sin of rash judgement?
Yes, it does, Tony. For example, let us say that I would rashly conclude that you are a “closeted homsexual” or a “psycho.” That would be rash and sinful. Notice, BTW, how careful I was in leveling the charge of lesbianism at some (or at least a few) of these “sisters.” I twice said I did not know of any specific cases; but I offered my considered (non-rash) reasons for suspecting that it occurs at times. None of that is rash, Tony. Perhaps I was rash in concluding that you are a kind man with good intentions; but, I like to give the person the benefit of the doubt. BTW, since you’re getting up in the middle of the night, don’t you think you should hit the hay?
When I do get up in the middle of the night it is to take care of a very sick person. And tonite is not my night so no, I ain’t gotta hit the hay yet.
Tony — here’s a sincere comment: I do respect what you are doing for the sick person. As I’m sure you know, as Matthew 25 tells us, you literally are ministering to Jesus Himself. And, to get up in the middle of the night is a great sacrifice — so, I’m not retracting anything I’ve posted before, but I did want to commend you on what you do. I remember you had told me that previously, and I believe you told me it was your mother — I’m not trying to pry. I had the privilege of caring for my father before he died — I thank God for that opportunity to grow much closer to him than ever would have been possible had I not had that opportunity.
FYI, Tony, I have a lot more on my plate tomorrow, so I won’t be able to so quickly counter your misstatements — please don’t take my silence as agreement with anything you post. In fact, let me enter a default post in response to all of your posts tomorrow: I disagree.
Where do you get this garbage!?
To what garbage are you referring, Dear Ann?
Jim, where do you get this garbage?!
Editor, please note: BTW, Ann, calling my posts “garbage” is not very charitable, and violates the editors’ standards for this site.
And, Ann, combined with your comment yesterday that I would have fit right in in Hitler’s army makes you a repeat offender.
Thre you go again, Jim the innocent victim.
Thanks for taking my side for a change, Tony!
Okay, here’s the deal: I frankly don’t care what Ann or anyone else calls me; I just consider the source of the comment. But, what I don’t like is injustice. The editors have twice called me on my comments, and they have been no more inflammatory than comments made to me. So I say, fair is fair — have the same standard for everyone. So, if you’re going to call me on comments, then call Ann on others on similar comments. Conversely, if you’re not going to call others on their comments, then don’t call me on mine.
TheSe Sisters are women of the Gospel who want to create a safe and respectful envorment where church leaders along with the rank and file can raise questions openly and calmly and search for the truth freely. They hope that all can live freely in the peace and love of Christ.
Remember even Aquinas was held suspect when he tried to Christianize The thought of Aristotle.
Tony — why don’t the sisters open a Catechism if they want to find the truth? I never read anything about them referring to the Catechism, or them saying how it is such an important book. That’s because they are in pursuit of a “truth” that is more pleasing to their selfish and sinful ears — they are in the process of “exchanging the truth of God for a lie” (Romans chapter one).
If you think our faith is limited to a fundamentalist reading of the Catechism Your in worse shae than I thought.
I didn’t say that, Tony — however, the Catechism distills what the Church teaches, so I couldn’t find a better source for obtaining truth than the Catechism.
I appreciate your insights Tony. It seems one can’t express an opinion on this site without Jim judging according to his own narrow definiton of what a Catholic should be and believe. Jim and his narrow views seem to make up his church of one — himself. Thanks for your insights Tony. Try some openness and toleration for others’ understading of the issues Jim. You seem so narrow and closed.
Thank you Anne, I think we all should be welcomed to comment here without being badgered. It seems to me that many people find the truth of what the Sisters say threatening. I really believe the Sisters have taken the teachings of Vatican II and internalized them and made it and the Gospels part and parcel of who they are.
Thanks, Tony. I will look forward to not being badgered. For example, some poster within the last hour said of me that I am in “worse shape than I thought.” Hmmm, can’t remember who that was, but that wasn’t very nice. Also, Ann just accused me of belonging to a church of one, and she intended to insult me by calling me narrow (she inadvertently complimented me). A day or two ago, Ann also said I would fit right in with Hitler’s army. Now, I’ve never leveled such a heinous charge at either you or her or anyone else. So, indeed, let’s quit badgering each other.
Oh cut the baloney Jim, quit playing the victim all the time.
I simply idicated Jim that your support of blind obedience without discernment paved the way for authoritarian dictatorship and would have served H’s army well; as for your narrow interepretation as being on track, I indicated that we are not trains but human beings given consciences by God and formed in relationship with God and others. You are hardly a victim; you are being called out because you support name calling of the sisters as “heretical feminists” or “lesbians.”
Name calling implies an unwarranted slur, Ann — but indeed, these “sisters” are true heretics, and they are true “feminists” who reject God’s plan for women (they actually are misogynysts without knowing it — they think the plan God has for women is so inferior to the plan He has for men that they want to take on masculine roles). With regard to being lesbians: I will bet you anything that several of these sisters are having lesbian relationships. It is absolutely the case that what they call the “women’s movement” really was led by a bunch of lesbians who rejected God’s plan for them to have children and stay home and raise them.
Oh nice some of the Sisters are actively involved in lesbian relationships. You are one sick puppy Jim.
“One sick puppy” — how would you feel, Tony, if I said that about you? Really, now, I know this is just an internet blog, but I am asking you sincerely to ask yourself how you would react if I said that about you.
I don’t like any man calling women lesbians. That is unacceptable.
Not at all unacceptable, Tony — look up “lesbian” at Dictionary.com, then compare the definintion to what some of these “sisters” are doing. I don’t know first hand of any lesbian relationships, but to assert that no lesbian activity is occurring is complete naivete.
People like yourself, people who profess to be Christiansdon’t go calling women lesbians. It just isn’t acceptable in polite company.
Tony — hmmm, I wasn’t aware this was “polite company.” So far, I’ve been called a “closeted homosexual” (by you), a “psycho” (by you), a misogynyst (by TonyW), and a great fit for Hitler’s army (by Ann). You call this politie company? I call this an absolute attack on me — but, unfortunately for you and all of the other posters, you’ve picked on the wrong guy. I can and will defend myself. Your only recourse will be to do what Concerned does (ooops, I forgot all about her mud-slinging) — to be completely illogical, so that there literally is no sense in continuing the conversation.
Jim — do you even live in the 21st century? Have you read any theology since before Vat II?
No, Ann, I do not live in the 21st century — my goal is to live in the eternal now. With regard to reading theology: the time I went to a Catholic university and took the required theology courses, I came as close as I’ve ever come to being an out-and-out atheist. Eucharistic Adoration, the Mass and Eucharist, the Rosary, frequent Reconciliation, the Divine Mercy Chaplet (hmmm, now THAT’S post-Vatican II) and reading great spiritual material at Adoration is more than anyone ever could need. I’m not interested in reading a heretic’s questioning of God’s truth. For example, I recently read that some Notre Dame priest called Eucharistic Adoration a hinderance — that man is dangerous and needs to be silenced. With theologians like him, who needs the devil?
Stop representing yourself as the authroity on all things Catholic. You are one person, with one opinion. You do not speak for God or the Church but youself. Your interpretation of Scripture and Church teaching is your own and needs to be recognized as such. It must be said however, that your “Eternal Now” is a bit pre Vatican II with phrases like “magisterial church.” The people of God are the church, and if we are magisterial you need to stop calling us names — certianly toward the sisters.
Ann — “Magisterial” is most definitely in current use — maybe not by the people you read, but then if so you are reading the wrong people. Also, “eternal now” is pre-Vatican II? No way. God doesn’t change, Ann. And, with regard to the people being Church: well, as Jesus said, He is the vine, we are the BRANCHES — there is NO life outside of Him. So, when these errant heretics leave the vine and branch out on their unsustainable own, I stick with the vine. Call that pre-Vatican II if you want, I don’t care — I call it wise and it leads to eternal salvation. With regard to calling women names: I don’t do that. If you are a lesbian, however, then you are a lesbian — case closed. Also, indeed, as detailed in Pius XI’s Castii Connubii, God has different roles for men and women. It’s funny, but women typically are the misogynysts — they reject the female role as being inferior to the male role, and then try to adopt a male role. Women never will make good men — your femininity follows you even into eternity — a woman on Earth is a woman in Heaven (or a woman in Hell). Why would you question God’s wisdom? Why would you follow a bunch of bra-burning lesbians who rejected their feminity as they tried to redefine feminiity? I follow Jesus Christ.
Thank you Anne for articulating what I think. I’m sick and tired of Jim and his know it all manner.
Translation of Tony’s post: “I’m sick and tired of Jim being able to respond in a way that completely handcuffs me. I can no longer post on this blog and expect to not be held accountable for my posts. I have to be able to defend my indefensible positions.” I understand, Tony — Advil may help with that headache. But I have an even better remedy — break out the Catechism or Scripture and debate me from definitive Church teachings. If you can show me something the Church teaches that contradicts what I have posted, I will stand corrected.
So Tony, your 4:10 P.M. post: might that not be interpreted that you are feeling victimized? If so, why do you wish to accuse me of what you were the first person to say? I didn’t bring the topic up — you did.
What pleasure do you get out of the game you are playing? Comment on the substance if the article and stop with your nimby pamby balcony and stop making problems for yourself where thre aren’t any.
Tony — is your 4:20 P.M. post substantive? You know, the one that says “Oh cut the balony Jim, quit playing the victim…” So, my post, which you are rebuking, was simply responding (substantively, I might add) to your non-substantive attack on me. It truly is amazing that you cannot see that what you accuse me of is precisely what you are guilty of.
Ok Jim if it makes you happy I am guilty, all that I am asking is that you leave me alone and stop badgering me. If I post something it is my opinion I don’t need you to comment on everything I say. You are becoming annoying,
Okay, Tony, I understand what you said. However, I don’t know if I can abide with not commenting on your posts — first of all, your posts truly annoy me — they are like a buzzing fly that needs to be swatted. Second, as you yourself have said many times, we should be able to come here and express ourselves — but now you are telling me you want to be able to express yourself, but you don’t want me to express myself. That is not a fair arrangment.
If you don’t want me to say anything to you, then don’t post any more commments.
I will post all I damn please.
You’re on, Tony — so will I.
I’ve never “posted” here before and do not know of rules for length, etc. but I’ve “sat on my hands” long enough during all of this controversy surrounding LCRW and the magisterium. As far as I know , there has not been neither a response to the Vatican findings from the LCRW nor a substantive meeting between them and the representative members of the Magisterium: Seattle Archbishop J. Peter Sartain, Bishop Leonard Blair of Toledo, Ohio, and Bishop Thomas John Paprocki of Springfield, Illinois. Some may state, without reserve, that there is no need for discussion for the Vatican report was too damning in its criticism and “heads need to roll.” Unfortunately for this solution, we have a “pesky” parable of Jesus which speaks of condemnation without offering the possibility of reconciliation: The prodigal son(Luke 17:11-32). For clarity purposes, start with Luke 15:1-3(I’ll be using the translation found on the USCCB website). If we step back a bit and look at this parable both from “Lectio Divina”, letting the Holy Spirit inspire us to a deeper meaning and from Saint Ignatius of Loyola whose feast day was July 31, a Ignatian contemplation view(placing ourselves in this scene). We have the Pharisees, complaining about Jesus, saying, “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.” I can only imagine the stunned look on Jesus’ face as he, again, witnesses the pharisees “labeling:” to dismiss people as not being important or below their notice: as “sinners, tax collectors, etc.” We, on the other hand, use labels: “radical feminists,” “heretics,” “liberals,: “conservatives,” etc. Jesus goes on to tell three parables: the lost sheep, the lost coin and the “lost son”(which we all know as he prodigal son). This son strayed from the father and we assume ignored his teachings, made his own rules, lived his own life until disaster fell: famine or in this case, a damning report. What are the son’s choices: stay away, stay angry, despairing that there is no way home, or, as in the parable, reflect on what happened, what went so terribly wrong and return home and ask forgiveness and understanding. Well… the father always watched patiently for his return and not only welcomed him home but celebrated his homecoming. After the he reminds the father of his faithfulness and his brother’s unfaithfulness, the father says to him(and us) “My son, you are here with me always; everything I have is yours(if only the pharisees and other “labelers” heard and understood this part in verse 31), “But now we must celebrate and rejoice, because your brother was dead and has come to life again; he was lost and has been found.’”
I pray that this situation may end in a joyful celebration!!
Mike — two points: it is one thing to eat with sinners; it is another thing entirety to tell the sinners that they can follow their own malformed conscience and continue to sin. This is precisely what these heretical sisters are doing. Point two: indeed, it would be nice if the sisters reconciled. Notice that the Prodigal Son came to his senses, saw the truth, repented, and asked for forgiveness. While I too hope that happens for these heretics, unfortunately there appears to be no signs of their apology and repentence.
When Hidergard, challenged the male clergy to live the Gospel was she Judgemental. Get off your little soap box Jim.
Geeze, Tony, I thought it was a BIG soapbox!
If these “sisters” are so great then how come their average age is 70-something and they have no vocations? In my Diocese, we are blessed to have an order of Adoration Sisters who are flourishing with vocations. Clearly, the Adoration Sisters who know something that the feminists do not. I stand behind the call to reform the LCWR: the Church has been more than patient with these women over the years. I pray they will accept the reform (as per their vow of obedience) but should they reject, then the time has come for them to unfortunately leave the Catholic Church.
Andrew, I agree 100% with your take on these so called sisters, by name only. You just have to look at them and see what they really are.
If the people (viz. Jim) took the time spent arguing back and forth on this website and invested the time in practicing the corporal works of mercy; that is, DOING something for the poor and disenfranchised, the world and the Catholic Church would both be better for it. Isn’t this what Jesus wanted? Why spend all this time and effort on the disagreement between the nuns and the bishops?
Scott — of course, you don’t know what I do for a living — although admitedly, I have spent much too much time posting here. Believe me, my output will diminish, if not to zero, then only to the time I have for entertainment, as this has become entertainment for me. I originally began to post because I was shocked by what I was reading here — people who think of themselves as Catholic, but all they do is attack the Church — and frankly, it rankled me, and I set out to defend the Church. I will tell you, my own wife has complained about the amount of time I have spent posting, and she and you are right — so again, it won’t continue forever. In part, this is for me a study in human behavior — how certain posters, perhaps the majority, are stunningly illogical and / or misinformed. It’s hard for me to understand how someone can look at the definition of the word “heretic”, for example, and then tell me these errant “sisters” aren’t heretics — it boggles the mind!
Jim seems to be the only member of his “Catholic” church. He is a church of one!
Not true at all, Ann — look around, quit being mypoic. I know many Catholics who believe as I do. But, you know, it’s the company you keep — you should read Psalm 1:1, BTW, for guidance about the company you keep. So, it is very likely most of your friends think like you. We know that people gravitate to those who share their values, and, since you have the values you do, I imagine your friends would wag their heads at me as well. I don’t care one iota, Ann, since none of you will be judging me in the afterlife. I have but one boss, and, by the help of His grace, I intend to please Him. The more you hate me, the more merit I obtain.
But for the record, Ann, I don’t wish Hell on you or anyone else — I hope all arrive safely in Heaven. Unfortunately, as we learn at Matthew 7:13-14, few find the narrow gate.
This is what happens when the bishops try to prevent discussion of issues which requires discussion. Invoking the “church dogma” option was a choice that many bishops did not and do not believe in, and the few bishops who spoke publicly have been “disciplined.”
And so we plod on, while the stones cry out . . .
So Florian, do you have reliable data to back up your claim htat “many bishops” do not believe in the option of invoking church dogma? Of course you don’t, yet you’ll post that as if it is a fact. And, Florian, do you really believe dialog can change God’s mind about the Truth?
Why is it that I am morally obligated by virtue of my Baptism to speak the truth in matters of faith and morals as Christ has taught through the scriptures and the teachings of the Apostles, but the “good” nuns are not? All this is for these nuns is a power struggle so that they have the authority to change the constant teachings of the church to pure relativism because this allows people to do whatever they want. As some of these nuns already said, they intend to go beyond Jesus and the Church. Now this is “Heresy.” By the way, the LCWR does not represent the majority of women religious. Only a small portion. Actually, it’s not enough even to make note of. Within 10 yrs. their orders will die out and the Faithful Religious will continue to grow. Too bad they sold their soul to Obama with whom they replaced Jesus. Obama has become their true Messiah. Oh! Am I judging? You betcha!
Thanks, Michael. Honestly, the aggregate of the posters on this Catholic blog “don’t impress me much”, to quote Shania.
Michael — I’m looking for a quote from Scripture — I think it might be in 1 Timothy — that instructs us to present the truth once or twice, and if not received, then move on. I want some peace about moving on from this blog — I want to come here just for entertainment, as it is truly impressive to see most of these posters run around in circles and bounce off each other.
I suspect Religious life will see a decline in all areas as moe and more people realize their call to holiness as expressed in the Document on the Laity of Vatican II.
Right, Tony — more and more people are realizing their call to holiness, as evidenced by the growing support for gay marriage, and the very sizeable number of children now born out of wedlock (40% as of 2007 according to the CDC). If anyone thinks society is getting holier, they have a hole in their head!
My point was that one does not have to beome a Priest or Sister or Brother or Permanent Deaceon to be holy, all are called to holiness as stated in the Document on the Laity of Vatican II.
Agreed, Tony, and I do think that is a good influence from Vatican II. I was an altar server at pre-Vatican II Masses, so I do rememeber the Church back then. And, I agree that the Church did not sufficiently emphasize the imminence of God and our friendship with Him. I hope that “mroe and more people realize their call to holiness” — but unfortunatly, most of the evidence is to the contrary, and it corresponds with a decline in appreciation for the authority of the Church and her Magisterial teachings.
Great post Mike. To the point and completly fitting.
I would encourage the writer, esp of the headline, to examine the language of the LCWR leadership’s responses to this dilemma. They are not framing it as a “showdown” but a time calling for dialogue. Claim the confrontational spin that you are putting on their position.
Garbage media always does that, Maz. Truly, almost all media are despicable.
They want a showdown like all radical femenists and even Lesbian groups. I’m not saying these sisters are lesbians or connected with them in any way shape or form. However, they are radical femenists and a long, long way from being Catholic Nuns, which they are not. Just a bunch of leftist Obama loving radical old ladies.
Tha vatican has stained many times throughout history. Keep your eye on Jesus and where thr fruit is manifested in God’s work. The hierarchy isn’t looking too favorable lately
Sylvester’s comments, as rendered in this story, are outrageous. I look for a speedy and strong Vatican rebuke of this grossly disobedient, proud, ungrateful heretic.
Jim, I thought you didn’t judge people.
Hey Tony, I don’t know how many times I will have to keep repeating myself. Here’s is what I DO judge: behavior (and, as an extension of behavior, works). Here’s what I DON’T judge: hearts — that is, if you are a crack cocaine addict, I can’t judge how much culpability you have for your crack addiction. But I certainly can and should judge the fact that continuation of the addiction will be to your destruction.
Sorry, the 10:46 post should read: “and, as an extension of behavior, WORDS” (not works)
In labeling someone a heretic you have judged that person, not behavior. You judge people constantly. You act in the same way as the Pharisees and Scribes. Jim – the prosecitor, judge, jury and executioner. Look, in your eye, it’s that darn plank again!
Concerned — truly, you are illogical. Look up the definition of “heretic” at Dictionary.com, then compare it to what these “sisters” are doing, then come back and talk to me.
who gave you the power to label them heretics? You have judged them. Then you deny that you do. Then you justify that you have judged them. H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y!!!!!
Concerned — did you look up the definition of “heretic” at Dictionary.com? No, of course you did not. If you do, you will find that these errant “sisters” precisely meet the definition. So, let’s say I’m walking down the street, and I see a child’s wagon. If I say to you, “that’s a wagon,” are you going to accuse me of judging the wagon to be a wagon? Of course not. Well, in calling these heretical “sisters” heretics, I am following the exact same process — I am labeling reality correctly.
flawed – a waon is a wagon – it does not have to do anything to be deemed a wagon. To label someone a hereitc requires judgement – one can not look at a person and see any discernable evidence that they are a heretic. I am sure no one can simply look at you and see a hypocrite.
But, vision is not the only evidence by which to judge something. Obviously, heretics don’t look a certain way, so I can’t judge them visually. So, how will I judge a heretic? I will look at what they say, see if it departs from what the Church teaches, and if it does, by definition they are heretics.
and you therefore judge them by your evaluation – not necessariy the truth. And you are judging what is in their hearts. You want it both ways and it just points to the flaws of your judgments
Not by my evaluation, Concerned. It is a very simple process. I go to Dictionary.com, I look up the meaning of the word “heretic”, which is anyone who disagrees with Church teaching. Then, I compare that definition to what these errant “sisters” say, and I find they disagree with Church teaching. Therefore, the conclusion is inescapable (except for those with planks in their eyes): these “sisters” are heretics.
that is again the hypocrisy of your judgments. It only applies when you want it to apply. If someone points out that the bishops were heretics for allowing priests to abuse – it becomes a whole different set of rules. But you can’t escape the hypocrisy of your judgmental and bullying nature
Concerned — please try to think straight. If a bishop knowingly allowed a priest to abuse — which is grossly, grossly wrong — that still does not represent heresy, although it represents the gravest of sins. Look at what Dictionary.com says, Concerned — if we are going to use words to communicate (rather than, for example, hand signs), then we need to agree on the definitions of words. My characterization of these “sisters” is correct — they precisely meet the definition of heretic.
Concerned — but I must say, you look good in red. (What does that mean?)
Yes a wagon is a wagon and a heretic is a heritic. Pay attention to what you are saying
Thanks, Roy — unfortunately, Concerned is having the most difficult time grasping this very simple idea.
So, Tony, recently, after ingestion of carrot juice, I posted something positive about you: I said, among other things, that I think you are a kind and well-intentioned man. But, like me, you are not perfect. And, in your imperfection, you have been led into error: supporting these sisters while trashing the Vatican.
The Sisters cannot expect to be responsible to teach the Catechism of the Catholic Church and ignore it at will. God bless the Sisters and find a way to forgive them for their dissatisfation with their life in the Church.
Raymond — God is right now blessings these sisters, by calling them on the carpet. As we learn in Hebrews chapter 12, God disciplines those He loves.
it’s the Bishops & the Curia who’re outside “current canonical structures” through their persistent cover-up of global clergy sex-abuse (Read: conspiracy) AND their pandering to the Holocaust-denying anti-Semitic Lefebvrites?
I fully support the Sisters.
Yeah, I can see clearly where you would support a bunch old femenist heretics.
Name caller!
Paragraph 844, Catechism: “In their religious behavior, however, men also display the limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them: Very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and served the creature rather than the Creator.” That’s you, Tony: you have become vain in your reasoning, and have exchanged the truth of God for lie. You are serving the creature rather than the Creator.
Hoe dare you judge me Jim….
Tony — I’m just taking seriously the command of my leader at Luke 17:3, to rebuke my brother who sins. Also, I am taking seriously the command of God the Father at Ezekiel 33:7-9, who tells all of us that if we don’t attempt to correct a wayword person, they will die in their sin, but He will hold us accountable for their destruction.
while you ignore – judge not lest you be judged. Very convenient to misuse Scripture to suit your needs.
Not to mention that you somehow believe you get to judge what is to be dismissed (Sex abuse scandal, cover up by Bishops and Vatican) and what does not. If you say that Ezekiel 33:7-9 is your model, then how have you applied it to the behavior of the Bishops and Vatican in the cover up of those priests who abused so many?
Concerned — I don’t know all the facts about the “cover-up” to which you and others frequently refer. And, here’s a news flash: neither do you. Unless you personally have reviewed reams of documents, what you have done is taken the trash spewed by the liberal media, who clearly hate the Catholic Church — after all, most in the media are atheists and liberals — this has been empirically established by surveys of those in the media. So, what you “know” is what has been served up by a grossly-biased media — essentially, propaganda. I don’t believe any garbage from ANY media outlet except Fox News and the Wall Street Journal.
and you don’t know all the facts about the Sisters or anyone else that you judge. You go on news reports. You have no personal knowledge. Again your words point out the hypocrisy of your actions.
I go on multiple news reports, Concerned. When the media take pictures of these “sister” on a bus, and when Sylvester says in this article that the bishops are on the losing side, either the reporter is making up reality, or I have smoking-gun evidence that Sylvester and her ilk are disobedient heretics.
But you do not know all the facts – you tell others that point out all the smoking gun evidence of the abuse – received from many news sources and independent agencies with nothing to gain – that they can’t judge because they are not personally knowledgeable about the facts, but you the high and mighty grand inquisitor, are able to do what you tell others not to. Now let’s see what word comes to mind to describe your actions……
Concerned — unless I miss my guess, I’m getting the impression you don’t like me!
Oh well, you can’t please all the people all the time.
Now, Concerned, back to the argument: intially, this back-and-forth between you and I about not knowing all the facts started when I pointed out to you that you did not know all the facts about the alleged cover-ups by the hierarchy. So, that puts that issue on the table. Now, notice what you did at that juncture: rather than addressing my point, you instead put a second issue on the table: the extent to which I am familiar with all of what these heretical “sisters” have said. You accuse me of deflecdtion, but truly, we have smoking-gun evidence right here of how you would not comment on my charge, but rather came back with a charge against me. You know, Concenrned, you’re actually starting to endear yourself to me a little — just a very little, but a little. I can see you truly can’t think straight. You may or may not have a good heart — but your thinking leaves something to be desired. I’m sure you can find some sympathetic girlfriends.
Concerned — so, how can one reconcile the verse you quote with Luke 17:3 and Ezekiel 33:7-9? You can’t reconcile them, of course — but I can. The judging to which Jesus was referring at when He commanded us not to judge was to not judge the HEART of the person. Again, at Luke 17:3 He Himself clearly commands us to rebuke sinners — so, you need to account for that verse, Concerned. Hmmm, the word “plank” keeps popping in my head — I wonder why?
Plank keeps popping in your head because I have pointed out the enormous plank in your eye on many occasions. But you continue to be in denial trying to simply deflect your actions on to someone else.
How did you sleep last night, Concerned?
to call someone a heretic is to judge their heart – you have decided that they intentionally desire to be heretical. You do not know what is in their heart – but you judge them as though you do. Sounds very pharisaical
Wow, now that’s a leap in logic, Concerned — never did I comment on the degree of intentionality of these heretical “sisters.” I do believe they have some culpability, but I don’t know how much. As I’ve posted previously, maybe their superior and the other sisters in the convent got into a bunch of New Age garbage, and it was easy for them to get off track. So, notice, I am NOT commenting on the degree of their intentionaly — but I AM commenting on their beahvior and their words — and they meet the definition of “hereic” at Dictionary.com.
you do not know what is their heart – and you judge them.
I can make a judgment about verbal behavior without judging a person’s heart, Concerned. That is not a complex, difficult-to-understand distinction, Concerned — or at least it shouldn’t be.
Jim: If I say to the wicked,’You shall surely die’, and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, in order to save his life, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood. I shall require at your hand…..Ezekiel3:15–
Indeed, Catholic Lady — I couldn’t find that reference in Ezekiel 13, but it definitely is at Ezekiel 33:7-9 — exactly what you are quoting.
Jim: Ezekiel 3:18: If I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die’. and you give him no warning from his wicked way, in order to save his life, that wicked man shall die in his inquity; but his blood. \i shall require at your hand.
Thanks for that verse, Catholic Lady — it encourages me. There is a very similar verse in Ezekiel at 33:7-9. However, I saw on another blog a verse from — I believe it was 1 Timothy 3, but I need to check it out — that if you’ve presented the truth a number of times and the person continues to reject it, you leave them alone and move on.
Oops, Catholic Lady, I see now I misread your initial post, where you did indicate the verse was from Ezekiel 3, not Ezekiel 13.
I would hope that on this site I may cooment and state my truth as I see it without being personally badgered.
Okay, Tony — I was just saying “good morning” to you. I guess you don’t take your coffee strong.
the sisters have Jesus’ example on theirs and his Scriptural admonition (Luke 20:46-47) about teachers of the law: “Be on guard against the scribes, who like to go around in long robes and love greetings in the marketplaces, seats of honor in the synagogues, and places of honor at banquets. They devour the houses of widows and, as a pretext, recite lengthy prayers. They will receive a very severe condemnation.”
Tony — I do not assert all in the Catholic hierarchy are perfect — in fact, just the opposite: we all are sinners. So, I also believe some in the hierarchy are guilty to varying degrees of what you have charged. But, you can’t generalize from a few bad apples and then throw the baby out with the bathwater.
A few are you living on another planet
Joe — do you have hard data that you yourself have gathered about this issue? Of course not — what you’ve done is made a judgment from media accounts — which are guaranteed to be biased against the Catholic Church and the Vatican hierarchy in particular. To illustrate the media bias: look at this story. The author says the “sisters” have lots of support, but nowhere does the author say the Vatican has tons of support — yet they do. The media are despicably biased in a negative direction against the truth.
Jim the scandal has rocked 80 % of the church in America alone . not to mention Ireland need I go on. The dollar figures in suits has bankrupted several doceses. I know what the media does to the truth but that doen’t mean I will stick my head in the sand and accept that this is all media Hype
Joe — tell me where that 80% figure you quote comes from, and tell me to what it refers.
Is it not great to know that Jesus loves us and can teach us humility, faith, and trust in spite of our conceit and arrogance? Yet He is gracious and teaches us in a loving way. He does not push us too much. Peter put his faith into action when he OBEYED Chirst’s call to walk on water. Few of us get to test our faith in such a dramatic way or bother to test our faith in any way at all.
Jim, well said. You appear to be an intelligent person, keep it up. Tony needs to wake up and smell the coffee.
I’m losing hope with him, Roy — it just amazes me how some people can look at the sky on a clear day at midday, and deny that that yellow ball is a sun. Posting on this blog has been a real study for me of the irrationality of many humans.
The Sisters are like the Prophets challenging the leaders of the Church to really live the Gospel, to work for the poor and the marginalized, to minister to those who really need to be ministerd to.
That seems to me to be a faithful response in immitation of Jesus.
Tony — if what you say is true, that is quite “judgmental” (there’s that ubiquitous word again) of the sisters, to challenge the “leaders of the Church to really live the Gospel” — if that is what they are doing, they are very judgmental indeed — and also, at least in many cases, very wrong.
And so when Catherine of Sienna challenged the Pope to go back to Rome was she too Judgemental?
No, Tony — but these “sisters” don’t in any way resemble that great and holy saint. Catherine of Sienna would have wacked these heretical “sisters.”
I agree Jim – these sisters do not even resemble their counteparts through out the Catholic world of 2012
I appreciate your insights Tony. It seems you can’t express an opinion on this site without Jim judging you according to his own narrow definition of what a Catholic should be and believe. As I said earlier, Jim and his narrow views seem to make up his church of one — himself. Thanks for your insights Tony. Try some openness and toleration for others’ understanding Jim. You seem so narrow and closed.
Ann — with regard to being judgmental — wasn’t it you who, just the other day, said I would have fit right in with Hitler’s army? And you’re calling ME judgmental? There’s a plank in your eye, dear Ann.
No I was just observing that you had the requirement for being in Hitler’s army. Just an observation given your worship of blind obedience without any discernment
So Ann, if I said something similar about you or Tony or anyone else, do you think there’s a chance you might have perceived such a comment to be judgmental? Be honest now, Ann — you know, God sees EVERYTHING you and I do, and He will hold you accountable some day. You don’t want to add one more infraction to your list of infractions, do you?
And Ann, with regard to me being “narrow” — thank you for that compliment. That tells me I am on the right track. See Matthew 7:13-14 for a greater understanding of why I am saying this.
We are not trains; we are human beings with moral consciences given by God and formed by our relationship with God and others.
Our conscience, Ann, is to be formed from understanding the truth of God as taught to us by the Catholic Church. You can follow whatever pied piper you want — “as for me and my house, we will worship the LORD.”
Organic Wart Elimination Suggestions To Take Into Account
Tony: Mathew 7:15-23
How bout reading the whole chapter on the beatutifes