Vatican showdown the latest chapter in Sister Pat Farrell’s dramatic life
Tags
Related Posts
About the author
Though she is at the center of one of the biggest crises in the Catholic Church today, Sister Pat Farrell is loath to talk about herself, and certainly not in any way that would make her a focus of the looming showdown between the Vatican and American nuns.
To be sure, Farrell has spoken publicly and with quiet clarity about why the organization she heads, the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, rejects Rome’s plans to take control of the umbrella group that represents most of the 57,000 nuns in the U.S.
In announcing its proposed takeover last April, the Vatican accused the nuns of embracing a “radical feminism” that questions church teachings and focuses too much on social justice causes. Farrell says the American sisters are simply doing what the gospel requires, often speaking on behalf of so many in the church who have no one else to advocate for them.
The high-profile confrontation will reach another crucial pass next week (Aug. 7-10) when LCWR members gather in St. Louis to develop a formal response to the Vatican’s plans. Options run the gamut from complying with all of Rome’s directives (unlikely) to decertifying the group and re-establishing it outside of the pope’s control (a possibility). [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
27 Comments
Ann, your comment makes me feel sick! I am not in the least bit impressed by it.
Thank you Jim for a calm and considered reply. Yes, I believe the deeper truths of the bible. My original post was in direct response to your stating that original sin entering the world through Eve (name meaning life). I was concerned that you were taking the story literally and suggesting that it was through women that original sin came into the world. That may not have been your intention. If Adam and Eve is not a literally true story, how do we account for original sin? It is a confection. I reject a lot of what Matthew Fox has to say, but I think he has something to offer with the notion of original blessing. Yes there is sin in the world, but it is not the result of actions by a woman called Eve. John Dominic Crosson said something similar to “were the Jewish people so silly that they did not know what they were saying, or are we so silly that we don’t know what they meant.” They had to account for evil in the world, and the story was the vehicle for relating that fact. Without Adam and Eve, how can original sin be explained? Faith permits not knowing, it even embraces mystery that is beyond us, and I am very happy with this. I don’t want my religion to “have all the answers.” However, It can be a little dangerous to hold that things are true because The Church says so. I buck against all enlightened thinking, but I also reject blind obedience in the face of compelling arguments to the contrary. Blind obedience and faith, to me, are diametrically opposed. Thanks for the calm discussion … We need to state our positions without trying to disparage the other. We are all of God.
David — “I also reject blind obedience in the face of compelling arguments to the contrary” — well, all the great saints have been blindly obedient — including the Blessed Mother, when she obediently accepted God’s request she be the mother of God, even though she knew not man. This made no sense to her — but she did it anyway. If you believe the Church’s Magisterial teachings are inerrant — and I do — then it is not for me to question God. There will be time in Heaven for understanding more fully why God does what He does, but, as you say, there are mysteries that, at least on Earth, we never will understand, and just have to accept through faith. Faith, by definition, is blind — if I can understand something, then it is not faith, it is knowledge. One other point: “compelling arguments to the contrary”: I don’t know specifically what you are referring to here — if it is the story of how sin entered the world other than through Adam and Eve, you haven’t stated any compelling arguments to the contrary.
These nuns need to be excommunicated. They are trying to set up a “shadow” church separate from the Vatican and magisterium.They have covertly been doing that for many years and thankfully the Vatican has called them on it.They just simply need to go. If they are excommunicated they will attack the Church for a few years then just fade away from the Churchs attention. Perhaps they could go to work for Obama like all the other bad catholyks did?(deliberate spelling)
Thank you for your kind thought and positive statements.
Thank you, Diane — you hit the nail on the head; you knocked the ball out of the park. Throw all these bad apples out. If Sister Mary Immaculate’s post was a sarcastic post (in other words, if she agrees with the LCWR), then she needs to go too.
Jesus Said: “As the Father has loved me, so I have loved you; abide in My love.” And again: “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you”.
I appreciate that I am at variance with the Church on this one. However, using logic, if the Adam and Eve story is not literally true, then the notion of original sin coming from Eve’s willful disobedience has no grounding. This is a small example of the Church heirarchy teaching something in error. I am a faithful Catholic (I know you will challenge this), but there are bigger things than 100% obedience to everything that the Church says or does. The Church is a human-divine interplay, and sometimes the human side errs… badly. Let me preempt some of your arguments… I lead a Sacramental life, I am prolife (all stages of life), and I am very interested in social justice. This last point is central to who we are as Church.
David — your second sentence does not logically follow: “However, using logic, if the Adam and Eve story is not literally true, then the notion of original sin coming from Eve’s willful disobedience has no grounding.” You yourself pointed out in your ealier post that, even if not literally true, the story has an “underlying deeper truth.” In other words, the truth remains the truth even if the story is not literally true. And, what is the truth contained in the Adam and Eve story? It is the truth of disobedient humans straying from the divine plan. With regard to “grounding” — something is grounded if the Magisterium teaches it. Those appointed by God and inerrantly inspired by the Holy Spirit don’t make mistakes. When God says something, I listen; when the Magisterim speaks, that is grounding in God’s truth. What more do you need? So, the Church has concluded that, even if the Adam and Eve story is not literally true, the fact remains that original sin entered the world through their willful disobedience. So, the Church’s conclusion is all the grounding and verification you need that sin entered the world through the sins of Adam and Eve. Given the foregoing, your third sentence needs to be rejected (“This is a small example of the Church heirarchy teaching something in error.”) Your next sentence: “I am a faithful Catholic …” — well, if we define faithful as submitting to the Church’s Magisterial teaching, then you are not faithful, as you have indicated you reject the Church’s teaching on this and other matters. Your next sentence: “The Church is a human-divine interplay, and sometimes the human side errs” — yes, it errs, but never with regard to matters of doctrine. God has promised us that inerrancy. And, since God is God, He can ensure no human ever can err who speaks for the Church, at least not with respect to proclaiming dogma. All in the hierarchy are sinners, of course, so they can err in other ways; but, the Magisterial teachings are untouched by human shortcomings.
Jim, the Adam and Eve story of Genesis is not literally true. It has an underlying deeper truth. The Church holds on to “original sin” but this is problematic if it is attached to Genesis “pre-history.” Yes we are prone to sin, but not as a result of Eve.
David — I believe your post is at variance with what the Church teaches. In one of Paul’s epistles, he notes that sin entered the world through Adam and Eve, and that Jesus and Mary came to undo that damage. This has been my consistent understanding; so, again, I think you are in error in your statement. With regard to the literalness of the Adam and Eve story — I don’t think it matters whether or not it is literal. As you say, it is at least an allegory for man’s willful disobedience, and the problems that result from that.
obedience what do you call mission to Chile and Salvador Do you think the answer at the gate is because he told me too. way to go Jim
Joe — Let’s look at your logic. You are implying that, because the sister did something good in South America, that therefore she is being obedient to the Church. Truly, Joe, this is elementary school level. Even if I have done a billion obedient, good things, it certainly does not imply that EVERYTHING I have done has been good and obedient. Further, I don’t know if sister’s efforts in South America did represent obedience. I don’t even know if what she did down there was good. If she fed the hungry, but told them that they could find their own truth, she actually did them a grave disservice. Leading others to Heaven is THE MOST IMPORTANT THING WE CAN DO. Feeding the hungry is good, but if in the process I lead them to Hell (by, for example, not challenging their immoral beliefs), then I have done them the most grave disservice.
I as a man am openly embracing a “radical feminism” that questions church teachings and it is the issues of social justice is the primary reason and for me the only reason to be Catholic; end of discussion.
MJF – Why is your “only reason to be Catholic” because of social justice issues?
To clarify, MJF — the Jim who posted at 12:34 P.M. is not the Jim (me) who has been rejecting your posts.
Because this has become the voice of poor, the powerless and those who have no voice, how can i not love it?
Yes, of course, MJF. And, your sister Eve did the same thing before you — she too “questioned church teachings” — i.e., she questioned God’s commandment not to partake from a certain tree. Second, the fact that you are not Catholic because of the graces received through the Sacrament of Reconciliation (when’s the last time you’ve been to confession, MJF?), as well as the Eucharist and other sacraments, says it all — but is entirely consistent with your disobedient and heretical behavior and beliefs.
Very impressive BIO
Bios don’t impress me — what impresses me is obedience.
I am impressed by what this nun did in the 80′s however we are no longer living in 1986.
Jim you would have been great in Hitler’s army.
Dear Editor — this is not a very chartiable comment — I think Ann needs to be put in time-out for awhile.
Ann, I am not impressed by your comment.
Thanks, dear Catholic Lady!
Jim, Blind obedience is robotic and brainless. Fortunately, God gave us consciences and the ability to think critically.
Recovering — that is precisely what atheists accuse me of as well: being brainless. Hmmm, a heads-up for you, perhaps?