Pages

Thursday, April 19, 2012

Doctrinally, nuns in US are “situation ... grave and a matter of serious concern”

It seems as if the organization of the women in leadership of 80% of the 55,000 nuns in the US -- (the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR)), the ones who should be (and used to be) doing most of the "teaching" and "catechizing" in the US have gotten a bit off track. The Vatican’s “Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith” (formerly the “Holy Office” and “the Inquisition” prior to that) has decided that “the current doctrinal and pastoral situation of LCWR is grave and a matter of serious concern”. The organization is said to be “stunned”.

Ahh, unity of doctrine. That's what the Catholic Faith is all about. Come home to Rome, and learn all of the correct things to believe. From dedicated, celibate “brides of Christ” who have devoted their lives (a) to learning that unified church doctrine, and (b) actually passing it along to the next generation of devout Roman Catholics.

18 comments:

  1. John, no Catholic teaches or believes that the authority of the Catholic Church is such that groups of laity or even some clergy can act and believe like these nuns.

    Namely, like protestants. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Dear Bishop Newkirk: Why is your Cathedral hosting a conference by the National Association of Rebellious Nuns (NARN)? Every last one of them has been either excommunicated or disciplined by the Vatican, and amongst the conference topics is "Reclaiming the Office of Cultic Prostitute for Our Time" and "Invoking the Great Earth Mother to Crush the Masculine"? What gives?..." [http://tinyurl.com/6sxnkdw]

    ReplyDelete
  3. We are not talking about some sort of fringe group. These are the "front lines" of what should be doctrinal teaching of "the Church". Roman Catholics complain about "poor catechesis". Here you go.

    It will be interesting to see what happens to this group.

    ReplyDelete
  4. We are not talking about some sort of fringe group.

    Actually, we are. They're a fringe group within the church, just as Westboro Baptist is a fringe part of protestantism.

    I'm not at all surprised that some people have made concerted efforts to infiltrate the Church to try and teach heresy and lunacy from within. Are you at all surprised when feminists or worse show up in protestant organizations to try and steer things?

    By the way - I take it you're cheering for the pro-abortion, pro-gay-marriage feminists on this one?

    ReplyDelete
  5. By the way - I take it you're cheering for the pro-abortion, pro-gay-marriage feminists on this one?

    Actually, no. I'm amused at the hole that the "Infallible Church", influenced by the "Spirit of Vatican II", under 30+ years of papacy by JPII and now the "German Shepherd", BXVI, has dug itself into.

    They can't get too hard on these "pro-abortion, pro-gay-marriage feminists", because many of those in charge are themselves gay

    ReplyDelete
  6. Actually, no. I'm amused at the hole that the "Infallible Church", influenced by the "Spirit of Vatican II", under 30+ years of papacy by JPII and now the "German Shepherd", BXVI, has dug itself into.

    I'm intrigued that you find infiltration of a church by pro-abortion, pro-gay-marriage, heterodox feminists and LGBSA-style homosexuals to be amusing.

    C'mon, John, admit it. If the Church rids itself of clergy and groups that are in favor of abortion and gay marriage, you're going to be disappointed, aren't you? You certainly won't regard it as a positive development.

    They can't get too hard on these "pro-abortion, pro-gay-marriage feminists",

    Then the fact that the church just told the vast, vast majority of the problem-case nuns to either radically reform themselves to be in compliance with orthodox Catholic teaching - or disband entirely - must completely blow you away, eh?

    because many of those in charge are themselves gay

    I don't doubt there's a Velvet Mafia in the church. I don't doubt that said mafia needs to be purged. I'd suggest that some with same-sex attraction could in principle be good priests, even bishops - just as anyone who sins or has sinned, or even feels a draw to sin, can. Though the difficulties vary from person to person.

    Though you should have read your Sipe closer, since he apparently insists that there's no link between same-sex attraction and sexual abuse, that being in a male-only clerical organization - or, for that matter, the army - can make a guy eager for penis:

    Many men in the armed forces during the past 65 years under the stress of battle, isolation from families, deprivation, and overwhelming life-threatening fear and loss, can relate how thin and permeable the membrane separating heterosexual and homosexual orientation can be. Their feelings of friendship nowhere before experienced make them aware of a capacity for love and closeness with men they did not imagine.

    I take it you endorse Sipe on this one too? Granted, some of what Sipe says is reasonable - but some of what Marx says is reasonable too. Other things Sipe says is just freaking wacky.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Crude -- All I'm saying is that it will be interesting to watch this one. It is the "infallible" Magisterium which has brought itself to this point. They have already amended Church teaching on homosexuality so that the practicing homosexual (and ostensibly many of these are priests and bishops) need only "gradually" [but "resolutely"] cease this practice. See CCC 2359:

    2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

    In the old days, homosexual acts were not only "intrinsically disordered" but grave and mortal sins. And in the old days, to permit one to "gradually" stop performing these homosexual acts opens the person to dying without having confessed and dying in a state of mortal sin.

    Does the "infallible Church" of the 1950's allow this sort of thing to happen?

    Now that you've got the "velvet mafia" in power, are they going to reverse this trend? Or stop it in its tracks? Or are they more likely to let loose the reins on this one?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Crude -- All I'm saying is that it will be interesting to watch this one. It is the "infallible" Magisterium which has brought itself to this point.

    Yeah, the "infallible" Magisterium does not cash out to "perfect" or even "very good" administrators, and you should be well aware. There has been corruption in the Church since the original twelve apostles. This isn't new - the Catholic Encyclopedia will flat out talk about corruption in the church, and even particularly crappy popes.

    In the old days, homosexual acts were not only "intrinsically disordered" but grave and mortal sins. And in the old days, to permit one to "gradually" stop performing these homosexual acts opens the person to dying without having confessed and dying in a state of mortal sin.

    They still are grave and mortal sins.

    And you misread the CCC: they should 'gradually and resolutely' approach Christian perfection. That does not cash out to 'Oh sure, keep up with the sodomy, but you know. Ease off of it. Whittle yourself down to one train a week.'

    Does the "infallible Church" of the 1950's allow this sort of thing to happen?

    The infallible Church of the 1950s still had a thing called "confession" for all Catholics, which exists precisely because of the realization that Christians are imperfect. They fall, and they sin. Pretending that sin never happens, or that if it does happen a person is only deserving of shunning, would not be a wise step either.

    Now that you've got the "velvet mafia" in power, are they going to reverse this trend? Or stop it in its tracks? Or are they more likely to let loose the reins on this one?

    Looks like you've got an answer to your own question here. Keep watching, and let's see what happens to these nuns. All signs point to the hammer being dropped on them.

    Meanwhile, the Church's performance - aside from these nitwit liberals - has been damn admirable on the subjects of gay marriage, abortion, and - wait for it - contraception.

    How's the protestant spread on these subjects looking? I mean, there's a protestant president right now. I'm sure he's doing a bang-up job in your estimation, eh?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yeah, the "infallible" Magisterium does not cash out to "perfect" or even "very good" administrators, and you should be well aware. There has been corruption in the Church since the original twelve apostles. This isn't new

    Right, "defining" the "content" of "faith and morals". Yes, I am aware of this, and it is an excuse that is neither scriptural nor sanctioned by the early church.

    Just as a practical matter, tell me again why, given that the Scriptures say, very clearly and unambiguously, "an overseer ["bishop"] must be above reproach", you stress something that is almost exactly the opposite. What you are saying is, "These men who are wicked and evil" (and I'd rank the popes you mentioned among some of the most wicked and evil men who ever lived) "are not only Christians, but they are fit to lead Christ's church, and not only lead Christ's church, but when they exercise a specific role, they are infallible at it.

    Now, I know what the arguments are, but I'd like you to string together here for us, precisely the line of thinking that turns a very clear Scripture on its head. I don't think you can do it with a straight face.

    Paul says this ("an overseer must be above reproach") in two places, and he qualifies what he means by "above reproach in Titus 1: "not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination".

    Now, he means this at a minimum. We know this because he clearly states it right within the context. It is very likely he intends it to mean more, but I won't press you on it. But even given your excuse that "the infallible magisterium" needs not be "perfect", that ought not to mean that they ought to be very, very good -- and at a minimum, "not open to the charge of debauchery".

    [See also some of our comments on 1 Tim 3:15, for example, here, here, and here, for example. These really render Rome's understanding of this not only "incorrect", but pathetic.]

    This is reinforced in "tradition", right at the point at which Irenaeus brings up the notion of "succession". He says "We can enumerate those who were appointed by the apostles as bishops in the churches as their successors, even to our time ... For [the apostles] wanted those whom they left as successors, and to whom they transmitted their own position of teaching, to be perfect and blameless (1 Tim 3:2) in every respect. If these men acted rightly it would be a great benefit, while if they failed [to be perfect and blameless] it would be the greatest calamity (Against Heresies, 3.1).

    So, if you want to have "succession" as it's articulated by both the Apostle who gave clear guidelines about what a "bishop" should be, echoed by probably your leading "patristic" source on "succession", you clearly are looking at something that's precisely the opposite of what both Paul was saying about "bishops" and what Irenaeus was saying about "succession".

    ReplyDelete
  10. And you misread the CCC: they should 'gradually and resolutely' approach Christian perfection. That does not cash out to 'Oh sure, keep up with the sodomy, but you know. Ease off of it. Whittle yourself down to one train a week.'

    How do you know this? You'd like to think that's the case, but who were the ones involved with actually writing and approving this language? Given your familiarity with Sipe, you have to agree that there were at least some homosexual bishops in there. We ought to know enough about these individuals to question their motives.

    Looks like you've got an answer to your own question here. Keep watching, and let's see what happens to these nuns.

    Yes, by all means, keep watching. Lift up the rock and look closely at what happens under the Vatican rock. But I seriously doubt that you're dealing with people here who will "go gently into that good night".

    All signs point to the hammer being dropped on them.

    Even if that's the case, why wait, as some news reports put this organization's "doctrinal difficulties" back into the 1970's. Why hammer them now? Why wait until they're an organization representing 80% of the "brides of Christ" in the US?

    And even if the hammer does come down now, what kind of signal will that send to all the other Roman Catholic organizations with "doctrinal difficulties"? Catholic universities, hospitals, etc? At what point does it benefit them to "knuckle under" the hammer and give in, vs. retain their "independence"? Will there be a domino effect? I just can't imagine all these groups will just fall in line.

    Meanwhile, the Church's performance - aside from these nitwit liberals - has been damn admirable on the subjects of gay marriage, abortion, and - wait for it - contraception.

    It has not been admirable at all on "gay" issues. More likely things will get worse than better. Abortion is one issue, but again, one of its own representatives -- the LCWR -- is not good on abortion at all. At what point do you excuse the Vatican for the actions and positions of its "Vatican-recognized representatives".

    And on -- wait for it -- contraception -- aren't we still waiting for some 95% of Roman Catholics to comply? How is it "damn admirable" when 95% of the people who are *supposed to be* obedient to this teaching, merely thumb their noses at it?

    ReplyDelete
  11. John, you seem to have forgotten the basic catechism of Catholic Apologism:

    (1) Henry VIII had six wives. This discredits the very theological underpinnings of the Southern Baptists' religion.

    (2) Martin Luther broke his monastic vows to marry a nun who broke hers. This proves the Methodist faith is built on a shaky foundation.

    (3) Borgia popes? Valois royalty? Well, if the Catholic Church can survive people like that, it _must_ be divinely established.

    In other words - heads Catholicism wins, tails Protestantism loses.

    ReplyDelete
  12. You'd like to think that's the case, but who were the ones involved with actually writing and approving this language?

    I don't really need to in this case, since the CCC's going to be interpreted in light of traditional Catholic teaching. It's not 'up in the air' whether sodomy is a mortal sin according to the authority of the Church.

    Your interpretation here is wrong. I'm not concerned about an individual's ability to manipulate language.

    But I seriously doubt that you're dealing with people here who will "go gently into that good night".

    They will scream as loudly as irate octogenerians with an abandoned power base can. They lost the war they were fighting, and know it. They realize the only alternative at this point is to leave the Church - aka, confess to their protestantism*. Unfortunately, they do it at a stage in their collective lives where the prospects of planting new seeds elsewhere - even if the track record for that wasn't wretched - is unthinkable.

    The smart money says they are done.

    Even if that's the case, why wait, as some news reports put this organization's "doctrinal difficulties" back into the 1970's.

    I have some other questions: Why wait until they were organizationally marginalized? Why wait until their prospects for continuing into the future were bleak? Why wait until traditionalists and conservatives in the Church were in a position to affirm their power? Why wait until the problem people in question were octogenarians, and the new orders and growth in the church looks to be traditionalist and conservative?

    It's not quite clear cut.

    At what point does it benefit them to "knuckle under" the hammer and give in, vs. retain their "independence"?

    Maybe they won't. Maybe some of them - or even many of them - will walk, or fight. Or, maybe they won't. Maybe many or most will do what they should, and organize themselves properly.

    Certainly, John, you'd be encouraging them to do exactly that, and align themselves with orthodoxy? I shouldn't suspect that you hope that the pro-abortion, pro-gay-marriage feminists cause harm to the pro-life, anti-gay-marriage traditionalists, right?

    It has not been admirable at all on "gay" issues. More likely things will get worse than better. Abortion is one issue, but again, one of its own representatives -- the LCWR -- is not good on abortion at all. At what point do you excuse the Vatican for the actions and positions of its "Vatican-recognized representatives".

    The Church has been stellar on gay marriage and abortion. There are elements in the church that tried to be defiant and redirect church teaching on these issues. They have lost, big time.

    And - much as you're going to be loathe to admit it - compared to the protestant wing of Christianity (which has, absolutely, some brilliant and bright spots), overall the Church has fought the better fight. Scandals and all.

    And on -- wait for it -- contraception -- aren't we still waiting for some 95% of Roman Catholics to comply?

    A) The fact that a man or woman has sinned in their life does not mean they are 'thumbing their noses' at church teaching. How many sins have you committed in your life, John? Were you 'thumbing your nose' at Christian teaching each time? Or did you make a mistake?

    B) You may want to do some research on your talking points. That statistic is rotten in way upon way.

    C) You confuse the teaching of the institution with the acts of the individuals.

    ReplyDelete
  13. (1) Henry VIII had six wives. This discredits the very theological underpinnings of the Southern Baptists' religion.

    (2) Martin Luther broke his monastic vows to marry a nun who broke hers. This proves the Methodist faith is built on a shaky foundation.

    (3) Borgia popes? Valois royalty? Well, if the Catholic Church can survive people like that, it _must_ be divinely established.

    In other words - heads Catholicism wins, tails Protestantism loses.


    Yeah, I've played none of those cards or anything approaching them. The fact is I think there's a lot to admire in protestant thought and among protestant individuals. I welcome ecumenicalism. I thank God for the efforts of William Lane Craig and many others, despite deep disagreements. We have quite a lot in common.

    But on Triablogue, there are some parties who have it in for the Church to an insane degree. To the point where it really seems like, when a pro-abortion, pro-gay-marriage, denying-the-divinity-of-Christ contingent is attacking the traditionalists who are pro-life, oppose gay marriage, and believe in Christ's divinity, they're actually stupid enough to hope the former side does damage to the latter.

    I suggest that if your response to this debacle is anything other than 'I hope the Catholics purge the influence of these rotten, radical feminists entirely, and are stronger and better for it', - unless you yourself explicitly sympathize with pro-choicers, pro-gay-marriage sorts, or atheists - you're making a stupid move.

    ReplyDelete
  14. No, I'm not rooting for the nuns. I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm just amused that Rome is reaping what it has "infallibly" sown.

    For what it's worth, I too welcome "ecumenism". But I just don't welcome ecumenism with Rome. Rome, collectively, is not what it says it is; thus it is in error, or it outright lies.

    Yes, there are very good things in many Protestant churches, and I welcome a dialog among them as a way of enabling what's true to be discovered in a new generation.

    Rome is not only wrong about itself (it's definition of what "the church" is), but it is wrong in a dogmatical, "infallible" way which prohibits it from finding "what's really true".

    ReplyDelete
  15. No, I'm not rooting for the nuns. I don't have a dog in this fight.

    Who do you think you're kidding?

    You don't have a dog in this fight? Anyone who glances at this thread - or really, any comments you make about the Church - is very easily able to tell you do "have a dog in this fight".

    It goes like this: "Which group would harm the Church the most? I root for them." Even if said group is pro-abortion, pro-gay-marriage, and nearly atheistic.

    Even Steve was willing to regard the coming LCWR purge as a positive development. You just seem angry about it all. Let me guess: protestants have to stick together, even when they're radical feminists?

    For what it's worth, I too welcome "ecumenism". But I just don't welcome ecumenism with Rome. Rome, collectively, is not what it says it is; thus it is in error, or it outright lies.

    Yeah, John. guess what? Everyone who disagrees with your interpretation would be, according to you, 'in error'. "Ecumenism, but only for those who I don't think are in error" isn't ecumenism, it's a contradiction.

    Rome is not only wrong about itself (it's definition of what "the church" is), but it is wrong in a dogmatical, "infallible" way which prohibits it from finding "what's really true".

    Oh, what baloney. Catholics - even the most stoic traditionalist - are going to have a tremendous amount in common with conservative Protestants. They'll disagree on some important matters, but they'll agree on far more. To the extent that that can be recognized, ecumenicalism is not only possible, but beneficial to all sides.

    Throwing down 'infallibility' - which, for those who deny it, cashes out to merely adhering strongly to a given teaching - as the line in the sand is ridiculous, and reeks of being a mere excuse. What you really need to do is grow up and realize that whatever ax you have to grind against the Catholic Church - and honest to God, it sure seems like a personal one at this point - should be put aside when they try to purge themselves from radical liberal, feminist or generally corrupt influence.

    But hey, what are the odds I can get through to you? I have a suggestion for your next blog post: suggest that everyone donate money to Catholics for Choice on the grounds that they try to harm the Church, and those ends justify the means. Oh, and if anyone questions your reasoning for supporting a pro-choice group, just say 'But the Church says some teachings are infallible, so that makes this okay.'

    ReplyDelete
  16. "The Church has been stellar on gay marriage and abortion."

    So what? Even a clock that's broken is right twice a day.

    The hierarchy excels in dictating to the laity but the hierarchy isn't interested in gay marriage or having abortions so it's no sweat off their collective brow. However, they're noticeably lax when cracking down on the predators, their enablers, or the active homosexuals in their midst.

    As far as the nuns are concerned, they are a pretty soft target for the Vatican; it's a collection of women from disparate orders. They share no common leadership at the religious order level. The chief aim of this appears to be a removal of the "executive branch" of this organization.

    Let's see the Vatican go after Nancy Pelosi or the University of Notre Dame.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Not that I have some overwhelming desire to explain my motives to someone named “Crude”, but just to give you the benefit of the doubt:

    You don't have a dog in this fight? Anyone who glances at this thread - or really, any comments you make about the Church - is very easily able to tell you do "have a dog in this fight". It goes like this: "Which group would harm the Church the most? I root for them." Even if said group is pro-abortion, pro-gay-marriage, and nearly atheistic.

    I honestly don’t have a dog in this fight. I don’t get too upset when Crips and Bloods have a gang war and kill each other. In this case, you’ve got two groups, both of whom I would consider to be morally bankrupt, each pointing out the other’s perceived faults. There is no way either of them can win. It’s

    Even Steve was willing to regard the coming LCWR purge as a positive development.

    I don’t recall seeing Steve comment on it. Perhaps you could point me to it.

    You just seem angry about it all.

    There’s no anger at all. In fact, while you are looking for Steve’s comment on the LCWR, maybe you could find some angry words that have come in my comments, and show me.

    I don’t think you’ll find either, if you bother trying. You are, in fact, long on hot air, and short on factual content.

    Let me guess: protestants have to stick together, even when they're radical feminists?

    Wrongo. It’s the Protestants who separate from the liberals. It’s the Roman Catholics who not only adopt the liberals into their fold (David Wells noted this, “Revolution in Rome”, pg 8: “Present-day Catholicism, on its progressive side, is teaching many of the ideas which the liberal Protestants espoused in the last century. Though progressive Catholics are largely unaware of their liberal Protestant stepbrothers, the family resemblance is nevertheless there. Since these ideas have only come into vogue in Catholicism in the last two decades, they appear brilliantly fresh and innovative.” Wells wrote that in 1972, but you can see the fruit of it in CCC 2359, above, which gives cover to active homosexual relationships in the priesthood (and episcopacy), for example.

    Oh, what baloney. Catholics - even the most stoic traditionalist - are going to have a tremendous amount in common with conservative Protestants. They'll disagree on some important matters, but they'll agree on far more. To the extent that that can be recognized, ecumenicalism is not only possible, but beneficial to all sides.

    Maybe you missed it. I was an active supporter of Rick Santorum. It’s not “Catholics” to which I object, but “Roman Catholicism”, the religion, and the hierarchy which enforces it.

    But hey, what are the odds I can get through to you?

    Try saying something sensible. I might not agree with it, but I’d still respect it more than I respect the drivel you’re spitting out now.

    ReplyDelete