BS: The Vatican vs. The Nuns

Subject: RE: BS: The Vatican vs. The Nuns
From: Rapparee
Date: 07 Aug 12 - 02:03 PM

"No one is to be called an enemy, all are your benefactors, and no one does you harm. You have no enemy except yourselves."

"If you have men who will exclude any of God's creatures from the shelter of compassion and pity, you will have men who will deal likewise with their fellow men."

             --both from Francis of Assissi

Subject: RE: BS: The Vatican vs. The Nuns
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 06 Aug 12 - 11:43 PM

The CMSM also put out a statement in June. Somewhat more neutral in tone than the letter from the Franciscans, but noting the CMSM's "long and rich history of cooperation" with the LCRW, praising the LCRW response to this "difficult situation", and expressing "prayerful support". 1-page pdf.

~ B in T

Subject: RE: BS: The Vatican vs. The Nuns
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 06 Aug 12 - 11:14 PM

Regarding my question on "where are the men?", the first Google result in my search was this: Franciscan brothers, priests declare support for LCWR (National Catholic Reporter, June 7, 2012)

In what appears to be the first public message of support sent from orders of men religious to U.S. sisters in the face of a sharp Vatican rebuke last April, seven provinces of Franciscan brothers and priests have published an open letter to the sisters, saying the Vatican's move against them seems "excessive."

The full letter is at the link. In the letter they refer more than once to a concern that the public media will misinterpret the nature of the conflict. Certainly, I have learned a lot by reading just a little, and seen the tendency in the media and commentary to oversimplify the situation. I have to say some of the orthodox Catholic response seems to oversimplify, too. I always prefer look beyond the "black & white" - "either/or" perspective to understand nuance and complexity...

The friars say,

Rather than excessive oversight of LCWR, perhaps a better service to the people of God might be a renewed effort to articulate the nuances of our complex moral tradition. This can be a teaching moment rather than a moment of regulation -- an opportunity to bring our faith to bear on the complexity of public policy particularly in the midst of our quadrennial elections.

Here's a post on the Catholic blog "Adam's Ale" (appears to be the work of one Cleveland priest) that briefly compares and contrasts the LCRW and the two other comparable groups in the U.S.:

Leadership Council of Religious Women (LCRW): represents more than 80 percent of the 57,000 women religious in the United States. Founded in 1956.

The Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious (CMSWR): The other religious women… "a canonically approved organization founded in 1992"

He quotes Wikipedia: "In October 1995 Pope John Paul II (and the Vatican's Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life) designated the CMSWR as a canonically approved national association of Women Religious for the United States who felt the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) did not represent their views."

Conference of Major Superiors of Men (CMSM): "CMSM serves the leadership of the Catholic orders and congregations of the more than 17,000 vowed religious priests and brothers of the United States, ten percent of whom are foreign missionaries."

His conclusion on the conflicts:

So consider this: there are approximately 57,000 religious women in the United States give or take. You can't get two Catholics in one room to agree that the temperature is correct – there is no way that all religious are going to agree on everything. Many (in all three of these groups) have welcomed everything that the Vatican has to say, some agree with a lot of it but not all, and some are aggrieved that anything was ever said. More than likely you only heard from one subset of persons out of these three possibilities. That is because they are the only ones that will sell news. It is much more interesting to buck Rome than it is to say, "Gee, isn't that swell."

No matter how you might fall in these debates, remember that you are dealing with a diverse and intelligent group of people with different ideas on how to make the Church and the world a better place. Do not think that there is a single will in these matters. That would be a ridiculous assumption for any group of people on any topic.

Yeah. Like I said before, an obvious mirror to other places that these differences in worldview appear in our society… which are also more complex than we often give them credit for. Especially in an election year.

~ Becky in Tucson

Subject: RE: BS: The Vatican vs. The Nuns
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 06 Aug 12 - 10:40 PM

The Huffington Post has a background article on Sister Pat Farrell, the president of the LCRW: Vatican Crackdown: Catholic Sister Pat Farrell Of LCWR Discusses Dramatic Life, from the Religion New Service.

an excerpt:

But it is Farrell's own life -- a vocation that has taken her from the Iowa heartland to ministry in Pinochet's Chile and war-ravaged El Salvador and back again to Iowa -- that may be the best way to understand the root of Rome's clash with the nuns, and why it may not be going away anytime soon, much as Farrell wishes it would.

"I've had a dramatic life, I really have. But the drama of it is not what's important," says Farrell, a soft-spoken, 65-year-old Franciscan who eventually, if hesitatingly, agreed to discuss her more than two decades in Latin America. "The best of what we do is not about high drama."

Indeed, behind the drama is a story of service to the poor, advocacy for the marginalized, and a radical spirituality that has profoundly shaped Farrell and many nuns like her -- as well as shaped the identity of the LCWR. Viewed in this context, the standoff is not a political struggle or power play as much as a contrast of complementary roles and experiences in the church.

While church officials often want to protect and emphasize doctrinal orthodoxies, sisters like Farrell often operate from a pastoral experience of faith in action that emphasizes a prophetic voice on behalf of the people they live with. (my emphasis - DD)

Below the article they have some other links (including to the NPR interviews). There are two that are responses to the interview with Sister Farrell that are pretty frightening. Having lived and worked in communities based upon consensus decision-making and non-hierarchical structure I recognize the vocabulary and concepts that Sister Farrell uses and that these two writers sneer at. I also recognize the attitude of those who don't understand the concept.

Sister Pat Farrell, president of the LCWR, deflects, blames, and otherwise obfuscates (by By Carl E. Olson, editor of The Catholic World Report. "Catholic World Report is an online news magazine that tells the story from an orthodox Catholic perspective.")

Analysis of NPR's interview of LCWR Pres. Sr. Pat Farrell: like a 7-year old's manipulative obfuscation (from "Fr. Z's Blog – What Does The Prayer Really Say?" by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf, who notes, among other things, that he is a Rush Limbaugh listener. He writes like one. You may want to spare yourself viewing of this item.)

This is the same mindset that can find "community organizing" a sign of treasonous intentions.

Are there priests or brothers who have spoken out in support of the sisters? Is there any parallel in the world of male Catholic religious? I'm starting to google and see... I'll save it for another post.

~ Becky in Tucson

Subject: RE: BS: The Vatican vs. The Nuns
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 06 Aug 12 - 07:21 PM

Thanks for that one, Mike.

JtS, I linked those interesting interviews when I refreshed the thread with the post 4th above yours. :-)

The conflict mirrors others in our society. The challenge to the Church is whether the diversity of perspectives can be held under its umbrella. I'm sure that it's not a new problem, really...

~ Becky in Tucson

Subject: RE: BS: The Vatican vs. The Nuns
From: mg
Date: 06 Aug 12 - 07:09 PM

Wouldn't it have occured to these keepers of the truths that raping little boys was a bit off? And lying about it, as a keeper of the truth, was not good? They seem to have no sense at all. It becomes clearer to me by the minute. There are a few exceptions..one in Dublin. Please Catholics..let me know if there are other decent men who are archbishops, cardinals..I would say pope but I have no hope in that direction. The one in New York I think is a bully and a liar and has unfortunatley a reputation of being a hail fellow with a good sense of humor. I think he is running for pope and I fear for the church and the world if he wins. I get a creepy feeling from him. They send him here and there to stomp on people. And then they have the nerve to tell us it is all about love..come on. Love scares them to death.

Subject: RE: BS: The Vatican vs. The Nuns
From: Mike in Brunswick
Date: 06 Aug 12 - 04:53 PM

Becky says "I was kind of struck (from this sample size of 4 -- not counting the historian who spoke somewhat more neutrally) at sort of a generational difference -- that the more conservative voices were younger, (much) post-Vatican II women."

Here's a quote from a piece by Jamie Manson in the National Catholic Reporter, a progressive Catholic paper put out by lay people, and thus outside the hierarchy's control.

"It is true that a small minority of young Roman Catholics are attracted to the counter-cultural ways of the hierarchy, which are marked by patriarchal control, absolute obedience, and the conviction that they are the keepers of unquestionable and unchangeable truths.

But there is more than one way of being counter-cultural in our society. My sense is that more young people are interested in learning from the counter-cultural model exhibited by women religious, which is marked by non-authoritarian leadership, collaborative decision-making, and missions that are driven by actively listen to the needs of the larger community."

The whole article is here

Mike

Subject: RE: BS: The Vatican vs. The Nuns
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Aug 12 - 04:36 PM

Here are a couple of links to discussions of the topic at hand on Fresh Air with Terry Gross. My apologies if these have been brought up already. I haven't read this whole thread. But I did find these interviews enlightening. I found the nun to be more in tune with my views than the Bishop. But I am not a Catholic so I don't really have a direct personal interest in the debate.

http://www.npr.org/2012/07/17/156858223/an-american-nun-responds-to-vatican-condemnation

http://www.npr.org/2012/07/25/157356092/bishop-explains-vaticans-criticism-of-u-s-nuns

Subject: RE: BS: The Vatican vs. The Nuns
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 06 Aug 12 - 03:38 PM

I have the worst priest ever now. He is of Mid-European ancestry shall we say and reminds me of a severe Protestant..no offense to severe Protestants. He does not seem remotely Catholic to me. He is a religious narcissist, I am convinced, and very fascist in his approach..very personally unappealing as well. I don't have to be crazy about a priest, but I should not have to be repulsed by him basically. Plus he commandeers the Mass to his own use..he will interupt anytime and any where and give a lecture. Mass has not been pleasant for me at all since Vatican II..it strikes me also as Protestant, which I was taught not to be although my mother's family is Baptist. But Mass has gone from unpleasant to icky somehow. I am not a strong enough Catholic to withstand too much of this nonsense. As long as I have my candles and supersticians and collection plates and statues and pretty songs (which are no more) I am more or less compliant..but it is not a spiritual approach.

Don't know why I am rambling..the church is sick and needs to be not renewed, but scraped clean of cancer and rot and then think about talking about healing and renewal etc.

And almost every statement by every bishop in the last few years has struck me as abnormally stupid, especially concerning the child abuse situation. They are not only entertwined in it, they are too dumb, some of them, to see the magnitude of the problem. I hope there is a bishop reading this.

I do follow one bishop, the one in Dublin. He speaks honestly and sincerely, which shocks me so much..others could be honest and sincere but also stupid which is not so great a combo.

And that is true about leaving your ancestors. I think of mine hiding under rocks in County Kerry to hear Mass and I think the least I can do is sit through a service I don't recognize as Catholic but they tell me is.

Subject: RE: BS: The Vatican vs. The Nuns
From: Wolfhound person
Date: 06 Aug 12 - 04:17 AM

Joe wrote:
"I just can't figure out what the Vatican is trying to do"

Get everything back under its control, and reverse as much of Vat 2 as possible, Joe.

You inhabit a different church and environment to (certainly) the UK, and I suspect much of Europe, and you're very lucky to do so.

I wish you all luck, but I'm keeping well away from the local variant, which has been lurching backwards ever since about 1980-something.

Paws

Subject: RE: BS: The Vatican vs. The Nuns
From: Joe Offer
Date: 06 Aug 12 - 12:48 AM

Thanks for the very wise observations, Becky. This is an important week for the nuns. I've got my "I support the nuns" sticker on my car for them.

The Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) are meeting this week to consider their response to the Vatican. So far, I think they've responded admirably and very judiciously, maintaining almost a uniform silence while support builds and the bishops squirm. The Vatican, to its credit, has appointed three bishops to deal with the LCWR, and all three seem to be very nice people - no aggressive firebrands in the lot.

It hasn't been stated so directly, but it's clear the issue is the progressive philosophy of the LCWR, which is very much different from the overall conservative trend in the Catholic Church. Specific charges are mostly the speakers who are selected to speak at LCWR meetings. One would think that the Vatican is trying to shelter the nuns from wayward thinking, but these are highly educated women (leaders of religious orders, fer Chrissake), and I really don't think they need to be protected from incorrect thinking. It's hard to believe that the Vatican would think it needs to shelter women like these from "false teaching." Many of these women are far better-educated than your run-of-the-mill bishop. I think the Vatican would be far more comfortable with mindless penguins.

I just can't figure out what the Vatican is trying to do, but it frightens me that they would try to do it.

The nuns are the last, best hope for progressive Catholics. I sure as hell hope the nuns win out.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Vatican vs. The Nuns
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 06 Aug 12 - 12:27 AM

PBS's Religion & Ethics Newsweekly had a good program focus recently on the topic. The short program (and transcript) are available here, as well as extended videos & transcripts from their interviews.

Interestingly, all the voices in the program are women: 3 sisters, 1 author/TV/radio personality (and former GHW Bush speechwriter), and 1 academic/historian. I was kind of struck (from this sample size of 4 -- not counting the historian who spoke somewhat more neutrally) at sort of a generational difference -- that the more conservative voices were younger, (much) post-Vatican II women.

Also, Terri Gross of NPR's Fresh Air program interviewed Sister Pat Farrell, president of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious and then a week later Bishop Leonard Blair of Toledo, Ohio, a member of "The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith", which carried out the assessment of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious. Along with Archbishop Peter Sartain and Bishop Thomas John Paprocki, he will be working with the nuns of the LCRW to make sure the group is "aligned with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church".

Listening to these programs and re-reading Joe Offer's comments about the operation of Catholics "on the ground" was very interesting to me (an outsider in all ways). There's a clear conflict between the perspective of "this is how it is and has been and should be, and if you don't agree you're free to go elsewhere" and a more pragmatic and personalized point of view (to condense it to a few words -- with difficulty). It's hard to see how these perspectives can be resolved... the definitions of "obedience" seem irreconcilable.

But, institutional change is always slow, whether change is trickling down or up, and lots of things can change before an institution as large as the Catholic church makes substantive change (in policy from the top, or attitudes/schism from the bottom). The "love it or leave it" advice I've seen given disregards the strength of cultural ties that it seems to me those who are passionate about the Catholic church have. Maybe I'm wrong but it seems American Protestants hop denominations more easily, but to leave the Catholic church is to leave your ancestors. "Love it or leave it" doesn't fly for that core of folks.

It seems like an essential core, too. Sister Maureen Fiedler on the PBS program noted that the second largest "religious group" in the U.S. is ex-Catholics. A puzzle for the hierarchy to figure out.

~ Becky in Tucson

Subject: RE: BS: The Vatican vs. The Nuns
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 02 Jun 12 - 01:05 PM

NPR had a report on this this morning: Nuns Fight Back Against Vatican Report. They quoted someone as comparing the Vatican's move -- appointment of Seattle Archbishop Sartin (sp?) to rewrite their statutes and take control over much decision-making -- to a "hostile takeover". Though they're contesting the report, there's not much that can be done. It concluded by saying that they can't disband, because the group is officially part of the church, but that members could withdraw and basically start up a new network.

~ Becky in Tucson

Subject: RE: BS: The Vatican vs. The Nuns
From: Wolfhound person
Date: 02 Jun 12 - 06:16 AM

I wish them luck.

Having (in another life) been warned about the views of Benny the Nazi in the 1970s, by a friend, an ex-priest & ex-Prof of one of the big Rome theology colleges, I think they're going to need it.

Paws

Subject: RE: BS: The Vatican vs. The Nuns
From: SINSULL
Date: 01 Jun 12 - 10:05 PM

I have been following a variety of stories in the media which for the most part portray nuns as selfless women who devote their lives to improving the lives of the poor and isolated. Abortion appears to be a non-issue with them. At least that is the press' view.
Maybe I should be a nun - Sister Mary Capslock. heh heh.

These ladies semm a far cry from the ruler wielding harpies of my youth. Might be interesting to seek some out and learn first hand what they are about.

Subject: RE: BS: The Vatican vs. The Nuns
From: Joe Offer
Date: 01 Jun 12 - 03:51 PM

The nuns are remaining cool and acting very slowly and rationally, which will certainly continue to make the bishops nervous. Here's a press release issued today (June 1, 2012), by the Leadership Conference of Women Religious:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

[Washington, DC] The national board of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) held a special meeting in Washington, DC from May 29-31 to review, and plan a response to, the report issued to LCWR by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

The board members raised concerns about both the content of the doctrinal assessment and the process by which it was prepared. Board members concluded that the assessment was based on unsubstantiated accusations and the result of a flawed process that lacked transparency. Moreover, the sanctions imposed were disproportionate to the concerns raised and could compromise their ability to fulfill their mission. The report has furthermore caused scandal and pain throughout the church community, and created greater polarization.

The board determined that the conference will take the following steps:

• On June 12 the LCWR president and executive director will return to Rome to meet with CDF prefect Cardinal William Levada and the apostolic delegate Archbishop Peter Sartain to raise and discuss the board's concerns.
• Following the discussions in Rome, the conference will gather its members both in regional meetings and in its August assembly to determine its response to the CDF report.

The board recognizes this matter has deeply touched Catholics and non-Catholics throughout the world as evidenced by the thousands of messages of support as well as the dozens of prayer vigils held in numerous parts of the country. It believes that the matters of faith and justice that capture the hearts of Catholic sisters are clearly shared by many people around the world. As the church and society face tumultuous times, the board believes it is imperative that these matters be addressed by the entire church community in an atmosphere of openness, honesty, and integrity.

Contact: Sister Annmarie Sanders, IHM – LCWR Director of Communications

June 1, 2012

Subject: RE: BS: The Vatican vs. The Nuns
From: frogprince
Date: 01 May 12 - 12:01 PM

Yo; might know Becky or someone would have picked up on that before I did. : )

Subject: RE: BS: The Vatican vs. The Nuns
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 01 May 12 - 01:34 AM

Frogprince - that's what I meant back here.

~ Becky in Tucson

Subject: RE: BS: The Vatican vs. The Nuns
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Apr 12 - 08:45 PM

Word on the street is that the nuns (which used to mean "none") have cut the boys off for their bad behaviors with youngsters... So the boys are pissed off??? Tough, ya'll... You want the nuns to go back to meaning "some" then clean up ya'll's act, ya' hear... Then ya'll can go back to ya'll's "wink, winks"...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Vatican vs. The Nuns
From: Joe Offer
Date: 30 Apr 12 - 06:06 PM

How many ex cathedra announcements do you have to gainsay before you are no longer a member of a religion, but rather a heretic with a different religion?

I dunno, Richard - there hasn't been an ex cathedra statement made since 1950.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Vatican vs. The Nuns
From: frogprince
Date: 30 Apr 12 - 04:12 PM

I think I know what the cartoon with the "secret service nuns" is, and don't know why it didn't hit me sooner; if you use nuns for presidential guards, they don't get caught hiring hookers, or other politically unwise things.

Subject: RE: BS: The Vatican vs. The Nuns
From: katlaughing
Date: 30 Apr 12 - 12:17 PM

Also a good op/ed piece in the NYTimes HERE.

Maybe we'll get back to the days of SISTER FIDELMA of Ireland. (Read down for more info on the church etc.)

Subject: RE: BS: The Vatican vs. The Nuns
From: frogprince
Date: 30 Apr 12 - 11:55 AM

Bumper sticker for nuns? PENGUIN POWER

Doesn't work as well as when they were all "in the habit", though.

Subject: RE: BS: The Vatican vs. The Nuns
From: SINSULL
Date: 30 Apr 12 - 10:28 AM

Almost like dealing with folkies and probably more liberal.
Not sure why this amuses me so but it does. As a child, I always figured that the nuns had more clout than the prisets but chose to pretend otherwise. Certainly, they were scarier. They've been found out.

Subject: RE: BS: The Vatican vs. The Nuns
From: SINSULL
Date: 30 Apr 12 - 10:19 AM

In today's news:
http://www.pressherald.com/news/on-the-web-and-nun-too-soon_2012-04-30.html

55,000 nuns in the US with a median age of 71. Most of them are over 65.
LOL The pope is taking on a bunch of crochety old hags with attitudes.

Subject: RE: BS: The Vatican vs. The Nuns
From: GUEST,Dani
Date: 30 Apr 12 - 06:00 AM

Saw a quote recently:

"You'll know you've created God in your own image when he starts hating the people you hate."

Dani

Subject: RE: BS: The Vatican vs. The Nuns
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Apr 12 - 03:45 AM

How many ex cathedra announcements do you have to gainsay before you are no longer a member of a religion, but rather a heretic with a different religion?

Subject: RE: BS: The Vatican vs. The Nuns
From: Musket
Date: 30 Apr 12 - 03:10 AM

Fair enough Joe, but it must be frustrating to be seen with the Catholic label, however much your endeavours are contrary to the management.

I admire working from within, and in other fields I suppose I have done the same. However, no matter what you do, no matter how well you do it, I can't help thinking it is the X Parish people rather than the Catholic ideals and dogma that are doing the good work.

They in the meantime ride on the back of your good work whilst carrying on with their outmoded, increasingly irrelevant proclamations and views, using the good works of people as their advertising boards.

You shouldn't abandon your church to the bastards, but I can't help feeling they already own it? If enough people push against them then you may get this ancient institution working in the right direction, and I wish you luck. I somehow reckon though that a young reforming Pope is a bit of an oxymoron, and to get them to wake up, that is what you need.

Subject: RE: BS: The Vatican vs. The Nuns
From: Joe Offer
Date: 30 Apr 12 - 01:29 AM

Nice message, Ian, but I want to comment on this line from you:

That's perhaps one of the reasons I cannot understand how and why good people prop up such institutions.

Well, I don't think that's so, Ian. We only "prop up" such people if we support them and obey them. I claim the Catholic Church belongs to me, not to the bishops. My bishop and the Pope have very little say-so about what goes on in my parish. If you ask anyone in my parish, they will tell you that Joe Offer has a lot of say-so about what happens there - because in every parish where I have been a member, I have worked relentlessly to ensure that it is a good parish. So, we feed the hungry and we're working to reform the county jail, and we're campaigning against capital punishment - and very, very little is said about birth control, gay marriage, or abortion.

Our bishop withdrew Annual Appeal funding from a service agency whose director spoke in favor of gay marriage and Planned Parenthood. I wrote to the bishop and demanded a refund of my contribution - and I got my money back.

This is my church. If I disagree with the leaders, I stand up and say so - and on a local level, I play politics until I think things are right. Why should I abandon my church to the bastards?

I think the nuns think the same way. That's why they're taking a stand. It takes courage to stand and fight, and I applaud the Leadership Conference of Women Religious for doing just that.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Vatican vs. The Nuns
From: Rapparee
Date: 29 Apr 12 - 11:48 PM

The nuns, you know, are gonna win. They always do.

Subject: RE: BS: The Vatican vs. The Nuns
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 29 Apr 12 - 01:29 PM

Mexico received a dispensation from the no meat on Friday rule. I think the rational when it was given was the need for poor Mexicans to get any kind of food. Dunno if the dispensation still applies.

I wish the nuns well, but it is hard to fight the old fogies in any organized institution. So many rules, none of them envisioned by the inventors of the religion or other organization.

Subject: RE: BS: The Vatican vs. The Nuns
From: Musket
Date: 29 Apr 12 - 08:57 AM

Hey Joe, having read your interesting links, I too am rooting for the nuns.

I have often felt regret with my "superstitious nonsense" stance, which I still firmly stand by, because there are many good people doing good deeds and a religion gives them the collective tools and support for them to be good people. Hence the dismissive stance of people like me can deflect from the good done in the name of religion.

I'm not surprised by what I have read. The nuns are working tirelessly in spartan surroundings with little personal possession whilst the Vatican leaders are in their gilded palace.

That's perhaps one of the reasons I cannot understand how and why good people prop up such institutions. My past voluntary work included seeing NGOs with no religious stance building up infrastructure, schools, wells, self sufficiency etc whilst the aid agencies attached to religions did the same, except the church / chapel / mosque etc was a condition of help.

I doubt it was the actual workers on the ground who made these stipulations....

Subject: RE: BS: The Vatican vs. The Nuns
From: Penny S.
Date: 29 Apr 12 - 05:04 AM

It's interesting that in Luke's version, Jesus uses the Socratic method to get the person asking him about the law to tell Him what it is - both phrases being contained in the Torah.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: The Vatican vs. The Nuns
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 29 Apr 12 - 04:56 AM

All these doctrinal and legal quibblings sound to me so much like the same goings-on of the Scribes and Pharisees, whom Jesus frequently criticised as missing the point entirely. As Joe says, one practises ones faith to 1) love God and 2) love ones neighbour. Jesus Himself narrowed it all down to those two things. And that's good enough for me!

Subject: RE: BS: The Vatican vs. The Nuns
From: Rapparee
Date: 28 Apr 12 - 09:37 PM

Yup, Joe's right on that one. People pretty much ignore it and it goes away.

There are lots of things like that. Matthew 18:18 (NIV):

I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

So once upon a time the Catholic Church said, "Eating meat on Fridays is a mortal sin (usually, there are certain exceptions)." Then, a few years back, they changed the rules and you only have to fast during Lent and at specified other times. My very own brother, when he was studying for the deaconate (!), asked the instructors, "So, what happened to all those people who ate meat on Fridays and committed a mortal sin, which sent them straight to Hell? Did they get forgiven and pulled up to Heaven?" And you know what? He never did enter the permanent deaconate.

Joe, I was raised in the quibbling, legalistic educational system of the Catholic Church, from kindergarten through undergraduate work. I have 21 semester hours of theology and the same of philosophy, not the mention 12 years of "religion" (including the Revised Baltimore Cathecism). Nowadays I don't worry if there's enough meat in Mcdonald's hamburger to break the rule of Friday abstinence -- I asked the Pastor things like "So, if JC died to save all of us, aren't we awfully ungrateful if we don't sin because it makes His whole sacrifice pointless?" The Pastor says I'm smart enough to be a heretic and several times he's invited me to an auto-da-fe.

Subject: RE: BS: The Vatican vs. The Nuns
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 Apr 12 - 08:45 PM

I'd tend to agree, frogprince. As I said, my religious life has little to do with doctrine or regulations. "Authority" has very little relevance to me - same goes with "infallibility."

Amos, in general, I think the nuns don't care at all about birth control [no wisecracks, please]. I'm really surprised that birth control arose as an issue in recent months. In general, you won't hear anything about birth control in Catholic churches - despite the official policy. That's the way things work in the Catholic Church - if there's an official policy that's stupid, nobody talks about it; and then it disappears from the books a hundred years later and people say, "we never taught that." Seems like a strange thing to do, but it saves the effort of arguing with those who will mindlessly fight to preserve anything that once was official policy.


-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Vatican vs. The Nuns
From: frogprince
Date: 28 Apr 12 - 08:36 PM

Tell ya what;it may be true that the pope claims infallibility only under very limited circumstances. But I think that the concept that anyone can make an infallible statement about religious doctrine, under any circumstances, is every bit as defensible as young earth creationism.

Subject: RE: BS: The Vatican vs. The Nuns
From: Amos
Date: 28 Apr 12 - 05:39 PM

I think the nuns are providing security for Obama -- it may be related to the birth control thing? I don't get it either. Unless he is doing them a favor of some kind.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The Vatican vs. The Nuns
From: Penny S.
Date: 28 Apr 12 - 05:13 PM

Joe, only joking. I suspected the Latin was more inclusive. And I had an idea that from the Vatican point of view, schism is irrelevant to the belief in papal leadership, because of odd things said about England returning to the fold from time to time. As if it were one united bloc which would move en masse into the ordinariat.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: The Vatican vs. The Nuns
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 Apr 12 - 04:05 PM

I have to say, I hate it when I get nudged into discussing religion from a legalistic and doctrinal standpoint. Certainly, laws and doctrines are part of any church, just as laws are part of every society.

However, most of us don't spend our lives viewing things from a legal perspective. It's only the "jailhouse lawyers" who do that. I know some ultraconservative Catholics who get all bound up in the rules and regulations, but most of us aren't like that. For most of us, religious faith isn't about laws. That's just not how normal people live life.

I go to church to worship God and love my neighbor. Rules have very little to do with my life as a religious person.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Vatican vs. The Nuns
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 Apr 12 - 03:09 PM

I gotta admit, Rapparee, that I did not know that the original doctrine of infallibility was worded to apply to the Pope instead of to his words. Nonetheless, note that it is qualified and restricted to ex cathedra (from the chair) statements "defining doctrine concerning faith or morals." Even though it came from the megalomaniacal Pius IX,* infallibility is restricted to doctrine of the highest level and does not apply to any old thing the Pope says. Unfortunately, an awful lot of people understand it as applying to every time the Pope opens his mouth.

Also, note that the First Vatican Council statement on papal infallibility is part of a larger body of teaching on church doctrine, which places limits on what doctrines can be considered inerrant. The Wikipedia article on papal infallibility refers to another restriction I was taught in the seminary:

The infallible teachings of the Pope must be based on, or at least not contradict, Sacred Tradition or Sacred Scripture

I can't find an original source for that.

The current teaching is in Paragraph 891 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.... the infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed," and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith." This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself. (the footnotes refer back to the document Rapparee quoted from the first Vatican Council).

Penny, you're right that the document claims the Pope is "shepherd and teacher of all Christians." I don't get how you can say that it excludes the punishment of anathema from being applied to women - are you drawing that from "let him be anathema"? The original Latin document is "anathema sit" - with no gender specification.


*Perhaps Pius IX had some justification for his apparent megalomania. The same year, 1870, he lost control of the Papal States and became "prisoner of the Vatican" in self-imposed exclusion. His successors eventually became ruler of a country the size of a large golf course (110 acres). No wonder the poor guy felt threatened....

Subject: RE: BS: The Vatican vs. The Nuns
From: Stringsinger
Date: 28 Apr 12 - 02:23 PM

Joe, I read the cartoon is an appeal against authoritarianism. Obama shows confusion on this point particularly when it comes to same-sex marriage. I see the nuns as showing Obama what's going on in the controversy between the nuns and the Vatican.

I see no reason why Catholic priests or nuns shouldn't marry or nuns become part of the priesthood.

Obama is doing his usual "playing it safe" role. The nuns are trying to widen his views.

Subject: RE: BS: The Vatican vs. The Nuns
From: Penny S.
Date: 28 Apr 12 - 01:55 PM

I note two things about that infallible document.,

One, it arrogates to the Pontiff the right to dictate to all Christians. Two, it specifically excludes the punishment of anathema from being applied to women.

Badly drafted, that.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: The Vatican vs. The Nuns
From: GUEST,999
Date: 28 Apr 12 - 12:28 PM

Óscar Arnulfo Romero y Galdámez: there IS life after death as the action of these nuns proves.

Subject: RE: BS: The Vatican vs. The Nuns
From: Rapparee
Date: 28 Apr 12 - 11:42 AM

9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

Given at Rome in public session, solemnly held in the Vatican Basilica in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy, on the eighteenth day of July, in the twenty-fifth year of Our Pontificate.
             -- First Vatican Council, Session 4: 18 July 1870,
             First dogmatic constitution on the Church of Christ

"I am infallible because I say so." It's an ugly, ugly story.

Go read August Hasler's "How the Pope Became Infallible: Pius IX and the Politics of Persuasion" (1981)." Hasler, by the way, had approved access to the Vatican archives.

Subject: RE: BS: The Vatican vs. The Nuns
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Apr 12 - 06:35 AM

Wonder if anybody is following the emerging issue of the clampdown on the writings of rebel priests - bring back the "index" I say!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: The Vatican vs. The Nuns
From: Monique
Date: 28 Apr 12 - 05:12 AM

About leaders causing people to leave their Church, though it's slightly different Leaving Amish Paradise. Tell me about power...

Subject: RE: BS: The Vatican vs. The Nuns
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 28 Apr 12 - 04:57 AM

I quite agree, Joe. I try in a humble way to imagine what Jesus would say or do. I don't see Him as a judgmental, condemnatory figure. He always seemed loving, understanding and advisory rather than dogmatically severe. His umbrella would be absolutely gigantic, with room under it for the entire world! Very very few folk are completely wicked, and as for the rest of us, we don't need to be harried and dominated by arrogant Leaders. As the nuns I've known would say, "Pray! Pray! Pray!"

Subject: RE: BS: The Vatican vs. The Nuns
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 Apr 12 - 04:51 AM

Well, Eliza, our umbrellas would be a lot broader if we could only learn that we can't control how other people think and act, and we shouldn't try. We need to be of service to each other, not sit in judgment of others.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Vatican vs. The Nuns
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 28 Apr 12 - 04:29 AM

It's difficult to initiate change in a well-established Church without risking schism. In the C of E, the issue of gay marriage and women Bishops has caused many African and Indian branches of the Church to threaten to break away. I prefer the idea of a united Church where, under a broad umbrella, most views and standpoints can be accommodated. Flexibility and tolerance are key. But as in all the major religions, the tenets of a powerful few control and constrict the spiritual life of many.