Vatican demands reform of American nuns' leadership group [CWN] - Page 53

Jimmygill88 · #**781** Jun 16, '12, 1:06 am

[quote=KSU;9412652]The Roman Catholic Church in America is under attack from nationally organized dissident sisters; the seven provinces of the Order of Friars Minor in the United States who sympathize with them http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today...e-support-lcwr ; a newly organized national support group of modernist clergy http://www2.tbo.com/lifestyles/life/...ati-ar-415742/ ; and the secular and dissident Catholic media. All of which is great news for the party of death on the religion front.

The great news this month for the party of death, on the political front, is that the USCCB Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development thinks the Republican's proposed budget fails to meet moral criteria and is unjust and wrong because the proposal is short on taxes and short on spending (except of course on the military, which the committee thinks gets too much money).

Do borderline Catholics need more excuses to vote for the party of abortion, contraception, homosexuality and wealth distribution? For goodness sake, don't even the purest souls on the planet--Catholic sisters--support those things?

Two days ago, faithful American Catholics, already disgusted and bewildered, have been informed that it's not just a mere USCCB committee that plans to weigh in on the "broken" economy: http://www.catholicculture.org/news/...?storyid=14639

The only good news is that 26 bishops voted "no", and this from the link:

QUOTE "During the discussion leading up to the vote, Bishop Earl Boyea of Lansing criticized the committee's opposition to the budget plan put forward by Congressman Paul Ryan.

“There have been some concerns raised by lay Catholics, especially some Catholic economists, about what was perceived as a partisan action against Congressman Ryan and the budget he had proposed,” Bishop Boyea said in reference to the USCCB committee’s opposition to the House budget plan. “We need to be articulate only in principles, and let the laity make these applications … It was perceived as partisan, and thus didn’t really further dialogue in our deeply divided country.”

“I’m not sure that we have the humility yet not to stray into areas where we lack competence, and where we need to let the laity take the lead,” he added. “We need to learn far more than we need to teach in this area. We need to listen more than we need to speak. We already have an excellent, fine Compendium [on the Social Doctrine of the Church].” END QUOTE

So here we are; it's 2012 and the religious/political battle for the Church in America is at hand.[/QUOTE

Comparing Abortion to the redistribion of wealth betrays a reactionary position diametrically opposed to the church's social teaching. How can anyone who thinks that redistribution of money (and therefore health, education food and water) call themselves a Christian. That position is feudal

KSU · #**782** Jun 16, '12, 2:57 am

"Comparing Abortion to the redistribution of wealth betrays a reactionary position diametrically opposed to the church's social teaching. How can anyone who thinks that redistribution of money (and therefore health, education food and water) call themselves a Christian. That position is feudal." --Jimmygill88

You are correct, my friend; I don't usually call myself a "Christian" any more because it can mean anything the LCWR members of the "American church" and common dissidents want it to mean, including Socialism, homosexualism, forced redistribution of wealth for political advantage, and clericalism -- a policy of supporting the power and influence of the clergy in political or secular matters.

I now just call myself a Catholic; a practicing member of the Roman Catholic Church and thus a believer in its Social Doctrine which does not support clericalism or forced redistribution of wealth for political purposes. And, yes, even though you intended it as a slur, my belief in that doctrine actually is feudal because it is based in part on the teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologiae II.II.66.2).

If you want to argue the point any further, please take it to an appropriate thread.

Jimmygill88 · #**783** Jun 17, '12, 1:17 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSU

"Comparing Abortion to the redistribution of wealth betrays a reactionary position diametrically opposed to the church's social teaching. How can anyone who thinks that redistribution of money (and therefore health, education food and water) call themselves a Christian. That position is feudal." --Jimmygill88

You are correct, my friend; I don't usually call myself a "Christian" any more because it can mean anything the LCWR members of the "American church" and common dissidents want it to mean, including Socialism, homosexualism, forced redistribution of wealth for political advantage, and clericalism -- a policy of supporting the power and influence of the clergy in political or secular matters.

I now just call myself a Catholic; a practicing member of the Roman Catholic Church and thus a believer in its Social Doctrine which does not support clericalism or forced redistribution of wealth for political purposes. And, yes, even though you intended it as a slur, my belief in that doctrine actually is feudal because it is based in part on the teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologiae II.II.66.2).

If you want to argue the point any further, please take it to an appropriate thread.

WOW! Hasn't anyone ever argued with you? I can only gather that you are convinced that only you via Aquinas are correct. The Pope may disagree (he favours Augustine). I would only encourage you if I agreed to re-enter the Dark Ages even figuratively, in debate. Suffice it to say I personally find individuals like you dangerous. You are so sure that your blikered view of my religion is correct that you put people off. Those rantings are so far removed from the current interpretation of Catholisism. I guess we should reintroduce Droit du seigneur, slavery

jwinch2 · #**784** Jun 17, '12, 6:23 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimmygill88

You are so sure that your blikered view of my religion is correct that you put people off.

He is directing you to a thread where what you are arguing about is actually the topic. This thread is about the situation with the LCWR and the report issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Here is a thread where the topic you are addressing is ongoing and where he is actively discussing the topic with others. http://forums.catholic.com/showthrea...41#post9417241

Peace,

KSU · #**785** Jun 17, '12, 3:13 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimmygill88

WOW! Hasn't anyone ever argued with you? I can only gather that you are convinced that only you via Aquinas are correct. The Pope may disagree (he favours Augustine). I would only encourage you if I agreed to re-enter the Dark Ages even figuratively, in debate. Suffice it to say I personally find individuals like you dangerous. You are so sure that your blikered view of my religion is correct that you put people off. Those rantings are so far removed from the current interpretation of Catholisism. I guess we should reintroduce Droit du seigneur, slavery

You certainly are persuasive, Jimmygill88, but jwinch2 is correct: I was suggesting that you take your diplomatic manner over to http://forums.catholic.com/showthrea...41#post9417241 . That's the thread to argue in support of the old Catholic-Socialist errors under the name of Distributism. And when you do, don't embarrass yourself further about the Pope disagreeing with Aquinas in favor of Augustine on Distributism. That is improbable because Aquinas and Augustine agree. Here's Aquinas in De Regime Principum:
"Nor does the very order of nature permit equality, for Divine Providence established all created things with a certain inequality, both by their nature and their merit. So, to enforce equality in temporal goods such as possessions, is to destroy the order that exists in things, which Augustine, with regard to inequality, defines as such: Order is 'the disposition of equal and unequal things, giving to each what it deserves'” (The City of God, 19, 13).

jwinch2 · #**786** Jun 20, '12, 7:53 am

EWTN Theology Roundtable - Doctrinal Assessment of the LCWR

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3QJw...&feature=g-u-u

jwinch2 · #**787** Jun 20, '12, 8:02 am

One of the themes showing up repeatedly in the popular media and even within Catholic circles is that this situation represents an attack by the Vatican on females within the Church. However, something worth noting is the fact that the Vatican has taken similar steps in the past with Catholic universities, Catholic seminaries, etc. Thus, the idea that the Holy See is in some way singling out women religious would seem to be false.

Michael Mayo · #**788** Jun 20, '12, 8:18 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by jwinch2

One of the themes showing up repeatedly in the popular media and even within Catholic circles is that this situation represents an attack by the Vatican on females within the Church. However, something worth noting is the fact that the Vatican has taken similar steps in the past with Catholic universities, Catholic seminaries, etc. Thus, the idea that the Holy See is in some way singling out women religious would seem to be false.

Yes, remember this:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/vat...ted-usccb-says

KSU · #**789** Jun 21, '12, 12:33 am

Two great links. Thanks Jason and Michael.

jwinch2 · #**790** Jun 21, '12, 6:28 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSU

Two great links. Thanks Jason and Michael.

Cheers,

_Abyssinia · #**791** Jun 22, '12, 2:08 pm

Vatican threatens ‘radical feminist’ nuns’ group with de-recognition

Quote:

If they are not prepared to assert a more distinctly Catholic identity, the Vatican is prepared to oust the largest umbrella group of American nuns and sisters as the official representative and liaison with Rome, one of the pope’s closest advisors said in a rare interview.

If the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) refuses absolutely to cooperate with the Vatican’s attempt at reform, said William Levada, the cardinal prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, they will force Rome to reconsider their position in the Church.

“If you look at the church as a hierarchical structure—whether you see that as benign, or something else—ultimately, the pope is the superior,” Levada said.

“I suppose if the sisters said, ‘OK, we’re not cooperating with this,’ we can’t force them to cooperate. What we can do, and what we’d have to do, is say to them, ‘We will substitute a functioning group for yours,’ if it comes to that.”

Levada
US journalist John Allen that there it is “premature” to imagine that the current LCWR leadership is to address the “substantive issues” brought up by a doctrinal assessment issued in April.

Allen stressed the point, asking, “So if the response is not satisfactory, the result could be decertification of LCWR?”

“It could be,” Levada responded.

..

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/vat...de-recognition

LisaA · #**792** Jun 22, '12, 6:09 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Abyssinia

Vatican threatens ‘radical feminist’ nuns’ group with de-recognition

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/vat...de-recognition

You know while the Sisters might claim they were thrown out, in reality those who are in such sharp disagreement with the Church showed themselves the door. It's rather like the statement that God doesn't send anyone to Hell, we do it to ourselves.

I hope and pray that the Sisters will reconcile with the Church and continue to serve faithfully.

Lisa

_Abyssinia · #**793** Jun 28, '12, 3:50 am

The war between the Vatican and American nuns is about bad theology, not gender oppression

Quote:

If this is obvious to a layman, then why do the American nuns persist with their theological innovation? Alas, the answer is that some of them simply aren’t very Catholic. Or, at least, their Catholicity takes a second place to their political liberalism.

The LCWR has endorsed Obamacare, despite the fact that it threatens Catholic liberty and teachings by compelling Catholic employers to provide contraception coverage to their employees. That shouldn’t come as a surprise, because several members of the LCWR had been active campaigners for reproductive rights. Moreover, they have embraced a theological ethos that goes beyond Catholicism – and even beyond Christianity itself. One of their key note speakers at this year’s convention was Barbara Max Hubbard, who “has been called ‘the voice for conscious evolution of our time’ by Deepak Chopra … She has launched the “Agents of Conscious Evolution” training and is forming a global team to co-produce a global multi-media event entitled, ‘Birth 2012: Co-Creating a Planetary Shift in Time’ … a historic, turning-point event; awakening the social, spiritual, scientific, and technological potential of humanity.” Hardly St Augustine, is it?

But Hubbard’s involvement in the LCWR does conform to a trend within older female orders towards New Age thinking. And that trend is actually starting to die out. All too often, press coverage of this story has suggested that the LCWR represents all US nuns. It doesn’t – its membership is just 1,500. Across America, the average age of a nun is 69, which means that many of the old liberals are fading way. By contrast, the new orders have tended to emphasize traditional dress and theology. This might be an attempt to please Rome, but it’s more likely to reflect the fact that the younger generation grew up with fond memories of the orthodoxy of John Paul II. Sixties liberalism is being eclipsed by 1980s conservatism. The LCWR represents the past, not – as its allies in the liberal press claim – the future.

So the answer to the question of who will rid the Vatican of these turbulent nuns is time and nature. Ten years or so from now, the American Church will once again be a bastion of orthodoxy. The wimple will return.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ti...der-oppression

TheRealJuliane · #**794** Jul 14, '12, 5:15 pm

Is this the only nuns v. The Vatican situation that's ongoing right now? I mean, is this "the one" that is current.

Because I think our priest referred to this situation tonight at the Vigil Mass, and he was most certainly on the side of the nuns and made it seem as if The Vatican is over-reacting.

This was, of course, in the more liberal parish we attend. Nothing else he spoke about was controversial and I doubt if a lot of people at the Mass even knew what he was talking about, but it sure sounded as if he was saying the nuns want to teach things and the Vatican thinks it should be done only in one way, etc. He was clearly on the nun's side.

But before I go running out with my hair on fire, I want to be sure there isn't some other group of nuns that are totally orthodox, wanting to teach orthodoxy and the Vatican is saying, "no."

jwinch2 · #**795** Jul 14, '12, 5:22 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheRealJuliane

Is this the only nuns v. The Vatican situation that's ongoing right now? I mean, is this "the one" that is current.

Because I think our priest referred to this situation tonight at the Vigil Mass, and he was most certainly on the side of the nuns and made it seem as if The Vatican is over-reacting.

This was, of course, in the more liberal parish we attend. Nothing else he spoke about was controversial and I doubt if a lot of people at the Mass even knew what he was talking about, but it sure sounded as if he was saying the nuns want to teach things and the Vatican thinks it should be done only in one way, etc. He was clearly on the nun's side.

But before I go running out with my hair on fire, I want to be sure there isn't some other group of nuns that are totally orthodox, wanting to teach orthodoxy and the Vatican is saying, "no."

The only other thing going on that I am aware of is the "nuns on a bus" thing... But I haven't heard anything about the Holy See getting involved with that.