Vatican demands reform of American nuns' leadership group [CWN] - Page 39

jwinch2 · #**571** May 13, '12, 6:24 am

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/tim-d...being-motherly

Michael Mayo · #**572** May 13, '12, 12:50 pm

They aren't all bad, you know.

http://www.americamagazine.org/conte...series_id=1338

KSU · #**573** May 13, '12, 1:09 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by jwinch2

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/tim-d...being-motherly

Thank you for the link, jwinch. That NCR article could have been written by Michael Voris.

It's about time--long past the time--that "mainstream" Catholic voices such as the excellent National Catholic Register joined the lone voices crying out in the wilderness, such as Real Catholic TV, in defending Holy Mother Church and Mother Mary against, blasphemy, sacrilege and heresy. We've had 40 years of looking the other way out of a well intentioned but false sense of tolerance and compassion. At best, we've mustered a lukewarm defense, and we all know how that's worked out.

KSU · #**574** May 13, '12, 1:47 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Mayo

They aren't all bad, you know.

http://www.americamagazine.org/conte...series_id=1338

Really, Michael? Do you really think the disgraced priest's attempted glorification of heresy and dissent is still fooling knowledgeable Catholics?

http://lesfemmes-thetruth.blogspot.c...-vaticans.html

jwinch2 · #**575** May 13, '12, 3:11 pm

I think we need to be very careful here.

First, Fr. Martin and his orthodoxy or lack thereof, is not germane to this discussion.

Second, Fr. Martin is correct in that many women religious are not supposed to be in habits. One of the comments on the website linked above disputed that, they are wrong. No, the documents of V2 did not state that women should discard the habit. However, what they did do was tell them to look to the writings of their founders and their constitutions. Many of them, per their founders and their constitutions, were never supposed to be in a habit and living a semi-cloistered life in the first place. Instead, many women religious were supposed to be out in the world doing good works. This is not a problem. Afterall, the laity are expected to maintain our faith wearing secular clothing and living in the world. It obviously can be done. It is not an issue of wearing or not wearing a habit. It is an issue of following or not following their vows and Church teaching.

Third, Fr. Martin does need to acknowledge that many of the women he has held up as a role model have actually strayed a long way from the Church and probably induced others to do the same. Many of them have been dissidents in terms of Church teaching for a long time, and that does need to stop. He is also wrong in his interpretation of the investigation by the CDF. This was a much needed step, that has been overdue for quite some time. No matter when or how it was done, it would have been received poorly by many of the sisters, co-called Catholics who openly dissent from Church teachings, and the popular media.

KSU · #**576** May 13, '12, 3:31 pm

"No, the documents of V2 did not state that women should discard the habit. However, what they did do was tell them to look to the writings of their founders and their constitutions. Many of them, per their founders and their constitutions, were never supposed to be in a habit and living a semi-cloistered life in the first place."--jwinch2

Teach us something here, jwinch; your orthodoxy is well respected and applauded in this thread, at least by me, and I would like to know the names of the orders that adopted the wearing of habits in contradiction of their founders and constitutions.

opus101 · #**577** May 13, '12, 3:33 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Mayo

They aren't all bad, you know.

http://www.americamagazine.org/conte...series_id=1338

This was a very misleading video. Near the beginning of the video he
said "I'm not here to talk about the Vatican document" etc. Of course not. That would have shown the truth of the matter, which is that it has nothing to do with anything he was talking about!

So a few LCWR communities historically started with women who wore secular dress - but does that mean that they ALL did? To see them, you would think so. I'm starting to wonder about that much repeated story anyway.

He gave us little close-up vignettes about certain sisters, highlighting their strong points. Again, what does that have to do with anything? We already know that, and they've been commended on their good work. But that doesn't make them Catholic, let alone religious sisters. Lots of people of all different denominations and faiths serve the poor in the missions, and they too have been martyred. But here's a difference: they are honest. They don't claim to be Catholic. Some of what they teach and stand for is at odds with Catholicism, but at least they don't call it Catholic! But some of these LCWR sisters are not only at odds with Catholic doctrine, they actually actively work against it. To me, that seems dishonest.

Fr. Martin said that these sisters are "demoralized" because of the reform. Has he ever considered that hundreds of thousands of Catholics have been repeatedly demoralized, scandalized and led astray for 40 years by these very same people?

He defends their fidelity to the Second Vatican Council and documents on religious life that call for updating and reform. But they were to do all of that under the guidance of the Church. How does "updating" equal changing Church doctrine and guidelines?

jwinch2 · #**578** May 13, '12, 3:42 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSU

...and I would like to know the names of the orders that adopted the wearing of habits in contradiction of their founders and constitutions.

First, thanks for the kind words. I try to be faithful and hopefully objective and fair as well, though I often do not succeed at any of those things.

As for the rest, I don't have a list, if that is what you are after. You would have to look to the individual congregations to figure that out. And even then, you would have to go back to the original set of constitutions for the congregation and perhaps the writings of the founder if any survived.

Mostly, because of my looking into the Dominicans, I know that there are multiple groups of Dominican apostolic sisters who used to wear habits and now do not per the writings of their founders. Its important to note that Dominican sisters, unlike the nuns, friars, and laity, were not founded by St. Dominic. They came much later and are a bit a different canonical beast as a result.

I have also spoken to some of the sisters who work in our parish and local community about the situation. They are a young community compared to many and have pictures of their founder and the first generation of sisters who wore plain secular dress with a distinctive cross pendant. Then about 30 years later, there are pictures of sisters in habits which grew progressively larger and more pronounced through the years.

I cannot quote you numbers in terms of how many congregations were or were not founded wearing the habit. I used the term "many" because I honestly do not know the percentage. If you are looking for more detail or examples, Brother JR would be a much better person to answer this question, he has written on this exact subject many times on CAF in the past.

I think the larger picture is whether or not the habit is even the issue. If there are congregations who were supposed to be in the habit and they stopped wearing them with Vatican II as justification, that would bother me. Its about fidelity in my opinion. I have argued on CAF in the past that I like the habit and feel it can serve as an important witness in the world today. I still believe that. However, whether or not I like them, it would be wrong for me to wish that women who are not supposed to be in the habit would start wearing them again. All I can reasonably ask is that they try to be faithful to their vows, their charism, their constitutions/Rule, and the Church.

Peace,

opus101 · #**579** May 13, '12, 3:45 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSU

"No, the documents of V2 did not state that women should discard the habit. However, what they did do was tell them to look to the writings of their founders and their constitutions. Many of them, per their founders and their constitutions, were never supposed to be in a habit and living a semi-cloistered life in the first place."--jwinch2

Teach us something here, jwinch; your orthodoxy is well respected and applauded in this thread, at least by me, and I would like to know the names of the orders that adopted the wearing of habits in contradiction of their founders and constitutions.

I'm interested in this as well, It might be hard to find out, but it sure would be interesting. Is it possible that some started out without a habit, but never intended things to stay that way? I can think of several scenarios that would make that possible. For instance, even today, when most new congregations are starting, during the first few years they are not yet recognized as a congregation - they might have the status of "Association of the Faithful" , or maybe not even that. They might not be able to wear a habit for a while, until the group has the proper status.

Also, in certain countries, during certain times in history, it could have been dangerous to be seen in a religious habit (for instance, around the time of the French Revolution). That doesn't mean that they wouldn't have worn one if they could.

I'm completely willing to accept facts, and if it's true that some of these communities were founded as non-habited religious, then it only seems right that they should continue in this vein. But I'm having a hard time believing that the majority of them were founded this way. Also, even though they wore secular dress, did they not have any visible sign whatsoever on them that showed that they were religious?

This is an interesting topic.

opus101 · #**580** May 13, '12, 4:43 pm

I have another question, too. I was told by an aspirant to the Srs. of St. Joseph that the reason why they wear secular dress is because the original habits reflected the style of the times - long dress, etc., similar in style to the clothing of the day.

My question is this: even though the original habits were similar to secular styles of the time, they were still habits weren't they? I mean, they all wore basically the same thing, didn't they? I'm interested in finding the answer to this. The SSJ sisters in my area all wear different clothing - a great variety of secular clothes/jewelry etc.

KSU · #**581** May 13, '12, 4:43 pm

An ex Fort Worthian thanks you for that info (Post #578), Jason. And I mean no disrespect whatsoever when I say that it doesn't change my opinion of the intentions of Father James Martin, S.J.

Father Jim, as he prefers to be called, used the apparent grain of truth you referred to-- habits and the intent of founders-- as a means of standing on its head the actual reasons for the Vatican's major DOCTRINAL problems with the LCWR. Contrary to what he very clearly implied, I would be willing to bet that neither one of the Popes since VCII, nor one drafter or author of the doctrinal assessment at issue in this thread, nor a single angel or founder/foundress in heaven, ever had a problem about the issue. And that's because there was no such issue!

Nevertheless, the fairy tale issue was converted by Father Jim into a mean-spirited action by the Vatican's CDF against long suffering nuns who had sacrificed greatly in discarding their habits in their simple obedience to the dictates of VCII.

Puh-leeze!

opus101 · #**582** May 13, '12, 4:49 pm

Hmmm. Just did a tiny bit of research, and found that, according to this article, the Srs. of Saint Joseph DID have a habit when they were founded!
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08511a.htm
It is described in the first paragraph.

opus101 · #**583** May 13, '12, 4:53 pm

This statement from the sisters themselves says that the original habits were like the garb worn by the widows of the day.
http://www.csjssm.ca/faqs.html#1
Personally, I think their conclusions are a bit of a stretch.

jwinch2 · #**584** May 13, '12, 4:57 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSU

Nevertheless, the fairy tale issue was converted by Father Jim into a mean-spirited action by the Vatican's CDF against long suffering nuns who had sacrificed greatly in discarding their habits in their simple obedience to the dictates of VCII.

Puh-leeze!

I definitely do not agree with the rest of Fr. Martin's assertions in that video. Nor do I agree with many other stances and statements he has made on other controversial issues.

KSU · #**585** May 13, '12, 5:09 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by jwinch2

I definitely do not agree with the rest of Fr. Martin's assertions in that video. Nor do I agree with many other stances and statements he has made on other controversial issues.

No need to state the obvious, Jason. Again, your orthodoxy is beyond question, which is why I love to read and learn from posts by you and opus 101,