Vatican Orders Crackdown On American Nuns

[Nimram]

Exactly Richard. That's what I was trying to say about interpretation and context.
Someone quoted Jesus to say how the catholic church went astray from his teachings and some "students of Rabbinic history" were offended. If that's not surrealism I don't know what is.

ETA Yes. JP II was all about PR. For stupid young dreamers like I was, his shameless PR work was a sign that things can be better. That people can talk without crying "Blasphemy".

[TerzaRima]

This thread calls for Dorothy Sayers to weigh in:

Perhaps it is no wonder that the women were first at the Cradle and last at the Cross. They had never known a man like this Man — there never has been such another. A prophet and teacher who never nagged at them, never flattered or coaxed or patronised; who never made arch jokes about them, never treated them either as "The women, God help us!" or "The ladies, God bless them!"; who rebuked without querulousness and praised without condescension; who took their questions and arguments seriously; who never mapped out their sphere for them, never urged them to be feminine or jeered at them for being female; who had no axe to grind and no uneasy male dignity to defend; who took them as he found them and was completely unself-conscious.
There is no act, no sermon, no parable in the whole Gospel that borrows its pungency from female perversity; nobody could possibly guess from the words of Jesus that there was anything 'funny' about woman’s nature.
But we might easily deduce it from His contemporaries, and from His prophets before Him, and from His Church to this day.

[Chrissy]

Thanks, Richard. I appreciate the time you took in providing that information. I have read the Old Testament a couple of times, and I understand some of the Judaic laws of holiness, righteousness, cleanliness, obedience, sacrifice, worship, and honoring God.

It's great that these laws have been written down by scribes, who were taught, as you say, by the Pharisees, and the religion has thus been preserved.

But I still don't get what that has to do with what I quoted. I didn't say the Pharisees were doing something wrong, some guy named Jesus said they were. That was his opinion. He was there. A bunch of people agreed with him. A bunch of other people didn't.

It's also worth noting that when Jesus said those things, he was talking to a group of Pharisees that were standing right there. So, maybe he was just talking to/about that particular group--the ones who were keeping an eye on him, or trying to control him, trying to mitigate the damage from the waves he was making. I have no idea.

But I certainly didn't make that post to say: see, Jewish scribes were evil. I posted it as indicative of the original message of Christianity, which is right now being utterly contradicted by what's happening in the Vatican. IMO.

I never want to offend anyone, but I don't think I'm required to say: "Your religion and your religious leaders are beyond reproach" because I don't want to offend you. If that were true, this thread would be kaput.

You can tell me all day long what Christians are doing wrong, and I'll probably agree with you. I find it hard to even identify with being a Christian anymore, but I love J.C. just 'cuz of how awesome he was. What he taught makes sense to me.

[Maxinquaye]

Maybe the Church doing this can remove some misconceptions, and that in the end it will be a good thing.

For one it might remove the misconception that the church is a democracy and that the doctrine is something that is up for debate. It is not. The doctrine is, according to catholics, the revealed word of god, and is therefore infallible.

Another thing is that it might remove the misconception that the church does not have the means to enforce the doctrine. It does. It can excommunicate people, and prevent them from participating in the sacraments. In other words, send people to hell.

Third, it might remove the misconception that the Pope is just another priest with a higher pay-grade. He is in fact the representative of God on Earth, and is the successor of the apostles, and Peter in particular. He is infallible, when it comes to doctrine.

Fourth, maybe, for once, it may make modern people stop and think about whether they actually want to belong to this organisation. I don’t think the nuns will leave. They’ve been in the infallible church all their lives, and they will do as they’re told. But maybe to members and the lay people will think, for once, about what they are a member of.

[Nimram]

Originally Posted by Maxinquaye

Maybe the Church doing this can remove some misconceptions, and that in the end it will be a good thing.

For one it might remove the misconception that the church is a democracy and that the doctrine is something that is up for debate. It is not. The doctrine is, according to catholics, the revealed word of god, and is therefore infallible.

Another thing is that it might remove the misconception that the church does not have the means to enforce the doctrine. It does. It can excommunicate people, and prevent them from participating in the sacraments. In other words, send people to hell.

Third, it might remove the misconception that the Pope is just another priest with a higher pay-grade. He is in fact the representative of God on Earth, and is the successor of the apostles, and Peter in particular. He is infallible, when it comes to doctrine.

Fourth, maybe, for once, it may make modern people stop and think about whether they actually want to belong to this organisation. I don’t think the nuns will leave. They’ve been in the infallible church all their lives, and they will do as they’re told. But maybe to members and the lay people will think, for once, about what they are a member of.

Yeah. And throw in some burning heretics to complete the picture.

[RichardGarfinkle]

Originally Posted by Chrissy

Thanks, Richard. I appreciate the time you took in providing that information. I have read the Old Testament a couple of times, and I understand some of the Judaic laws of holiness, righteousness, cleanliness, obedience, sacrifice, worship, and honoring God.

It's great that these laws have been written down by scribes, who were taught, as you say, by the Pharisees, and the religion has thus been preserved.

But I still don't get what that has to do with what I quoted. I didn't say the Pharisees were doing something wrong, some guy named Jesus said they were. That was his opinion. He was there. A bunch of people agreed with him. A bunch of other people didn't.

It's also worth noting that when Jesus said those things, he was talking to a group of Pharisees that were standing right there. So, maybe he was just talking to/about that particular group--the ones who were keeping an eye on him, or trying to control him, trying to mitigate the damage from the waves he was making. I have no idea.

But I certainly didn't make that post to say: see, Jewish scribes were evil. I posted it as indicative of the original message of Christianity, which is right now being utterly contradicted by what's happening in the Vatican. IMO.

I never want to offend anyone, but I don't think I'm required to say: "Your religion and your religious leaders are beyond reproach" because I don't want to offend you. If that were true, this thread would be kaput.

You can tell me all day long what Christians are doing wrong, and I'll probably agree with you. I find it hard to even identify with being a Christian anymore, but I love J.C. just 'cuz of how awesome he was. What he taught makes sense to me.

Chrissy, I'm not suggesting any of that. I've been trying to bring across one idea, that one person's profane can be another person's sacred. And that it is both hard and important to try to remember that. There are people who take this far more seriously than I do.

This thread is tricky because of the subject matter. I've sort of been trying to treat it like the threads in the Comparitive Religion board. Mac has a post there,the One Rule. Her post starts

Respect for each other, and for beliefs sometimes alien to ourselves, is the order of the day here.

I realize P&CE is different, but it seems to me that better understanding of these kinds of differences is important when religion crosses over into politics.

That the leaders of the church here are being hypocritical I agree with. That Jesus preached against such hypocrisy and did so justly I agree with, but identifying the hypocrites as the Pharisees is about equivalent to saying that all priests are evil, and that the teachings of the Church are inherently corrupt.

The evil actions of individuals should be attributed to those individuals, not to groups.

In circumstances like this collective nouns can be dangerous.

I know you mean well. I'd like to help make sure others know it as well.

[SteveCordero]

The Catholic Church was never a democracy so there never should be a misconception. But that just makes it more susceptible to revolution.

There is a bona fide disconnect between the heirarchy and the layity, especially in the U.S., where the Catholic Church is dying a slow death with aging priests and nuns without replacement and dwindling congregations. More and more priests have to be brought in from abroad and churches are being closed.

I find this all exciting because the Vatican's actions are a blatant sign of a tyrant in fear. With social media and the 24 hr news cycle, their actions are in the spotlight.

[Williebee]

Quote:
Respect for each other, and for beliefs sometimes alien to ourselves, is the order of the day here.
I realize P&CE is different

Actually, no. It isn't. Mac and I, and many of the other Mods have talked about this several times. No one is expected or required to believe what someone else believes, but we are all expected to respect their right to believe it.

[Chrissy]

Originally Posted by RichardGarfinkle

Chrissy, I'm not suggesting any of that. I've been trying to bring across one idea, that one person's profane can be another person's sacred. And that it is both hard and important to try to remember that. There are people who take this far more seriously than I do.

This thread is tricky because of the subject matter. I've sort of been trying to treat it like the threads in the Comparitive Religion board. Mac has a post there,the One Rule. Her post starts

Respect for each other, and for beliefs sometimes alien to ourselves, is the order of the day here.

I totally agree with this, even for P&CE.

I realize P&CE is different, but it seems to me that better understanding of these kinds of differences is important when religion crosses over into politics.

That the leaders of the church here are being hypocritical I agree with. That Jesus preached against such hypocrisy and did so justly I agree with, but identifying the hypocrites as the Pharisees is about equivalent to saying that all priests are evil, and that the teachings of the Church are inherently corrupt.

The evil actions of individuals should be attributed to those individuals, not to groups.

In circumstances like this collective nouns can be dangerous.

I know you mean well. I'd like to help make sure others know it as well.

Thanks, and I think I see what you're saying. Maybe I should have paraphrased a bit when I was quoting. I could have said, Jesus condemned the same type of behavior he perceived in the religious leaders of his day. He said:

"Woe unto you .... hypocrites!"

etc., etc.

Yes?

[RichardGarfinkle]

Originally Posted by Chrissy

I totally agree with this, even for P&CE.



Thanks, and I think I see what you're saying. Maybe I should have paraphrased a bit when I was quoting. I could have said, Jesus condemned the same type of behavior he perceived in the religious leaders of his day. He said: etc., etc.

Yes?

Yup. That's just fine. And yeah, woe unto them. Now back to the thread.

[RichardGarfinkle]

Originally Posted by Williebee

Actually, no. It isn't. Mac and I, and many of the other Mods have talked about this several times. No one is expected or required to believe what someone else believes, but we are all expected to respect their right to believe it.

Good to know. I was worried about being presumptuous about transporting the rule, lèse-majesté and all that. But it struck me as so valuable that I wanted to quote it and properly attribute it.

[Nymtoc]

“There is no recourse here. None whatsoever.”

Options facing LCWR stark, canon lawyers say | National Catholic Reporter

I am out of my depth here, not being Catholic, but I am on friendly terms with a former nun who is still very devout, who is outraged by this development and who--not being a member of LCWR--is free to speak her mind.

[callalily61]

Completely expected. Truly dreadful.

[Alessandra Kelley]

Originally Posted by Nymtoc

“There is no recourse here. None whatsoever.”

Options facing LCWR stark, canon lawyers say | National Catholic Reporter

I am out of my depth here, not being Catholic, but I am on friendly terms with a former nun who is still very devout, who is outraged by this development and who--not being a member of LCWR--is free to speak her mind.

Originally Posted by callalily61

Completely expected. Truly dreadful.

Holy cow.

Morrissey said part of the problem regarding the question of whether the sisters can appeal the decision is the fact that, when a decision comes from the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “there’s no appeal except to the Doctrine of Faith itself.”

...

The situation regarding the chances of appeal is so dim, Orsy said, that no canon lawyer would advise LCWR to spend time even trying to prepare a case to present.

...

While Wednesday’s document referred to some specific concerns the congregation has with the group and referenced the meetings it has had with the sisters, it did not provide minutes of those meetings or release other documents.

Orsy said any further examination of the congregation’s decision is hampered by that fact.

“We are all handicapped because the evidence has not been published,” Orsy said. “And like any kind of decision, you measure the decision in relationship to the evidence. But the evidence has not been published, except in very general terms. Therefore, you cannot argue with a decision unless you get the evidence on which it was based.”

Did I read that right? The evidence on which this terrible decision has been made is not publicly available, even to the nuns themselves?

So they can't appeal, because in essence they don't even know the charges?

Dear heaven.

[callalily61]

The Inquisition has not changed its methods in centuries. Why should they, when they possess absolute power over the lives--and souls--of their victims? Don't bother to watch the History Channel--history is alive and active in the RCC today.

[Seraph]

Can't the LCWR tell them to get stuffed, and split from the Vatican if they don't back off? A war of independence might be a good idea. Getting outraged about the acceptance of homosexuality, contraception and female priests is kinda stoneage.

[Alessandra Kelley]

Originally Posted by Seraph

Can't the LCWR tell them to get stuffed, and split from the Vatican if they don't back off? A war of independence might be a good idea. Getting outraged about the acceptance of homosexuality, contraception and female priests is kinda stoneage.

The difficulty, I believe, is that to become a nun you have to have a deep spiritual calling, enough to dedicate your life to it. To ask these women to split with the Vatican which, like it or not, has been the heart of their religion for over a millennium, is not a simple matter.

There is also the practical matter of living. I was under the impression that nuns give up everything material to become nuns, and thus have nothing on which to live outside of the church. The church may provide for them only meagerly and reluctantly, but it still supports them. If they split with the Vatican, they will literally have to go begging just in order to live.

But I am a non-Catholic reared irreligiously in a historically Quaker family. I may be wrong about this.

[Shadow Dragon]

Originally Posted by Seraph

Can't the LCWR tell them to get stuffed, and split from the Vatican if they don't back off? A war of independence might be a good idea. Getting outraged about the acceptance of homosexuality, contraception and female priests is kinda stoneage.

Sadly, it's not stone age to many people. Just look at the US. We have fundamentalist churches that make the Vatican look liberal in comparison and their numbers are rising. There are many people that still cling to old traditions and always will, regardless of anything someone says to them.

[Seraph]

Originally Posted by Alessandra Kelley

The difficulty, I believe, is that to become a nun you have to have a deep spiritual calling, enough to dedicate your life to it. To ask these women to split with the Vatican which, like it or not, has been the heart of their religion for over a millennium, is not a simple matter.

There is also the practical matter of living. I was under the impression that nuns give up everything material to become nuns, and thus have nothing on which to live outside of the church. The church may provide for them only meagerly and reluctantly, but it still supports them. If they split with the Vatican, they will literally have to go begging just in order to live.

But I am a non-Catholic reared irreligiously in a historically Quaker family. I may be wrong about this.

I can see the spiritual calling, and how that would be hard to go against. But you'd think the LCWR would have control of some administrative layers before the Vatican, and that the Vatican wouldn't play much of a role in their resources, day to day lives etc. Maybe they have legal trump cards.

And I hear ya Shadow Dragon. There's a fair deal in Canada as well. I must have grown up in a progressive bubble cause I had no idea what all was out there.

[Alessandra Kelley]

Originally Posted by Seraph

Can't the LCWR tell them to get stuffed, and split from the Vatican if they don't back off? A war of independence might be a good idea. Getting outraged about the acceptance of homosexuality, contraception and female priests is kinda stoneage.

As I understand it, the stated trouble the Vatican is having with American nuns is not so much that the nuns accept those things as they aren't actively and loudly preaching against them everywhere and at all times.

[Seraph]

"Yeah, when you're feeding the poor and sick, if you could like, rant and rave a little about the poisons of modern society, that'd be greeaaat."

[callalily61]

Alessandra, yes, yes, yes, and yes. That's why upthread I pointed out that leaving the convent is not even remotely akin to quitting your job.

[Seraph]

Originally Posted by callalily61

That's why upthread I pointed out that leaving the convent is not even remotely akin to quitting your job.

Can't they keep the convent but lose the pope?

[callalily61]

Originally Posted by Seraph

Can't they keep the convent but lose the pope?

You're being sarcastic, right?

[Maxinquaye]

Originally Posted by Alessandra Kelley

As I understand it, the stated trouble the Vatican is having with American nuns is not so much that the nuns accept those things as they aren't actively and loudly preaching against them everywhere and at all times.

It is a trouble that the Vatican has through-out the West. The median age of western nuns is very high, and there are few women of the west who has that kind of vocation that will make them join anyway.

I mentioned Karmel Tuutus Tuus above. The nuns in that convent were all Polish and Latin American.