Arizona nuns blast Vatican, Catholic teaching [CC]

[Catholic_Press]

Women religious contacted by the Arizona Daily Star for an article on the current apostolic visitation used the opportunity to criticize the Vatican and express their dissent from Catholic teaching.

“We are closing schools and churches and they are asking the diocese to spend money on this type of thing?” said Sister Lil Mattingly, a Maryknoll Missioner. “We try very hard to review our own lives and how Jesus is calling us to live, but I’d like to call on Rome to work on that.”

Franciscan Sister Elizabeth Ohmann added, “Are we going contrary to Rome’s teachings? I say, ‘Yes, it is contrary to Rome’s teachings.’ But it is not contrary to my own conscience.”

More…

 

[DOShea]

I wonder what the “it” is she’s talking about being against the Church’s teachings but in stride with her conscience?

 

[Elizabeth502]

I wonder what the “it” is she’s talking about being against the Church’s teachings but in stride with her conscience?

Maybe it’s this (from the fuller story in the Arizona Star):

“I think — and this is my opinion — that they are saying they believe it’s the active communities that are really encouraging, say, women priests and are also upholding the rights of homosexuals and even homosexual marriage,” she said.
Ohmann said some of her personal beliefs, and those of some of her fellow sisters, are not in keeping with what the church proclaims.
“Are we going contrary to Rome’s teachings? I say, ‘Yes, it is contrary to Rome’s teachings.’ But it is not contrary to my own conscience,” she said.

 

[RobbyS]

Maybe it’s this (from the fuller story in the Arizona Star):

Why doesn’t she go into an honest line of work? I am sure that there is plenty of room in other agencies for doing social work. I certainly don’t want her in Catholic schools.

 

[Elizabeth502]

^ = a question I have asked many times myself, including on CAF.

 

[Zoe_Brain]

It is the Vatican’s teaching that priests who have molested children get retirement benefits.

Sisters who have given their lives to the Church must rely on food stamps, and their sisters to dig their graves, Literally. The Vatican pays no retirement, and doesn’t even pay for a pauper’s funeral.

There is a huge double-standard. And the Vatican treats the female religious with nothing but contempt, and periodic inquisitions by bishops not noted for their charitable views of anything smelling of heterodoxy Or femininity…

Bishop Leonard Blair is a very conservative bishop who, in his first act as bishop, removed every woman serving in high office in his diocese and replaced them with men.

Bishop Blair will lead a doctrinal investigation of the nuns: the inquiry will look at adherence to Catholic doctrine by the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, an organization of 1500 nuns across America. Doctrinal investigation.
…
It is curious that the bishop of the Toledo Diocese was selected as Toledo is/was a major epicenter for child abuse by priests. The film, Twist of Faith, detailed the sex abuse scandal of several Toledo priests in a Catholic high school in Toledo in the 1980’s.

Most interesting is the fact that this new Inquisition of the nuns is actually an attempt to shut them up, to silence them from speaking out on the priest abuse scandals. What has irritated the Vatican and prompted this Inquisition is the fact that nuns have ‘spoken out’ about these problems during nun conferences.

 

[JReducation]

It is the Vatican’s teaching that priests who have molested children get retirement benefits.

Sisters who have given their lives to the Church must rely on food stamps, and their sisters to dig their graves, Literally. The Vatican pays no retirement, and doesn’t even pay for a pauper’s funeral.

There is a huge double-standard. And the Vatican treats the female religious with nothing but contempt, and periodic inquisitions by bishops not noted for their charitable views of anything smelling of heterodoxy Or femininity…

Bishop Leonard Blair is a very conservative bishop who, in his first act as bishop, removed every woman serving in high office in his diocese and replaced them with men.

There is something that you may be missing here.

A secular priest (not a regular priest), a secular priest pays taxes and pays for his retirement plan out of his salary. Legally, in those countries where they have to pay taxes and retirement, they are entitled to those benefits, because they are paid for our of their pocket. This is not a charity from the Church. If the Church asks them to invest in their retirement plan, then they have a legal right to draw from it. That right has nothing to do with their other legal issues.

Religious (men and women), we do not receive a salary for our services. Therefore, we do not pay taxes or retirement benefits, either through the civil state or through the Church. Some religious communities have retirement insurance plans that they purchase from a private provider. The religious community pays for the premiums, not the individuals. Therefore, we religoius do not have a right to those benefits, if we leave the religoius community. The policy is purchased in the name of the community, not the individuals. The money used to pay for it is community money, not individual money. We have no individual monies.

Hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Auriel]

If you read the other links you will find that this is a three year “study” that will cost 1.1 million dollars AND the US Bishops are being asked to fund it. The Diocese of Tucson had to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 2004. A huge sex abuse scandal cost the Diocese 14 million in a settlement.

There are some great survivor groups out there that network so I keep up with Protestant and catholic clergy abuse cases. It is a BIG problem in all denominations. In just one month in my state alone there were 8 clergy arrests and/or convictions. Really sad. .

The nun’s statements make more sense now.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Zoe, I do not dispute that there are some troubling moral contradictions in the internal workings of the church and correspondingly in some external communications. However, the subject of this thread was this particular news story and, in one post, the resulting confusion about what this sister meant about 'her conscience" – i.e., what was the context for that.

There are many other lively threads in fact discussing some of the issues you raise, regarding alleged double standards, regarding the issue of justice for women religious, regarding recognition of the enormous life-long sacrifice of many of them. I think, however, that this published story reinforces some of the confusion and frustration created when similar stories surface. This is an issue of conformity to belief. (And the woman quoted in fact frames it that way.) She is discussing, yes, the inquiry, but she is also dismissing some core moral teachings as if those don’t matter and/or as if women religious, by virtue of their position (apparently) are entitled to be autonomous with regard to moral theology. The interesting way she further frames the argument is that she implies that because she (“we”) believe differently, therefore she/they oppose the legitimacy of the inquiry. That’s quite a leap.

If she feels this way, she is wrong, and doesn’t belong in Catholic professed (vowed) religious life. One could argue that she feels “trapped” (financially) at this stage of her life, but all opinions such as hers that I have read about among religious did not develop overnight in some sudden epiphany. These women have held fast to a radically different theological construct for the same (long) period of time in which they could have developed a career outside religious life, after leaving it – and earned income for retirement plans, etc. We’re talking 30, 40 years.

And would you not agree that if such a person feels, believes so radically differently than the institution she is representing, she would do herself so much better by leaving the setting that is the apparent cause of so much of her pain, and against which she finds herself in daily battle? (If anything, in support of the additional reasons you state.)

IOW, there are at least two (broadly) very different realms here: One is the realm of the treatment of Catholic women religious. The other is the realm of the limits of theological dissent.

Not trying to silence you, just clarifying.

 

[johnnykins]

It is the Vatican’s teaching that priests who have molested children get retirement benefits.

Sisters who have given their lives to the Church must rely on food stamps, and their sisters to dig their graves, Literally. The Vatican pays no retirement, and doesn’t even pay for a pauper’s funeral.

There is a huge double-standard. And the Vatican treats the female religious with nothing but contempt, and periodic inquisitions by bishops not noted for their charitable views of anything smelling of heterodoxy Or femininity…

Bishop Leonard Blair is a very conservative bishop who, in his first act as bishop, removed every woman serving in high office in his diocese and replaced them with men.

Before you sound off you really should know: that the sisters and nuns are not and never were under any diocese - they are members of their orders. That the sisters running those orders failed to plan for retirement is a travesty not to be laid at the feet of the Bishops, much less the Vatican. Add to that the frequent disaffection of the students or other charges of those orders and the disaffection of the faithful by reason of their heterodoxy, you have another self-inflicted wound by these orders. The falling numbers of religious are NOT merely related to societal changes, but also the blatant anti-Church attitude of so many religious. Why do they think people might be attracted to a disgruntled group who forswear family and sex for bad dress and an unrelenting anger at the Church? Why they blame the Bishops and Vatican for that is beyond me.

Frankly, most dioceses have special collections for the religious, though the religious really are substantially independent in all operational ways.

It’s true the Vatican pays them no retirement - it never was expected by anyone including the religious that it would. Read up on the organization of the Church before you condemn in your ignorance.

BTW why are you shocked that the Vatican opposes heterodoxy? That’s a simple one.

 

[Dirk_Skene]

Did I catch that right? “women priests”!? There are none. This whole thing is silly.

 

[JaMc]

I always did find it ironic that the Sisters’ reaction to the apostolic visitation is to demonstrate exactly why it is necessary.

 

[thomasf]

I always did find it ironic that the Sisters’ reaction to the apostolic visitation is to demonstrate exactly why it is necessary.

That’s my thoughts. If they are teaching and holding beliefs contrary to the vatican, then they do need a visit.

 

[estesbob]

If you read the other links you will find that this is a three year “study” that will cost 1.1 million dollars AND the US Bishops are being asked to fund it. The Diocese of Tucson had to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 2004. A huge sex abuse scandal cost the Diocese 14 million in a settlement.

There are some great survivor groups out there that network so I keep up with Protestant and catholic clergy abuse cases. It is a BIG problem in all denominations. In just one month in my state alone there were 8 clergy arrests and/or convictions. Really sad. .

The nun’s statements make more sense now.

I am harding a hard time following your logic-since the Church was imersed in a Homosexual Priest scandal it is understandable that a Nun would openly disagree with core moral teachings of the Church? And that religious orders should not be called to account for their disent becuase it costs money?

 

[estesbob]

Bishop Leonard Blair is a very conservative bishop who, in his first act as bishop, removed every woman serving in high office in his diocese and replaced them with men.

What exactly is it that makes Bishop Blair a "very conservative: Bishop?

 

[JReducation]

I believe that part of the hostility that SOME religious communities of women are having toward the visitation is that it is not a visitation of religious. This misunderstanding has to be corrected. The only religious who aer being visited are women religious in congregations, not religious women in orders or religious men in either orders or congregations.

On the other hand, the group that has been most outspoken on such issues as same-sex marriage, abortion, ordination of women, living outside of the religious community, putting aside the Liturgy of the Hours, the decrease in vocations, the decrease in financial autonomy are the religious sisters who belong to congregations in simple vows. Religious men belonging to religious orders in solemn vows or congregations in simple vows, and religious women in religious orders are not being visited.

This is not an apostolic visitation of religious, only of sisters in simple vows.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Auriel]

I am harding a hard time following your logic-since the Church was imersed in a Homosexual Priest scandal it is understandable that a Nun would openly disagree with core moral teachings of the Church? And that religious orders should not be called to account for their disent becuase it costs money?

Your answer is in the article:

"We are closing schools and churches and they are asking the diocese to spend money on this type of thing?" said Sister Lil Mattingly,

They are closing because of financial difficulties. They were forced into bankruptcy because of the lawsuits. So how are they expected to pay would be the logical conclusion. Though another article did state that though they were asked to pay, it was not issued as an order to pay.

Some view the survey as intrusive, or to punish. Some questions are in regards to how they respond to criminal issues and abuse while other questions are about how they are run, and who watches the sisters who live alone or with other groups, who is responsible for them, and how are the superiors placed over them? You can find them all here: apostolicvisitation.org/en/materials/index.html

My own thoughts as a non catholic are this: Are Catholic schools and churches forced to close not more important than a Million dollar survey which they cannot pay for, said survey that could be used, abused, and information taken out of context? If the US Bishops are forced to fund it and more close, how will Catholics there be spiritually fed?

IF they do manage to find a way to pay for this, then logic tells us they could have found a way to prevent all the closings.

I saw a note by one poster here, that the sisters pay for themselves and may not have put aside for retirement. If true then that is a shame. Mother Angelica was forced to finance her own order, she did through selling fishing lures and was blessed. I’d say she did an excellent job!

One of the Bishops that was engaged in criminal acts in Arizona is very ill now if even still living. He moved far away to another state. But the diocese still sends him a monthly payment. Maybe some have taken issue with that, I am not sure. And the fact that there were already warning signs that were ignored. .

 

[estesbob]

My own thoughts as a non catholic are this: Are Catholic schools and churches forced to close not more important than a Million dollar survey which they cannot pay for, said survey that could be used, abused, and information taken out of context? If the US Bishops are forced to fund it and more close, how will Catholics there be spiritually fed?

.

No churchs or schools are going to close over 1.2 million . My little parish just spent that much on an expansion and we are handling it with no problem. Even if they did is it not better to assure that they when they are spiritually fed they are fed the truth?

 

[JReducation]

Your answer is in the article:

They are closing because of financial difficulties. They were forced into bankruptcy because of the lawsuits. So how are they expected to pay would be the logical conclusion. Though another article did state that though they were asked to pay, it was not issued as an order to pay.

Some view the survey as intrusive, or to punish. Some questions are in regards to how they respond to criminal issues and abuse while other questions are about how they are run, and who watches the sisters who live alone or with other groups, who is responsible for them, and how are the superiors placed over them? You can find them all here: apostolicvisitation.org/en/materials/index.html

My own thoughts as a non catholic are this: Are Catholic schools and churches forced to close not more important than a Million dollar survey which they cannot pay for, said survey that could be used, abused, and information taken out of context? If the US Bishops are forced to fund it and more close, how will Catholics there be spiritually fed?

IF they do manage to find a way to pay for this, then logic tells us they could have found a way to prevent all the closings.

I saw a note by one poster here, that the sisters pay for themselves and may not have put aside for retirement. If true then that is a shame. Mother Angelica was forced to finance her own order, she did through selling fishing lures and was blessed. I’d say she did an excellent job!

One of the Bishops that was engaged in criminal acts in Arizona is very ill now if even still living. He moved far away to another state. But the diocese still sends him a monthly payment. Maybe some have taken issue with that, I am not sure. And the fact that there were already warning signs that were ignored. .

As a religious, please allow me to repeat some clarifications.

1. The 1.2 million for the survey is to be shared by all of the dioceses in the USA, not one diocese. This comes up to about $0.33 per Catholic. That’s a far cry than paying to maintain a school building or a church building by a smaller group of people.
2. We religious have no right to retirement or medical insurance. Because we make a vow of poverty, we do not receive wages for our work. Since we do not have wagees, we do not have mandatory social security taxes. Therefore, we have no Medicare and no Federal Retirement plan. The constitutions of some religious communities allow the community to pay the Social Security tax, so that they can have the benefits when their members reach the retirement age or become disabled. Not every religious community allows itself to do this. Some of us have it written into our constitutions that we shall have no security at all and that we shall depend totally on Divine Providence. My own community does not have medical insurance or social security. We beg for our medical care, as do many religious communities.
3. The case of the bishop that you mentioned is a different case. The bishop is an employee of the diocese. As am employee of the diocese he gets healthcare and retirement benefits. This is the law. He paid into these benefits out of his salary, like every other diocesan employee.
4. Some religious work for the diocese. In those cases, the religious community does not collect a salary for the religious. However, the diocese does give the religious community a monthly donation for the services that the religious give to the diocese. This is not a salary. Therefore, there are no withholdings and no benefits. The check is paid to the community, not in the name of the individual. Legally, the individual makes no money. That money is shared by all the members of the community.
5. A diocesan employee is paid in his or her name. There is the difference. That’s why those priests and lay people who work for a diocese get retirement benefits.

When you opt to become a religious you sign a document in which you accept that you owe the Church no money and that it owes you nothing. You accept that you are worthless in the sight of God and the Church. That your reason for entering religious life is to save your soul, not for security. You give up all security. To claim that you have given so much to the Church and now you’re being treated poorly is humbug. You’re a religious. What did you expect? I know that if I’m treated poorly or perceive that I’m being treated poorly by the bishops or the Vatican it’s because I have no right to be treated any other way. I’m a Franciscan. That’s why I became one, to be the least among my bretheren just as Christ was the least among his bretheren when he climbed the cross.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[theinquisitive]

As a religious, please allow me to repeat some clarifications.

When you opt to become a religious you sign a document in which you accept that you owe the Church no money and that it owes you nothing. You accept that you are worthless in the sight of God and the Church. That your reason for entering religious life is to save your soul, not for security. You give up all security. To claim that you have given so much to the Church and now you’re being treated poorly is humbug. You’re a religious. What did you expect? I know that if I’m treated poorly or perceive that I’m being treated poorly by the bishops or the Vatican it’s because I have no right to be treated any other way. I’m a Franciscan. That’s why I became one, to be the least among my bretheren just as Christ was the least among his bretheren when he climbed the cross.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

A totally dispicable “document”, unworthy of any Christain to compose…
Unforgivable to be asked to sign…
“When you opt to become a religious you sign a document in which you accept that you are worthless in the sight of God and the Church.”
Christ said, God treasures every human being,and loves all his “children”.
In God’s sight NO ONE is “worthless”…
2)
Charity to the lowliest of their brethren is one of the most important things Christ asked of his followers.
“What you do/give unto the lowliest you do/give unto me” Have we forgoten?..
Or are “sisters” excluded?
3)
We are also told by Christ to “care for the widows and the elderly”,I’m sure He did not exclude the “sisters”.
The very least a person can ask for, after serving the Church for most of their lives (without “payment”), is to be certain of the minimum requirements when they reach
“retirement” age,and a fitting funeral when they die.

This smacks a lot like Serfdom in it’s most vile sense,which,BTW has been long since
abolished.
And yes I do object to Priests, who through their disgusting and criminal behaviour,have damaged the Church,not only finacially,being sent to “homes” with full Medicare,and pensions.
They should be treated as “normal” employees (which you say they are),- SACKED and striped of their “benefits”.
Double standards here IMHO. Unworthy of the “followers of Christ”.