Bishop Brandt Blocks Expansion Efforts of Nuns who Supported Health Bill

[catharina]

Mother Theresa started her mission with 5 rupees and a Rosary.These nuns could use a giant dose of humility.Why didn’t they become social workers instead?

Spare us, O Lord!
and Hold your horses.

As a retired social worker, I’ve seen plenty of these
kind of Sisters try to be social workers.
They are almost always way below par.

 

[Sherry_G]

Spare us, O Lord!
and Hold your horses.

As a retired social worker, I’ve seen plenty of these
kind of Sisters try to be social workers.
They are almost always way below par.

This one really got to me! Your sense of humor is wonderful! And, yes, lets not give social workers a bad name!

 

[catharina]

This one really got to me! Your sense of humor is wonderful! And, yes, lets not give social workers a bad name!

Thank you, gracias, merci, danke, xiexie, etc…

 

[TMC]

cptryon.org/ask/ask/vows.html

The bishop is the recognized authority of the Catholic Church for ALL Catholics in his dioceses. All Catholics have a responsibility of obedience to Church teaching as instructed by their bishop. Nuns in particular take vows of obedience (see link above).

This is one of the Church’s main problems today. Not only lay people but many religious (these sisters and Father Murphy of Notre Dame) feel free go their own way and still claim to be Catholic.

Do you know what a vow of obedience is and means to a Catholic religious?

I know what a vow of obedience is. I also know what a bishop’s authority is (and I recognized that Bishop Brandt’s actions in his diocese are within his authority). I still do not believe that these nuns have taken a vow of obedience that is relevant here – do these religious vow to accept every judgment of the USCCB on every topic? I have not heard of such a vow.

The nuns disagreed with the way the bishops interpreted the pending bill. So did most legal analysts. The USCCB was within its rights to withhold its endorsement of that bill on those grounds. (The USCCB did endorse the very similar House version.) I don’t see why the sisters would be forbidden to voice their contrary opinion. They did not say they were OK with the bill fostering more abortion - that would be denying a moral teaching. They expressed their opinion that the bill would not do that - that is a disagreement over a prudential opinion. That expression of opinion is not in violation of any vow, as far as I am aware. I don’t think the bishops have said that it was, have they?

 

[gakroeger]

I know what a vow of obedience is. I also know what a bishop’s authority is (and I recognized that Bishop Brandt’s actions in his diocese are within his authority). I still do not believe that these nuns have taken a vow of obedience that is relevant here – do these religious vow to accept every judgment of the USCCB on every topic? I have not heard of such a vow.

The nuns disagreed with the way the bishops interpreted the pending bill. So did most legal analysts. The USCCB was within its rights to withhold its endorsement of that bill on those grounds. (The USCCB did endorse the very similar House version.) I don’t see why the sisters would be forbidden to voice their contrary opinion. They did not say they were OK with the bill fostering more abortion - that would be denying a moral teaching. They expressed their opinion that the bill would not do that - that is a disagreement over a prudential opinion. That expression of opinion is not in violation of any vow, as far as I am aware. I don’t think the bishops have said that it was, have they?

So, you believe that the sisters vow of obedience to Church authority was for only those things they agree with?

 

[Ridgerunner]

It is great to see a bishop acting as a bishop and doing so publicly.

It was an act of a bishop censoring a priest who was acting wrongly (calling everyone up to communion regardless of Church affiliation, blessing of same sex unions, and allowing his pastoral administrator (a woman) to wear a stole and elevate the chalice at Mass) that was the final nail in the coffin for me to fully enter the Catholic Church.

Now look at me, I am a consecrated religious in temporary vows working through formation for the priesthood.

If that bishop did not act I might not be where I am today.

I disagree that things like this in the public media are bad. It shows that our Church has a true hierarchy and that it is not a “pick and choose” religion as some seem to wish it to be.

You won’t hear about those who see this and chose to enter the Church with this as part of their reasoning, you won’t hear about those who are strengthened in their faith by this, but believe me it happens and it is a good thing.

Those that are lost due to this were lost already.

Thank you (yes, it’s a bit early, I know) for pursuing your vocation. You are certainly needed in the priesthood.

To get back on topic, I cannot see any reason why the bishop should feel constrained to donate diocesan resources to these nuns, or otherwise support their efforts to expand membership in an order that openly defied the bishops. Why would he? I don’t doubt there are more faithful orders to whom he might better serve the Church by supporting.

 

[TMC]

So, you believe that the sisters vow of obedience to Church authority was for only those things they agree with?

I think that 1) they did not take a vow of obedience to the USCCB, and 2) any vow they took does not cover prudential judgments about the meaning and efficacy of legislation. I am willing to be convinced otherwise if someone has reason to believe I am wrong, but I am pretty sure that there is no such thing as a vow to conform to the prudential judgments of the USCCB.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I think that 1) they did not take a vow of obedience to the USCCB, and 2) any vow they took does not cover prudential judgments about the meaning and efficacy of legislation. I am willing to be convinced otherwise if someone has reason to believe I am wrong, but I am pretty sure that there is no such thing as a vow to conform to the prudential judgments of the USCCB.

To my understanding, it is not possible to make “prudential judgments” in favor of supporting abortion.

 

[catharina]

To my understanding, it is not possible to make “prudential judgments” in favor of supporting abortion.

In addition, to oppose in public, the will and advice of the Bishops is
to contribute to scandal of great magnitude - especially since the issue
at hand was/is so obviously in defense of life (or in the case of these Sisters,
obviously in defense of abortion).For the first time in my life, I find myself wondering
why certain of such communities deserve a penny for their housing, clothing,
grocery and medical needs. It feels as if Church (diocesan) moneys might be
going to support women who offer only a pretence of religious life.

 

[Ridgerunner]

In addition, to oppose in public, the will and advice of the Bishops is
to contribute to scandal of great magnitude - especially since the issue
at hand was/is so obviously in defense of life (or in the case of these Sisters,
obviously in defense of abortion).For the first time in my life, I find myself wondering
why certain of such communities deserve a penny for their housing, clothing,
grocery and medical needs. It feels as if Church (diocesan) moneys might be
going to support women who offer only a pretence of religious life.

By and large, religious orders are not dependent on dioceses. They have their own funding, often the result of years and years of donations received from the faithful. To my mind, many of them have departed from their original missions and have become, in effect, private foundations with their own agendas. With some, the agendas are basically charitable as they see them. With others, they are self-perpetuating and political.

 

[4elise]

By and large, religious orders are not dependent on dioceses. They have their own funding, often the result of years and years of donations received from the faithful. To my mind, many of them have departed from their original missions and have become, in effect, private foundations with their own agendas. With some, the agendas are basically charitable as they see them. With others, they are self-perpetuating and political.

Are you speaking in generalities about religious orders or are there specific ones that have as you see it strayed from their mission? If specific ones how do you see their actions as self-perpetuating and political?

 

[TMC]

To my understanding, it is not possible to make “prudential judgments” in favor of supporting abortion.

This is the great myth of this story - and a slanderous myth, in my opinion. The nuns did not take a position in support of abortion. They said that believed the version of the bill ultimately passed would not provide public funding for abortions, and that the provision for additional pre-natal medical care would result in fewer abortions. They said they favored a plan they believed would reduce abortion. If one disagrees with them its fair to say they were wrong. Its simply untrue to say that they are pro-abortion.

People often ask why more supposedly pro-life politicians and public figures don’t get involved in the abortion debate in a more public way. This is exactly why. When anyone does anything that does not match certain pro-lifers political goals they are savagely attacked. Here we have ardently pro-life nuns - people who have dedicated their entire lives to serve God and others - and they are being attacked and defamed because they had a slightly different position on this topic. (Yes, slightly. The difference between the House and Senate bills on abortion was very small - essentially a difference in the paperwork required to be used by the insurance companies.) Its mind boggling to me that Catholics are so quick to tear each other apart like this. Does anyone think this is helpful to the cause?

 

[catharina]

By and large, religious orders are not dependent on dioceses. They have their own funding, often the result of years and years of donations received from the faithful. To my mind, many of them have departed from their original missions and have become, in effect, private foundations with their own agendas. With some, the agendas are basically charitable as they see them. With others, they are self-perpetuating and political.

If I’m not mistaken, religious communities are allowed to exist (and serve)
within a diocese, only with the approval of the bishop.
In that sense, the Bishop’s word of approval is of great importance.

 

[catharina]

This is the great myth of this story - and a slanderous myth, in my opinion. The nuns did not take a position in support of abortion. They said that believed the version of the bill ultimately passed would not provide public funding for abortions, and that the provision for additional pre-natal medical care would result in fewer abortions. They said they favored a plan they believed would reduce abortion. If one disagrees with them its fair to say they were wrong. Its simply untrue to say that they are pro-abortion.

People often ask why more supposedly pro-life politicians and public figures don’t get involved in the abortion debate in a more public way. This is exactly why. When anyone does anything that does not match certain pro-lifers political goals they are savagely attacked. Here we have ardently pro-life nuns - people who have dedicated their entire lives to serve God and others - and they are being attacked and defamed because they had a slightly different position on this topic. (Yes, slightly. The difference between the House and Senate bills on abortion was very small - essentially a difference in the paperwork required to be used by the insurance companies.) Its mind boggling to me that Catholics are so quick to tear each other apart like this. Does anyone think this is helpful to the cause?

When a group of religious men or women choose to base their actions in opposition to the stated will of the Bishops, the actions of such communities, the rejection of the wisdom of the local Church in the matter, can only be seen and divisive and actually shocking.

 

[SpaceNeedle]

From what I hear, these “sisters” got the promise of enough big bucks from Obama that they can start their own church and thumb their noses at the Bishops. Bribery works on some people every time. When I saw “Sister Carol” on EWTN, I could clearly understand where she was coming from in support of govt run healthcare. She has expenses, dontcha know! This is a very sad situation indeed. By accepting this govt money, they will be bound to provide abortions in their own medical facilities anyway.

Pray for Sister Carol that she does repent and turn back to true Catholic teaching.:sad_yes:

Goodness gracious, can you cite ANY referernce for such an audacious statement?

 

[catharina]

Goodness gracious, can you cite ANY referernce for such an audacious statement?

Most simply, res ipsa loquitur, ‘the thing speaks for itself.’
In binding themselves to obamacare, these “nuns” bind themselves to compliance.
That’s compliance of what becomes known of the bill as its intent unfolds -
and that’s in opposition to the more sacred and defintive bond they should support.

 

[Sherry_G]

Goodness gracious, can you cite ANY referernce for such an audacious statement?

Sr Carol Keehan was a guest on “The World Over” on EWTN in the month or two prior to the disastrous vote for the so called “healthcare” bill. You can access this through the archives and watch it for yourself. Sorry, I don’t recall at this moment the exact date of its’ airing. Sr Carol did not admit to getting a promise of a large chunk of federal funding, but she has indeed been taken into President Obama’s oval office to gain her support and use her as a prop for support of his agenda. His agenda became clear after one week in office as he negated all the pro life protecting executive orders in place. Again, I am sure you could learn all these details if you were so inclined.

 

[Ridgerunner]

This is the great myth of this story - and a slanderous myth, in my opinion. The nuns did not take a position in support of abortion. They said that believed the version of the bill ultimately passed would not provide public funding for abortions, and that the provision for additional pre-natal medical care would result in fewer abortions. They said they favored a plan they believed would reduce abortion. If one disagrees with them its fair to say they were wrong. Its simply untrue to say that they are pro-abortion.

People often ask why more supposedly pro-life politicians and public figures don’t get involved in the abortion debate in a more public way. This is exactly why. When anyone does anything that does not match certain pro-lifers political goals they are savagely attacked. Here we have ardently pro-life nuns - people who have dedicated their entire lives to serve God and others - and they are being attacked and defamed because they had a slightly different position on this topic. (Yes, slightly. The difference between the House and Senate bills on abortion was very small - essentially a difference in the paperwork required to be used by the insurance companies.) Its mind boggling to me that Catholics are so quick to tear each other apart like this. Does anyone think this is helpful to the cause?

Yes, yes, I know. A better face can be put on this bill or on anything. Certainly, we have seen it debated in here whether the Senate bill authorizes abortion funding (which seems clearly so, since it isn’t prohibited and court cases have established that clear prohibition in the text is necessary if it’s to be prohibited), whether the Obama executive order has any real meaning or is intended only as something to revise or be overruled later because it isn’t in the bill at all. Certainly it doesn’t have the force of legislated law. The nuns could not possibly have supposed that the bill itself contained prohibitions, because it simply doesn’t.

I do reall seeing where the USCCB (hardly an opponent of the bill in other ways) employed skilled lawyers in reviewing this before taking a position on it. The nuns vetted it how?

The USCCB had absolutely nothing to gain in taking the position it did. The nuns had much to gain by passage of the bill.

Oh, and of course, all who promote public funding of abortion claim spending more public funds on prenatal care would somehow prevent abortions. That’s a totally inadequate premise for the conclusion.

As to the slander allegation, I think I am actually praising the nuns for having more intelligence than some think they have. They could not possibly be so stupid as to think this enactment will not ultimately result in public funding of elective abortions.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Are you speaking in generalities about religious orders or are there specific ones that have as you see it strayed from their mission? If specific ones how do you see their actions as self-perpetuating and political?

I do not tar all with the same brush. All I can say right now is that I have read of the changes some orders have undergone and what they have done with the funds under their control. If I get time to go back and research it, I will.

But one has to admit that the pronouncement of the nun in question was both self-serving and political.

 

[dennis01]

Maybe I’m missing something here. At the risk of getting off topic, why are religious orders, such as this one, publicly taking or endorsing positions on public policy issues?