LCWR to determine course at next week's annual meeting

  • Thread starter Thread starter Elizabeth502
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
iloveangels said:
There are some interesting bits in here:

“Our process of discernment is typically not taking a vote,” she explained." If you read Ann Carey’s book, Sisters in Crisis, you can get a background on this. It’s interesting that she would acknowledge it so openly. On the other hand, she’s probably so used to it that she considers it a no-news item, which tells you something about where the LCWR has been for a long time now.
Click to expand...
I agree. That was also my take on it. OTOH, as I mentioned, it may also help to explain the cumulative communication gaps between the group and the hierarchy.
"Archbishop Sartain offered to come to the assembly, but he was told his presence “would not be helpful.” No? ROFLOL
Click to expand...
Ditto. That jumped out at me as well. Clearly uninvited.
 
In the church today we have far too much pride and no obedience. How do people even think they can overrule a bishop and disregard Catholic teachings is beyond me.

“…He who honours the bishop has been honoured by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve the devil. Give ye heed to the bishop, that God also may give heed to you…” St. Ignatius of Antioch (“Epistle to the Smyrnaeans,” c. 105 A.D.)
 
Sister Pat told the press conference: “The one thing that I think we’ve constantly communicated is that we … in however we respond to this [CDF mandate], we want to help create a safe and respectful environment, where Church leaders and grassroots Catholics can raise questions openly and search together for truth freely to the very complex issues of our time."

Sister, we have the truth already. :eek: The Vatican is throwing a lifeline to the LCWR. If they refuse to take it they will die on the vine.
 
I hear you, Jay. However, I think, to quote the warden in Cool Hand Luke,

"What we have here is a failure to communicate !"

Sister may have meant (we don’t know that), not “discover theological truths” in the sense of absolute theological principles (doctrine), but “discover the theological truths active, revealed, and needing to be acted upon within Church ministries, including the ministries of women’s religious congregations.”

As iloveangels and I both gleaned from the posted article, the LCWR seems accustomed to a very different style of communicating than the Vatican is used to (and expects from others!).

I would hope that an outcome of the meeting will be a determination to seek far more frequent and clear two-way communication between both.
 
Elizabeth502 said:
I hear you, Jay. However, I think, to quote the warden in Cool Hand Luke,

"What we have here is a failure to communicate !"

Sister may have meant (we don’t know that), not “discover theological truths” in the sense of absolute theological principles (doctrine), but “discover the theological truths active, revealed, and needing to be acted upon within Church ministries, including the ministries of women’s religious congregations.”

As iloveangels and I both gleaned from the posted article, the LCWR seems accustomed to a very different style of communicating than the Vatican is used to (and expects from others!).

I would hope that an outcome of the meeting will be a determination to seek far more frequent and clear two-way communication between both.
Click to expand...
Certainly. One of the important things to take note of is precisely the interpretation of the word “communication.”

If the word “communication” is taken to mean a discussion that “bargains down” the eternal truths of the Church so that they are no longer considered true, then this is not acceptable, and not Catholic.

On the other hand, if “communication” means a discussion of the practicalities of applying eternal truths to ministry and vocation, then that’s acceptable, appropriate and very Catholic.

Very, very different interpretations of the same word. And it’s very important that everyone involved gets this right.
 
iloveangels said:
Certainly. One of the important things to take note of is precisely the interpretation of the word “communication.”

If the word “communication” is taken to mean a discussion that “bargains down” the eternal truths of the Church so that they are no longer considered true, then this is not acceptable, and not Catholic.

On the other hand, if “communication” means a discussion of the practicalities of applying eternal truths to ministry and vocation, then that’s acceptable, laudable and completely appropriate. And very Catholic.

Very, very different interpretations of the same word. And it’s very important that everyone involved gets this right.
Click to expand...
Precisely. We’re on “the same page.” ! 👍
 
In her interview with NPR, Sister Farrell said “I would also say that there are very few doctrines in the Church that are not discussable, that are absolutely infallible.”

That sounds to me as the sort of thing that any doctrinal dissenter might say. ‘If the pope hasn’t declared it infallible, it’s up for discussion.’ But that’s not the way the Church works, and the CDF would no doubt disagree with that interpretation.

She goes on to say: “And I think those kinds of commentaries [the NPR interviews] are a reflection of a slightly different perspective that we have on obedience.”

“A slightly different perspective on obedience”? Sound like a phrase that a high school student might like to use in discussions with the school administration “Yes, ma’am, but you see, I have a slightly different perspective on obedience.”
 
JimG said:
She goes on to say: “And I think those kinds of commentaries [the NPR interviews] are a reflection of a slightly different perspective that we have on obedience.”\
Click to expand...
The shades of gray are Satan’s favorite color. 😦
 
JimG said:
In her interview with NPR, Sister Farrell said “I would also say that there are very few doctrines in the Church that are not discussable, that are absolutely infallible.”

That sounds to me as the sort of thing that any doctrinal dissenter might say. ‘If the pope hasn’t declared it infallible, it’s up for discussion.’ But that’s not the way the Church works, and the CDF would no doubt disagree with that interpretation.

She goes on to say: “And I think those kinds of commentaries [the NPR interviews] are a reflection of a slightly different perspective that we have on obedience.”

“A slightly different perspective on obedience”? Sound like a phrase that a high school student might like to use in discussions with the school administration “Yes, ma’am, but you see, I have a slightly different perspective on obedience.”
Click to expand...
“slightly different”? ROFLOL
 
The word “safe” here has a highly technical meaning and some historical connotations too, that are easily missed in casual reading. Again, some background reading, such as Ann Carey’s very well done book, is very helpful.

Ann Carey has also authored many articles for Catholic media, including Catholic World Report, National Catholic Register, OSV, etc etc. She’s pretty mainstream in the Catholic world.
 
JimG said:
In her interview with NPR, Sister Farrell said “I would also say that there are very few doctrines in the Church that are not discussable, that are absolutely infallible.”

That sounds to me as the sort of thing that any doctrinal dissenter might say. ‘If the pope hasn’t declared it infallible, it’s up for discussion.’ But that’s not the way the Church works, and the CDF would no doubt disagree with that interpretation.
Click to expand...
This is where Sister’s theology is lacking. In fact, the vast majority of Doctrines ARE infallible, most under the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium.

All Sister has to do is pick up copy of Ott’s *Intro to the Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma *to see what is infallible.
 
Brendan said:
This is where Sister’s theology is lacking. In fact, the vast majority of Doctrines ARE infallible, most under the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium.

All Sister has to do is pick up copy of Ott’s *Intro to the Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma *to see what is infallible.
Click to expand...
I’d be willing to bet that none of the LCWR leaders own a copy of Ott.

In my admittedly limited individual experience, this sort of religious (no small number of priests and brothers fall for it too) have little use for revealed principles. They don’t like to say it this clearly or bluntly, but they believe in experience, not principles or knowledge. If a person’s sincere personal experience does not lead them to receiving a certain moral teaching joyfully, then clearly the problem is with the doctrine, not the person. Simply tweak the doctrine until everybody is happy. Repeat ad nauseum.

Frankly, IMO, it is a perspective that has utterly forgotten about (or rejected) Original Sin and the Fall.
 
manualman said:
I’d be willing to bet that none of the LCWR leaders own a copy of Ott.

In my admittedly limited individual experience, this sort of religious (no small number of priests and brothers fall for it too) have little use for revealed principles. They don’t like to say it this clearly or bluntly, but they believe in experience, not principles or knowledge. If a person’s sincere personal experience does not lead them to receiving a certain moral teaching joyfully, then clearly the problem is with the doctrine, not the person. Simply tweak the doctrine until everybody is happy. Repeat ad nauseum.

Frankly, IMO, it is a perspective that has utterly forgotten about (or rejected) Original Sin and the Fall.
Click to expand...
Yes, and it’s a perspective that has led western civilization to the brink of collapse, which will follow upon the collapse of the family. Well, anyway, that will bring some new “experience” to bear.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top