R
RobbyS
Guest
She’s dotty.
- Status
R
RobbyS
Guest
Punishment or not, people like her should be retrained by assigning them roles where they can do not harm, such as making supper or doing ordinary clerical work.Actually, Bonaventure alludes to it in one of his sermons when he speaks about the Lateran Council. Aquinas does too in a letter to Bonaventure. We do know something else too. The two orders partnered for a very long time to run universities. There was a long-standing oral tradition of the desire of Pope Innocent III to unite the two orders and having facilitated an introduction between the two founders.
Remember, most of what we know about the early Franciscans was never written. And that which was written was ordered burned by Bonaventure when he was Minister General. A lot of what we have in writing are copies of the originals and duplicates of what was passed down by word of mouth.
In the end, it’s irrelevant to the history of the Dominicans and Franciscans whether our two Fathers met. It’s more important to the two communities that we have a shared history that goes back to the 1200s and at one time, we were very strong allies in combatting heresy. We went our separate ways during the Protestant Reformation. It had nothing to do with the Reformation, but with missionary actifvity. The crown sent us to different places.
That being said, neither the Franciscan nor the Dominican tradition would endorse the ideas nor behaviors of Sister Donna. However, both are adamant protectors, especially from the laity. Because our American laity tends to be very heavy-handed, while the tradition in both orders is a very fraternal one. We correct with, we do not punish. It is not within the competancy of the superiors in either order to punish. Both Francis and Dominic reserved punishment for themselves and never allowed their successors to exercise that power. It was banned from both orders. This was the cause of much distress and division among Franciscans through history, because some superiors adopted this from the Benedictines. They became very heavy-handed even to the point of having dungeons for dissident religious. Finally, the Capuchin reform put an end to this nonsense during the late 1500s.
Only bishops have the authority to punish and they have no authority over religious orders, only over congregations who work for them or are of diocesan right. Since Sister is a member of a congregation, not an order, it is up to the bishop to determine any punishment. We just have to wait and see what they decide when they meet.
In the meantime, let’s just be thankful that she’s no longer active in her “peacekeeping work.” I can’t understand, for the life of me, how this is peacekeeping.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
O
otjm
Guest
As to your general comment -why are they punative - some of that has to do with crowd psychology - the “Hang 'em high” routine.No no no. Please accept my apology if I said this the wrong way. I was not speaking of your personally. I’m talking in general about Catholics in the USA. We have become a very angry community. I’ve always believed in something that St. Teresa of Avila said, “God save us from sour faced saints.”
I hope this clarifies things.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Some of it has to do with the fact that a goodly number of people don’t use their brains for a lot more than keeping their ears apart… Thinking is hard work. It is particularly hard when life seems overly complicated, and that is not helped by the rose colored glasses people tend to wear when looking back in history. Some of it also has to do with the fact that the world does not seem on the path towards holiness. One only need to look at the chaos that surrounds us - political, sociological, economic, moral - just to name a few. It is easy to retreat into an “us vs. them” mentality, and perceive (not always wrongly) immorality on the other side’s part.
I would hazard a guess that one could safely bet the entire farm that in 1953, there were no nuns giving safe passage to young women on their way to abort their babies. In fact, I don’t think that would even be a guess. That flat-out didn’t happen. We have suffered of recent with discovery of sexual abuse by priests, not to mention priests who were openly homosexually active with other adults (I had one pastor who died of AIDS, and he didn’t get it from a needle); we have had women religious involved with the occult and Wiccan related activities; the list goes on and on. What is amazing is that more people are not royally hot about it.
Yes, people are angry. And on occasion I find humor (maybe a bit sick, but certainly amusing) in who gets angry about what. I find particular amusement in watching people on the liberal end of the spectrum chew nails and spit tacks about the abuse issue, and turn right around and get just as righteously angry when one mentions that 85% of the abuse was between priests and teenage boys. Oh, my no, that is not homosexual activity! It isn’t? So, what is the meaning of the term “chicken hawk”??? They are so naive as to never have heard the term. And of course, none of this would happen if they would jsut allow us to elect our bishops… Right. One more non-solution.
And on it goes… bishops who can’t or won’t follow the rules of the Church - even the minimum - liturgically; continuing issues with clericalism, that just won’t die. Lack of stability in life in general, and then no refuge in a parish that seems to be nothing but a microcosm of the world outside the door of the narthex… And then we get to the other end of the spectrum, and darned if they don’t sound a whole lot like some people in the Bible… I think they were called Pharisees? Putting form over matter?
No, I am not angry. Bemused may not be the correct word, but it comes to mind. I am no longer shocked by the next scandal; not shocked to find that some woman who persists in being identifed as a member of a religious community would help girls avoid someone who might help them save that baby, and escort her to the child’s death. I ahve found too many angry nuns -angry at men, angry at the “male dominated” Church; so stupid as to not see that what they profess to hate they now mimic. And I use the word “stupid” pointedly, because decorum says I do not use profane language here, and I can’t find a better term. I am no longer shocked to find a religious superior who first supports what the woman under her supervision is doing, and then, when the heat turns up a few notches and she can’t blow off a larger public, does an about face and professes how that just doesn’t quite fit in with a religious woman’s role.
Yaaa thiiiink???
And she could have been a rocket scientist…
And it is sad I am no longer shocked. It speaks volumes as to how far out of the ball park some are who insist they are still playing the game. Benedict 16 has spoken briefly about a remnant Church. He isn’t kidding; we just have not sat down and had the conversation we have needed to have for the last 40 years. We - adn by that I mean the hierarchy - need to be shepards; we need to define where the flock needs to be, and we need to define clearly that some are no longer in the fold. Yes, we want them back; but here is where the fold is, not there; and no, the sheep are not going to define where the fold is.
And I stand by my prior statement; I hope, for the salvation of souls - those who have gone astray and those they have lead astray - that the group interviewing the women religious has a big paddle, and stirs the pot thoroughly. It is far, far past time. It is time to fish or cut bait.
J
JReducation
Guest
You point is something that can be supported. And it’s often done by superiors… If someone can’t speak the truth to the public, then they are assigned to positions where they are not in touch with the public. That’s not punitive. That’s redirecting and perfectly acceptable.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JReducation
Guest
You point is something that can be supported. And it’s often done by superiors… If someone can’t speak the truth to the public, then they are assigned to positions where they are not in touch with the public. That’s not punitive. That’s redirecting someone to a place where their talents can do good. That’s perfectly acceptable.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JReducation
Guest
OTJM brings up a valid point. There are many people who are angry, not just women religious. Some are angry about the right things and others about nonsense. As I said in my post above, St. Teresa of Jesus once said, “God protect us from sour faced saints,” or “saints with sour faces”. I can’t recall the order of the words right now. Many of you have heard Fr. Andrew Apostoli, CFR. Last week, Fr. Andrew covered for Fr. Benedict G… He made an important point that we studied in mystical theology. Saints are joyful people. Sanctity is not achieved by people who are constantly angry. I was thinking about this, because Father was one of my professors when I was in formation, many many years ago.
One thing that we learned from him and from our other formators was the importance of protecting our inner joy. I remember when they were forming us that we were always told that to be a good friar you had to have interior silence. Therefore, you had to avoid anything that made you angry or anything that took away your joy.
The idea was that you should always look at situations, such as the one of which we speak on this thread, raise it up in prayer, hand it over to those who have the authority and power to make it change and step back. If it is in your power to change it, then do so. If it is not in your power to change it, hand it over to the Church and to God. But whatever you do, do not perseverate in talking about it or thinking about it, because you won’t change the situation and you will not do any good for your soul either.
The goal of the soul is to reach union with the Divine or as Catherine of Siena describes it, the spiritual nuptual. We have an obligation to teach and defend the truth when the need arises. However, the strategy is to teach and clarify for those who you can reach. You can’t evangelize, redirect, reform or change someone at a distance. Distance is not always physical. That has to be the work of those who are present in the situation. You deal with what is within your reach. You lead those within your reach. You clarify for those within your reach. And you pray for those who are out of your physical reach. But never let the actions or events outside of your reach ruffle your feathers.
The great reformers had this very clear in their mind. They dealt with the present. The present was what was happening in their time and in their space. Gradually, they influenced the world. By changing the hearts of those around them, they reached others. Those around them would leave their side and move out to other places and peoples and bring with them the great truths and spirituality that they had learned from the reformers.
People like Teresa, Francis, Bernard, and other great spiritual reformers focused on the need in front of them. Gradually, they extended outward by either going to those places that needed them or by sending their spiritual sons and daughters out to those communities where they were needed. But in their daily life they were filled with great joy. They tried very hard to avoid letting anger and disappointment drive their effort or shape their vision. Their daily life was driven by God’s presence, which gave them great joy, even when they were suffering. Their ability to correct others while offering a word of hope, is also very inspiring and a good school for us who live in difficult times.
For those who are looking forward to the results of the visitation to women religious, the attitude of this visit is one of hope. Having seen the first questionnaire that has been sent to the sisters, the questions are very positive. They are not asking the sisters to list their mistakes. They are asking the sisters to list what they have done well and consistent with their charism and the mind of their founders. They are guiding the sisters to revisit their charism and their founders. By doing so, the hope is that the sisters will do the self-correction that is necessary in many communities. What they are actually doing is asking the sisters to implement the decree by Vatican II, Perfectae Caritatis, return to the charism of the founder and adopt the means to the current situation while preserving the spirit of the founder. Hopefully, this will help many communities and many people like Sister Donna, because there are many out there who have misunderstood what the Church wanted in the reform of religious life. We have to hope and pray.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
One thing that we learned from him and from our other formators was the importance of protecting our inner joy. I remember when they were forming us that we were always told that to be a good friar you had to have interior silence. Therefore, you had to avoid anything that made you angry or anything that took away your joy.
The idea was that you should always look at situations, such as the one of which we speak on this thread, raise it up in prayer, hand it over to those who have the authority and power to make it change and step back. If it is in your power to change it, then do so. If it is not in your power to change it, hand it over to the Church and to God. But whatever you do, do not perseverate in talking about it or thinking about it, because you won’t change the situation and you will not do any good for your soul either.
The goal of the soul is to reach union with the Divine or as Catherine of Siena describes it, the spiritual nuptual. We have an obligation to teach and defend the truth when the need arises. However, the strategy is to teach and clarify for those who you can reach. You can’t evangelize, redirect, reform or change someone at a distance. Distance is not always physical. That has to be the work of those who are present in the situation. You deal with what is within your reach. You lead those within your reach. You clarify for those within your reach. And you pray for those who are out of your physical reach. But never let the actions or events outside of your reach ruffle your feathers.
The great reformers had this very clear in their mind. They dealt with the present. The present was what was happening in their time and in their space. Gradually, they influenced the world. By changing the hearts of those around them, they reached others. Those around them would leave their side and move out to other places and peoples and bring with them the great truths and spirituality that they had learned from the reformers.
People like Teresa, Francis, Bernard, and other great spiritual reformers focused on the need in front of them. Gradually, they extended outward by either going to those places that needed them or by sending their spiritual sons and daughters out to those communities where they were needed. But in their daily life they were filled with great joy. They tried very hard to avoid letting anger and disappointment drive their effort or shape their vision. Their daily life was driven by God’s presence, which gave them great joy, even when they were suffering. Their ability to correct others while offering a word of hope, is also very inspiring and a good school for us who live in difficult times.
For those who are looking forward to the results of the visitation to women religious, the attitude of this visit is one of hope. Having seen the first questionnaire that has been sent to the sisters, the questions are very positive. They are not asking the sisters to list their mistakes. They are asking the sisters to list what they have done well and consistent with their charism and the mind of their founders. They are guiding the sisters to revisit their charism and their founders. By doing so, the hope is that the sisters will do the self-correction that is necessary in many communities. What they are actually doing is asking the sisters to implement the decree by Vatican II, Perfectae Caritatis, return to the charism of the founder and adopt the means to the current situation while preserving the spirit of the founder. Hopefully, this will help many communities and many people like Sister Donna, because there are many out there who have misunderstood what the Church wanted in the reform of religious life. We have to hope and pray.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
D
Darryl1958
Guest
It takes an education to be able to sincerely believe in two contrary facts at the same time.
there is the possibility that it is a question just of naivete too.
As if to think that ‘normal’ homosexual lifestyle is totally unrelated to the pederasty that ripped the church apart.
As if the homosexual norm is all about boy meets boy, wanting nothing more than to don that beautiful wedding gown that mommy got married in and live happily ever after.
If only those bad old Christians would cease to cling to their antiquate religious ideas, then it would all be happily ever after, monogamy that may lighten the path for the troubled marriage of the breeders.
Anyways there is no doubt about where the norm of American Catholic thought lies with the election and adulation of pro-abortion Obama with the Catholic vote being instrumental in that election.
Nuns supporting abortions right up to the door is too close to the Catholic norm to be shocking at all.
J
JReducation
Guest
There was a wonderful report on the two visitations taking place. I thought I’d share them so that others can learn about them.
There is a doctrinal visitation of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR). This visitation is a result from a call that Pope John Paul II in 2001 who asked the LCWR to step back and correct their position on gay marriage, women’s ordination and their positions on the role of Jesus in salvation history.
What we have to understand here is that the LCWR is made up of about 1500 women religious. They allegedly represent the sisters in their community. But the problem with this is that they do not. The sisters in these communities have no voice or vote on the LCWR. The only ones who have a vote and a voice are the sisters who are actually members, not their entire community. The sisters who are members of the LCWR vote independently of their community’s wishes or religious goals. This visitation does not include the Council of Major Superiors of Religious Women (CMSRW).
The other visit is one to the women religious communities. This visit is focusing on the prayer life, ministry, vocation recruitment, formation, community life, fidelity to the founder and the charism. This visit is only to sisters. It involves all sisters. Nuns are not being visited.
However, the Vatican has also said that the bishops may not interfere in the internal affairs of the sisters. The commission is not allowed to interfere in the internal affairs either. They have to report to the Vatican. The Vatican alone will decide what can and should be done and by whom. But it’s not going to be by bishops. The Vatican has recently reminded the bishops that canon law does not allow them to take property from the sisters, assign superiors, control the assets of a religious community, trump their constitutions, approve or disapprove their constitutions, discipline the sisters, move sisters around or penalize the sisters. The Holy Father has reserved this for himself. His actions and those of his successors will be defined by the report that he gets back from the visitation.
Some people, like Sister Donna, may be asked to leave or setup in some other situation. Others may be asked to merge with other communities that are more sound. Some may be given directions, but allowed to remain independent communities. Individual sisters in those communities that have gone too far will be taken care of. But we don’t know how the Vatican plans on doing this. I guess that we have to wait for the recommendations from the visitors.
I thought I would share this with you, since I know that some of you are very interested in this visit and I know that some people don’t know that there are two separate visitations for two separate reasons. Maybe this information will be helpful to someone.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
There is a doctrinal visitation of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR). This visitation is a result from a call that Pope John Paul II in 2001 who asked the LCWR to step back and correct their position on gay marriage, women’s ordination and their positions on the role of Jesus in salvation history.
What we have to understand here is that the LCWR is made up of about 1500 women religious. They allegedly represent the sisters in their community. But the problem with this is that they do not. The sisters in these communities have no voice or vote on the LCWR. The only ones who have a vote and a voice are the sisters who are actually members, not their entire community. The sisters who are members of the LCWR vote independently of their community’s wishes or religious goals. This visitation does not include the Council of Major Superiors of Religious Women (CMSRW).
The other visit is one to the women religious communities. This visit is focusing on the prayer life, ministry, vocation recruitment, formation, community life, fidelity to the founder and the charism. This visit is only to sisters. It involves all sisters. Nuns are not being visited.
However, the Vatican has also said that the bishops may not interfere in the internal affairs of the sisters. The commission is not allowed to interfere in the internal affairs either. They have to report to the Vatican. The Vatican alone will decide what can and should be done and by whom. But it’s not going to be by bishops. The Vatican has recently reminded the bishops that canon law does not allow them to take property from the sisters, assign superiors, control the assets of a religious community, trump their constitutions, approve or disapprove their constitutions, discipline the sisters, move sisters around or penalize the sisters. The Holy Father has reserved this for himself. His actions and those of his successors will be defined by the report that he gets back from the visitation.
Some people, like Sister Donna, may be asked to leave or setup in some other situation. Others may be asked to merge with other communities that are more sound. Some may be given directions, but allowed to remain independent communities. Individual sisters in those communities that have gone too far will be taken care of. But we don’t know how the Vatican plans on doing this. I guess that we have to wait for the recommendations from the visitors.
I thought I would share this with you, since I know that some of you are very interested in this visit and I know that some people don’t know that there are two separate visitations for two separate reasons. Maybe this information will be helpful to someone.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
S
sedonaman
Guest
Re: “Sr. Quinn has been active since the 1970s as a leading advocate of abortion, homosexuality, and ordination of women in the Catholic Church, and has been escorting outside the ACU Health Clinic in Hinsdale for at least six years.”
If that statement is true, she should have long ago been dismissed “with Infamy, … and drummed out of the Corps immediately by all the Drummers and Fifers, never to return.”
If that statement is true, she should have long ago been dismissed “with Infamy, … and drummed out of the Corps immediately by all the Drummers and Fifers, never to return.”
O
otjm
Guest
Perhaps, but certainly not one which focused on logic. and sadly, some of the more vociferous voices of dissent are among educated liberals.
Well, perhaps it is naivete; more likely it is emotion driving the decision making process. Cold, hard logic “just isn’t nice”.
As if “nice” had anything to do with it.
When we treat love as an emotion instead of a choice; when we treat feelings (which are inward directed) as our guidance instead of the Gospel (outward directed), we end up down paths that are total dead ends - physically, spiritually, and emotionally.
But then, why confuse them with the facts?
They already have their minds made up…
J
JReducation
Guest
Re: “Sr. Quinn has been active since the 1970s as a leading advocate of abortion, homosexuality, and ordination of women in the Catholic Church, and has been escorting outside the ACU Health Clinic in Hinsdale for at least six years.”
**If that statement is true, she should have long ago been dismissed “with Infamy, … and drummed out of the Corps immediately by all the Drummers and Fifers, never to return.”/**QUOTE]
The bold is mine.
The Church does have procedures in place for dismissing people from the religious life or the clerical state. But the Church does not allow dismissal to be with infamy or public. The Church demands that dismissal must be very charitably done and without causing distress or harm to the person being dismissed.
When a person is dismissed from a community or from the clerical state the Church must make sure that they have a place to go, that they have money in their pocket, that they are treated with charity, and that the person’s name is not discredited in public. If the person goes out and does something stupid to attrack negative attention to their dismissal, that’s their fault, not the fault of the Church. The Church insists that this must be done very discretely and quietly. It is forbidden for any major superior or bishop to dismiss someone and tell the laity that they have done so. This is an action that the Church wants to keep very low key.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
S
sedonaman
Guest
Is it any wonder there is so much defiance to Church authority when there are no adverse consequences for it?
J
JReducation
Guest
The Church does not govern my intimidation, punishing, embarassing, humiliating and making people suffer. That’s just not the purpose or role of the ecclesial authority. These situations are handled quietly and calmly by the proper eclesial authorities.
The procedure is designed to be simple, effective and not call atention to anyone. The major superior (if the community has one) presents the case of dismissal before the council. He or she must present all the proper documentation to support that he or she has done his part to help the religious turn around. Each religioius community has their own requirements for this. I don’t know what the Dominicans have. In my community, the superior must speak to you three times. If that does not work, then he must send you three written counseling letters. If you do not turn, the superior must send you three threats of dismissal. When all that has been done, the superior presents his paperwork to the council.
Canon law requires that the council must vote with the superior to dimiss. The superior cannot dismiss unilaterally. When the vote is taken and the decision to dismiss has been agreed upon, the religious must be notified and is given a fixed number of days to respond. If the religious chooses to appeal, the letter is sent to the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life in Rome. From there, Rome takes over. If the religious does not appeal, the case is over and done with at the end of the days elapsed.
There is a new provision in the law, very recent, that in the case of abortion, the superior may initiate dismissal proceedings without all of the personal interviews and letters. However, the law does not say that the superior must do it that way, only that he or she may do it that way. The decision as to how to proceed in matters of abortion is up to the superior.
All this being said, the Vatican holds the superior personally liable for keeping the peace in the community and seeing to it that the religious community is not upset and that the life of the community is not affected by the process or the turnoil. The Holy Father has insisted that all of these processes must take place with the minimal awareness and knowledge of the community, so as not to upset the spiritual life and internal silence of the religious community. In other words, the superior must proceed very discretely, calmly and carefully. If the community is upset, it reserves the right to have the superior removed from office by the Holy See for failing to protect the interior life of the religious under his/her care.
We have to understand here is that the superior is responsible not only for redirecting the actions of people like Sr. Donna, but also for the reactions and feelings of all the religious under his/her care. Needless to say, dismissing someone from a religious community is going to upset the people in that house, at the very least. Therefore the superior must act as calmly as possible to minimize the pain of the other religious.
These situations are not easy for anyone. We have to keep everyone involved in prayer.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
L
Lepanto
Guest
Quinn has been up to no good since the 1970s. In that time her actions have no doubt upset the peace of the members of her own community who have disagreed with her.
Moreover, her actions do not take place in an inert vacuum. Cloistered communities have an obligation to propagate the Kingdom of God, as do apostolic ones, yet you are ignoring Quinn’s grievous harm to these other communities: the Church, the babies and their mothers, and non-Catholics.
You are ignoring the larger Church “community” scandalized by her behavior, the “community” of children that she has materially helped to kill, the “community” of mothers she has deceived, and the non-Catholic “community” that looks on in confusion.
I suspect that the only reason her superior is doing something now is because the Vatican is finally investigating American religious women’s communities.
J
JReducation
Guest
Wait a minute. When you say “you”, do you mean me personally or the universal you? All I did was explain the process. If people read further back, I have said that Sr. Donna’s actions are wrong and I stand by that.
As to her superiors, I’m not sure that she has a major superior. I may be mistaken on this, but I believe that the Dominican Sisters of Sinsinawa (sp?) do not have a major superior. From the little that I have read about this case, they are governed by a council. To be honest, I don’t know how that works. Men’s communities are not governed that way. We have major superiors. But not all women’s communities do. It’s not required by the Church. Again, don’t ask me to explain how government works in this case. I know how one community does it, but they are not this group.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
S
sedonaman
Guest
S
sedonaman
Guest
So why hasn’t all this been done? As lepanto pointed out, she’s been at it for 40 years. How much longer must the Church put up with this scandal before something is done? The Church cannot perform its mission with a 5th column in its midst. Seems to me that some of her superiors should be removed for failure to perform.
J
JReducation
Guest
Unfortunately, that is a question that I cannot answer for you. I’ve wondered about this myself.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
S
sedonaman
Guest
That’s all well and good, but let me paraphrase Auster who wrote of this problem with respect to our country, but the same applies to the Church:
If her order has been tolerating immoral actions for forty years, then it [and probably the Church] has de facto embraced the modern liberal ideology and thus lost all its authority to govern. How much respect can she [or her peers] have left for authority that refuses to exercise itself? As a supervisor, I observed this very phenomenon in the workplace. Management absolutely refused to take action against any employee who broke the rules [except in the case of it producing a public scandal, which in management’s eyes was probably the real crime], and productivity and morale were consequently very low.
Auster continues:
Such affirmation by her superiors is long overdue, and that’s why they should also be removed. And as far as having a place to go is concerned, I’m sure there is plenty of missionary work that needs to be done in some remote corner of the world where they can do no harm.
- Status