Nuns Group Sanctioned by Vatican to Meet this Month

[jilly4ski]

I’m no economist myself but I do know a few things about debt on a personal level. Paying off high levels of debt can be done in one of two ways: depriving oneself to hopefully pay off what is due in the remainder of one’s lifetime or SPENDING some to improve one’s earning ability so that the debt can be repaid more quickly and one can get back to the business of living.

Pretty sure it’s not quite that simple when one considers national debt, but the principle that maintaining or increasing productivity is preferable to eking out an existence seems to be a reasonable one. Entitlements are not a bad investment IF they contribute toward maintaining or increasing productivity. So feeding, educating and keeping a population healthy is not simply a charitable thing to do - if applied effectively, programs which seek to do those things represent an investment in the workforce and in the nation’s ability to repay its debts.

Lol, tell that to students who more or less have mortgages out for the education and can’t find jobs. Now they are in more debt and can’t pay any of their bills.

I am poor, by the states definition of poor. I receive medicaid benefits, the day the state can’t pay its bills and there is a spending freeze is the day some families go hungry (well this is actually unlikely as usually one gets way more in food support than one needs, at least in the liberal states I have been in), because they can’t get their food support. Or some old people freeze because the state can’t make heating support payments. It would be better to reduce entitlement payments for all, now, than to completely stop the payments sometime in the future.

 

[JimG]

I’m no economist myself but I do know a few things about debt on a personal level. Paying off high levels of debt can be done in one of two ways: depriving oneself to hopefully pay off what is due in the remainder of one’s lifetime or SPENDING some to improve one’s earning ability so that the debt can be repaid more quickly and one can get back to the business of living.

Pretty sure it’s not quite that simple when one considers national debt, but the principle that maintaining or increasing productivity is preferable to eking out an existence seems to be a reasonable one. Entitlements are not a bad investment IF they contribute toward maintaining or increasing productivity. So feeding, educating and keeping a population healthy is not simply a charitable thing to do - if applied effectively, programs which seek to do those things represent an investment in the workforce and in the nation’s ability to repay its debts.

Well yes, that can work. But I wouldn’t advise an English major with a BA degree who can’t find a job to incur even more debt to get a M.A. or a PhD in the hopes that a higher paying job will enable the debt to be repaid quickly, because it might not work. Indeed, I know some graduates who decided to stay in school, incurring more debt and more degrees, who are still unable to find work and whose student loan debt now constitutes something like a long term of indentured servitude.

Sure, if Robert Reich is correct that spending a few more trillion dollars (borrowed) will fix things up–if we try that and it works I’ll breathe a big sigh of relief and learn to love the debt.

But if it doesn’t work the consequences could be very dire indeed, and I’ll just prepare myself for a long dark age of feudalism or tyrrany.

 

[LisaA]

I’m no economist myself but I do know a few things about debt on a personal level. Paying off high levels of debt can be done in one of two ways: depriving oneself to hopefully pay off what is due in the remainder of one’s lifetime or SPENDING some to improve one’s earning ability so that the debt can be repaid more quickly and one can get back to the business of living.

Pretty sure it’s not quite that simple when one considers national debt, but the principle that maintaining or increasing productivity is preferable to eking out an existence seems to be a reasonable one. Entitlements are not a bad investment IF they contribute toward maintaining or increasing productivity. So feeding, educating and keeping a population healthy is not simply a charitable thing to do - if applied effectively, programs which seek to do those things represent an investment in the workforce and in the nation’s ability to repay its debts.

Honestly I don’t think we disagree so much about concept but that you qualify your conclusions with such impossibilities that I just don’t think the real world and human nature will allow your hopes and dreams to materialize.

THe government is not supposed to “feed, educate and keep the population healthy.” It is up to us as individuals to do what we can for ourselves and our families. Looking to the government as a nanny or mommy or daddy or husband is what is CAUSING our problems, not solving them. Government assistance should be limited to the FEW situations where people truly cannot care for themselves, do not have family and cannot access charitable organizations’ assistance.

Feeding oneself, keeping oneself healthy is a personal issue in most cases. Do you want the government telling you what you should eat or whether you must exercise 30 minutes a day? Really? I sure dont

As one poster said, we have grossly expanded entitlements to the point they simply cannot be sustained. There are more IN the wagon than pulling it…

As to K-12 education, I do see the government as having a large role because few people have the ability and the time to educate their own children. And presumably as we want some consistency of education (reading, math, etc) having a standard to adhere to makes sense. However I am a strong believer in school choice and the money following the student to the school his/her parents believe will best suit.

I think government expansion into every crack and cervice of our lives…light bulbs, grocery bags, Happy Meal toys, is ridiculous and not only is it incredibly annoying and expensive, it is completely unnecessary

Lisa

 

[seekerz]

Well yes, that can work. But I wouldn’t advise an English major with a BA degree who can’t find a job to incur even more debt to get a M.A. or a PhD in the hopes that a higher paying job will enable the debt to be repaid quickly, because it might not work. Indeed, I know some graduates who decided to stay in school, incurring more debt and more degrees, who are still unable to find work and whose student loan debt now constitutes something like a long term of indentured servitude.

Sure, if Robert Reich is correct that spending a few more trillion dollars (borrowed) will fix things up–if we try that and it works I’ll breathe a big sigh of relief and learn to love the debt.

But if it doesn’t work the consequences could be very dire indeed, and I’ll just prepare myself for a long dark age of feudalism or tyrrany.

Education does not have to mean a college degree necessarily, though it should include that, and of course labor needs of the future need to be considered in deciding specific areas where education investments need to be directed. But even maintaining/improving basic education (as with HeadStart type programs for example) is essential to maintaining/improving productivity, and ensuring that these kids have a full stomach in school is just as important.

What I do know, is that removing/significantly decreasing social supports can have dire repercussions on the economy as it exists now. How does one maintain even the present levels of productivity with increased trouble feeding the family, decreased ability to pay the rent and increased responsibility for the care of elderly? How do the kids grow up to be productive if they have LESS opportunity for advancement than their parents did? Failure to maintain social supports could well mean that the ability to repay debt DECREASES over time as a less prepared generation assumes responsibility for it.

 

[seekerz]

Honestly I don’t think we disagree so much about concept but that you qualify your conclusions with such impossibilities that I just don’t think the real world and human nature will allow your hopes and dreams to materialize.

THe government is not supposed to “feed, educate and keep the population healthy.” It is up to us as individuals to do what we can for ourselves and our families. Looking to the government as a nanny or mommy or daddy or husband is what is CAUSING our problems, not solving them. Government assistance should be limited to the FEW situations where people truly cannot care for themselves, do not have family and cannot access charitable organizations’ assistance.

Feeding oneself, keeping oneself healthy is a personal issue in most cases. Do you want the government telling you what you should eat or whether you must exercise 30 minutes a day? Really? I sure dont

As one poster said, we have grossly expanded entitlements to the point they simply cannot be sustained. There are more IN the wagon than pulling it…

As to K-12 education, I do see the government as having a large role because few people have the ability and the time to educate their own children. And presumably as we want some consistency of education (reading, math, etc) having a standard to adhere to makes sense. However I am a strong believer in school choice and the money following the student to the school his/her parents believe will best suit.

I think government expansion into every crack and cervice of our lives…light bulbs, grocery bags, Happy Meal toys, is ridiculous and not only is it incredibly annoying and expensive, it is completely unnecessary

Lisa

I think we are closer in views than it might appear. Feeding, educating and clothing does not mean that people sit at home and the government drops it in their laps - no; that is neither realistic nor does it remotely make sense. It means ensuring that there there are mechanisms in place to make food, clothes and education available and accessible to all; whether through individual purchases, charitable donations or government programs for the economically disadvantaged.

Whether you consider it rare or not (and I’m not sure how you define ‘rare’) there are people in our society who are unable, sometimes even while holding a job, to provide all the basics for themselves and their families. One of the responsibilities of government is to help such disadvantaged people - not only because it is the right thing to do, but because failing to do so is deleterious to the whole of society.

 

[LisaA]

Education does not have to mean a college degree necessarily, though it should include that, and of course labor needs of the future need to be considered in deciding specific areas where education investments need to be directed. But even maintaining/improving basic education (as with HeadStart type programs for example) is essential to maintaining/improving productivity, and ensuring that these kids have a full stomach in school is just as important.

What I do know, is that removing/significantly decreasing social supports can have dire repercussions on the economy as it exists now. How does one maintain even the present levels of productivity with increased trouble feeding the family, decreased ability to pay the rent and increased responsibility for the care of elderly? How do the kids grow up to be productive if they have LESS opportunity for advancement than their parents did? Failure to maintain social supports could well mean that the ability to repay debt DECREASES over time as a less prepared generation assumes responsibility for it.

Head Start sounds wonderful but even the government admits there is no difference between children who accessed Head Start and those in the same demographic who did not. THis is where we disagree. You seem to have great faith in government even if programs have proven ineffective.

I have faith in people to work toward their own self interest. If we provide incentives to dependency and helplessness, guess what…we get more of it. Why not provide incentives to succeed instead of fail?

Lisa

 

[LisaA]

I think we are closer in views than it might appear. Feeding, educating and clothing does not mean that people sit at home and the government drops it in their laps - no; that is neither realistic nor does it remotely make sense. It means ensuring that there there are mechanisms in place to make of food, clothes, education available and accessible to all; whether through individual purchases, charitable donations or government programs for the economically disadvantaged.

Whether you consider it rare or not (and I’m not sure how you define ‘rare’) there are people in our society who are unable, sometimes even while holding a job, to provide all the basics for themselves and their families. One of the responsibilities of government is to help such disadvantaged people - not only because it is the right thing to do, but because failing to do so is deleterious to the whole of society.

Seekerz I absolutely agree that there are people who cannot care for themselves and no one resents their receiving assistance. What those of us who question government programs question is the waste and the unnecessary services, food, benefits given to those who COULD do more for themselves.

I’ve been on a number of Boards, volunteer for a number of social service agencies. I see it all, from the truly needy to the totally greedy. If the government were more discerning about its largesse and frankly if many charities were more careful about doling out money then the TRULY needy would benefit. This is what I resent most, that people who are pushy, who game the system, who cheat take food from the mouths of the helpless. I see it and I saw it in every single social services organizatoin, every charity (including our beloved Church).

BTW one of the groups you speak of is military families who are often barely scraping by with the load of multiple deployments. THis group is rarely showcased and is truly in need of assistance.

Lisa

 

[seekerz]

Head Start sounds wonderful but even the government admits there is no difference between children who accessed Head Start and those in the same demographic who did not. THis is where we disagree. You seem to have great faith in government even if programs have proven ineffective.

I have faith in people to work toward their own self interest. If we provide incentives to dependency and helplessness, guess what…we get more of it. Why not provide incentives to succeed instead of fail?

Lisa

There is conflicting evidence on HeadStart’s effectiveness, but what has been pretty much established is that kids start out with an advantage but that this decreases over time. Commonsense would dictate then that we question the quality of education following the HeadStart years.

Here are two examples of the debate:

investinginkids.net/2011/09/12/interpreting-the-conflicting-evidence-on-head-start-effectiveness/
ffyf.org/blog/busting-myths-about-head-starts-effectiveness

 

[seekerz]

Seekerz I absolutely agree that there are people who cannot care for themselves and no one resents their receiving assistance. What those of us who question government programs question is the waste and the unnecessary services, food, benefits given to those who COULD do more for themselves.

I’ve been on a number of Boards, volunteer for a number of social service agencies. I see it all, from the truly needy to the totally greedy. If the government were more discerning about its largesse and frankly if many charities were more careful about doling out money then the TRULY needy would benefit. This is what I resent most, that people who are pushy, who game the system, who cheat take food from the mouths of the helpless. I see it and I saw it in every single social services organizatoin, every charity (including our beloved Church).

BTW one of the groups you speak of is military families who are often barely scraping by with the load of multiple deployments. THis group is rarely showcased and is truly in need of assistance.

Lisa

I will not disagree there at all. There are people gaming the system; people who take benefits simply because they ‘qualify’ technically, not because they really need the help. And you’re also correct in pointing out that this happens with charitable organizations as well as with government.

Wouldn’t you then agree that what we should be focusing all our energies on is not across-the-board cuts of entitlements, but decreasing costs by weeding out waste and fraud? What happens when you simply cut without discrimination? It’s not the ones who didn’t need help in the first place who go without, it’s the people who are absolutely dependent on it.

 

[JimG]

Education does not have to mean a college degree necessarily, though it should include that, and of course labor needs of the future need to be considered in deciding specific areas where education investments need to be directed. But even maintaining/improving basic education (as with HeadStart type programs for example) is essential to maintaining/improving productivity, and ensuring that these kids have a full stomach in school is just as important.

What I do know, is that removing/significantly decreasing social supports can have dire repercussions on the economy as it exists now. How does one maintain even the present levels of productivity with increased trouble feeding the family, decreased ability to pay the rent and increased responsibility for the care of elderly? How do the kids grow up to be productive if they have LESS opportunity for advancement than their parents did? Failure to maintain social supports could well mean that the ability to repay debt DECREASES over time as a less prepared generation assumes responsibility for it.

I don’t disagree at all that significantly decreasing social supports can have dire repercussions on the economy. That is exactly what worries me. If social supports are reduced or modified gradually as a way to (possibly) prevent a debt crisis, that would have less deleterious effects than the sudden withdrawal of social supports as a direct result of monetary crisis. The present situation can’t continue indefinitely. We will either have gradual austerity or sudden and wrenching austerity. If I were an optimist, I would say that we could suddenly start growing at 4% per year, but I don’t see any scenario in which that could happen.

 

[LisaA]

I will not disagree there at all. There are people gaming the system; people who take benefits simply because they ‘qualify’ technically, not because they really need the help. And you’re also correct in pointing out that this happens with charitable organizations as well as with government.

Wouldn’t you then agree that what we should be focusing all our energies on is not across-the-board cuts of entitlements, but decreasing costs by weeding out waste and fraud? What happens when you simply cut without discrimination? It’s not the ones who didn’t need help in the first place who go without, it’s the people who are absolutely dependent on it.

Absolutely. The idea of percentage or across the board cuts is ridiculous as it presumes every program is equally necessary or effective. I took a number of classes in nonprofit management my alma mater. Supposedly non-profits were moving to an outcomes model rather than an (name removed by moderator)ut model. IOW instead of being paid for X number of bed nights for a drug treatment facility or shelter, the organizations were given advances and then had to be accountable for the funds with respect to the final results. This prevents the perverse incentive to simply increase services without any accountability for results. If only government programs functioned similarly.

I would far rather focus on tougher intake and fraud prevention which I believe will more properly allocate limited resources. One of the real problems is that government is paid to grow and expand which provides a perverse incentive to sign up more and more people for benefits they may not really need…but who is going to turn down free money?

One of the worst examples is in food stamps. It is as if we WANT more people on food stamps. For example when someone applies for one assistance program they are also pushed into applying for food stamps even if they expressed no need for this supplement. Schools are “pimping” food stamps by sending home forms with children because schools with X% of kids on food stamps get additional funding. I just heard that in 1970 one in 70 Americans was using food stamps, now it’s one in 7!

I do believe that this is a very charitable nation and we do care for our neighbors, but I fear the more the government has taken over, the fewer people who actually look out for their neighbors. I’d hate to see the US go down the same road as Europe, not only in the financial sense but in the lack of support for charity in Europe (NGOs)

Lisa

 

[seekerz]

Absolutely. The idea of percentage or across the board cuts is ridiculous as it presumes every program is equally necessary or effective. I took a number of classes in nonprofit management my alma mater. Supposedly non-profits were moving to an outcomes model rather than an (name removed by moderator)ut model. IOW instead of being paid for X number of bed nights for a drug treatment facility or shelter, the organizations were given advances and then had to be accountable for the funds with respect to the final results. This prevents the perverse incentive to simply increase services without any accountability for results. If only government programs functioned similarly.

I would far rather focus on tougher intake and fraud prevention which I believe will more properly allocate limited resources. One of the real problems is that government is paid to grow and expand which provides a perverse incentive to sign up more and more people for benefits they may not really need…but who is going to turn down free money?

One of the worst examples is in food stamps. It is as if we WANT more people on food stamps. For example when someone applies for one assistance program they are also pushed into applying for food stamps even if they expressed no need for this supplement. Schools are “pimping” food stamps by sending home forms with children because schools with X% of kids on food stamps get additional funding. I just heard that in 1970 one in 70 Americans was using food stamps, now it’s one in 7!

I do believe that this is a very charitable nation and we do care for our neighbors, but I fear the more the government has taken over, the fewer people who actually look out for their neighbors. I’d hate to see the US go down the same road as Europe, not only in the financial sense but in the lack of support for charity in Europe (NGOs)

Lisa

Increased accountability is definitely needed. I also do not think it’s a question of charitable organizations versus the government - in many, if not most cases, the larger international organizations are themselves recipients of government assistance.

Some roles are just too expensive or big (e.g. health care provision for the poor) to be covered by charities alone - which was why these organizations historically ceded some roles to the state to begin with.

Of course government will expand unchecked if left to its own devices, so there is reason to be wary and to demand checks and balances; but level of opposition I’m seeing to government programs seems to be geared toward much more than keeping them in check. Just recently I had a poster insist to me (without providing any basis whatsoever) that government had no business at all being involved in health care. We have to realistic or we risk throwing the baby out with the bath water.

 

[LisaA]

Increased accountability is definitely needed. I also do not think it’s a question of charitable organizations versus the government - in many, if not most cases, the larger international organizations are themselves recipients of government assistance.

Some roles are just too expensive or big (e.g. health care provision for the poor) to be covered by charities alone - which was why these organizations historically ceded some roles to the state to begin with.

Of course government will expand unchecked if left to its own devices, so there is reason to be wary and to demand checks and balances; but level of opposition I’m seeing to government programs seems to be geared toward much more than keeping them in check. Just recently I had a poster insist to me (without providing any basis whatsoever) that government had no business at all being involved in health care. We have to realistic or we risk throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Quite honestly the Catholic teaching of subsiarity would be such a great model for providing services of all kinds. I think there needs to be a balance of federal, state and local government and maybe that is where the current anti-government sentiment arises. The federal government has really pushed into a lot of minutia and in areas where it does not belong. Sending money to Washington so it can keep part of it to feed the machine and then send some back to the states seems like a recipe for waste and even fraud. The closer charities and governments are to those who need services, the more accountable and more efficiently these services can be provided. Layer upon layer of federal, state and even local regulations siphon off money that could be better spent on the actual services.

The charity/government partnership is often misunderstood. For example I’ve seen many posters who claim well if hospitals don’t want to comply with government edicts, i.e. HHS Mandate, they should not “take” government money. Well they don’t get government money they earn it by serviing patients whose medical costs are covered by a government payer like Medicare. They are in effect a private contractor that agrees to provide a particular service for a particular (and pathetically low) price. In addition non-profit (probably for profit as well) hospitals and clinics provide a lot of uncompensated care as do doctors. So I do think the partnership model (government and charity) works well for those large and overwhelming problems like health care for uninsured poor. The hospitals know how to provide care efficiently and the government has the ability to spread the risk over a larger population.

Working for a Catholic hospital I am constantly reminded of our mission. That’s something a for profit hospital doesn’t have as its highest priority. I’m very proud of all of the care and services provided by our hospital and doctors. Well getting off track here but I think we are far more in agreement than it might have seemed at the beginning.

Lisa

 

[zz912]

What I do know, is that removing/significantly decreasing social supports can have dire repercussions on the economy as it exists now.

No, you DON’T know that.

In the 90’s we faced ridiculous proclamations of people dying in the streets if welfare was reformed, and the Democrats and Clinton fought it every step of the way. Clinton only caved after his poll numbers started plummeting.

And guess what, the dire predictions were COMPLETELY WRONG. Somehow the world didn’t end when the gravy train was slowed.

And since we don’t have many (if any at all) other examples of reductions in entitlements or welfare, we don’t have any information to say that decreasing social supports will bring calamity.

 

[seekerz]

No, you DON’T know that.

In the 90’s we faced ridiculous proclamations of people dying in the streets if welfare was reformed, and the Democrats and Clinton fought it every step of the way. Clinton only caved after his poll numbers started plummeting.

And guess what, the dire predictions were COMPLETELY WRONG. Somehow the world didn’t end when the gravy train was slowed.

And since we don’t have many (if any at all) other examples of reductions in entitlements or welfare, we don’t have any information to say that decreasing social supports will bring calamity.

Welcome to the conversation. If you go back several posts, you will note that we have generally agreed that entitlement reform is indeed necessary,but that is a somewhat different question from indiscriminate across the board cuts which run the risk of leaving the most vulnerable even more vulnerable.

Even when economic upheaval results from irresponsible behavior, such as in some European economies where tax evasion seems to have been a ‘national pastime’, the people who now owe taxes and those who have seen their entitlements cut significantly, are the subject of serious social repercussions.

Last week’s Time magazine recounts the ‘suicide epidemic’ which has come in the wake of austerity. So whatever factors you blame for the situation, attention to * the way it is corrected* is important in order to prevent chaos.

 

[kim_zef]

Back to topic-----old nuns like this will soon die off (I hope) as their median age is 70.

The ranks of sisters who are members of the CMSWR( the good , faithful to the Church orders) are younger and expanding far more rapidly.

I came into the Church because of the ministry of Project Rachel. No way would I ever have converted if I’d met up with Network Nun or her likes.

I moved to Seattle about 3 years ago and I’ve met a ton of these poor excuses for nuns. In their opinion, I had no need of Confession for my abortion. One even told me that she thought all poor women should be entitled to free abortions. Good job, Sister. If only you’d been there to tell the Blessed Mother that before she gave birth to Jesus.

Sadly there are some good solid nuns who are trapped in these formerly Catholic orders. Those are the ones I feel for.

I don’t see the leaders of these orders ever changing. They’ll dig in their heels until they die, but we can always pray for a miracle.

 

[kim_zef]

Want to encounter a real nun? Check out any these sisters who still wear their habits and are loyal to the Church.

Home - Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious

The Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious (CMSWR) is composed of the major superiors of 112 communities of women religious in the United States.

cmswr.org

 

[kim_zef]

When I explained to my very agnostic sister what was going on with the LCWR and the Vatican and some of the shennanigans the LCWR had been pulling for the last few decades, her reply was—“Sounds like these ladies should’ve just joined the Peace Corps and not the Convent.”

My non-Catholic husband who was converted to Pro-life by the teachings of the Catholic Church is far less charitable in his opinion of these nuns, but I can’t write what he said because I’ll get another INFRACTION on this board.

kim zef
surviving in far left seattle

 

[Robert_Bay]

Moderator Notice

Negative and rude comments toward CAF members, clergy (deacons, priests and bishops) or toward religious and religious orders are banned.

Everyone, online and offline, deserves to be spoken to and about respectfully. However, some posters seem to feel that clergy and religious are fair game.

If you have an issue with them, take it up in private, not on this forum or any of our forums.

You may cite something from another source, if you are not using it to further an agenda. Agenda posting is not allowed.

If we deem that you are disrespectful to our clergy and religious, you will receive an infraction or even a ban.

Proof what you write before you post.

You may not make disparaging remarks about:

• Vatican II
• Clergy (deacons, priests and bishops) of any group
• Religious (brothers, sisters, and nuns) of any order or congregation
• Lawful actions and disciiplines by the Church including the historical excommunication of the SSPX. It happened. Rome explained why it happened. End of story. Rome did not put it out there for debate by the faithful.
• Another poster or his/her ideas. You can disagree. You cannot attack,insult, ridicule or dismiss as unimportant. His opinion is as important to him as your opinion is to you.
• Parishes, pastors, civil leaders.
• Other religions – if you’re unsure how to speak in public about other faiths, look at the Pope Benedict XVI. He is fraternal, polite, and intellectual in discussing religious differences.

Avoid arguments that will lead to violations of charity. You don’t have to like what you read and others do not have to like what you post. But you must be civil toward each other and those who are not on the forum.

N.B.: I HAVE SUSPENDED AND BANNED MEMBERS FOR VIOLATING THESE RULES

 

[Acrossthedesert]

Thank you moderator for enforcing some rules in regards to discussion.

I am 47 years old, I attended Catholic schools through 12th grade, and I attend adult faith formation classes now. One of the things which we haven’t done in the years after Vatican II was to implement adult faith formation. Thank God that is now underway in many parishes. We still need to have (advanced or continuing) faith formation for the religious.

I think we have all been pulled in directions by our modern society. When I was young, I disagreed with my Church on a range of issues, but my mom always told me that a wise man is humble and slow to speak. So, I kept my heretical ideas to myself. It’s only through the continued association with the Body of Christ (the Church) that I began to understand some of the Catholic doctrine. And to date, the Church is right. The Church has authority. When we forget that, we become protestents, and we all know what is happening in those perpetually dividing churches. I trusted my mother in respecting the Church and now I understand and respect my Mother Church. Stop arguing with your Mother! Your hurting the Body of Christ when you fight with her.