Nuns With Their Own Church...?

[Aspidistraflyer]

TisBearself doesn’t seem to be saying whether they were discriminated against or not, only that by virtue of the fact they were not employees, they were not eligible to sue under the statute they chose.

At any rate, as LateranBasillica points out, some people from Order of the Missionaries of the Sacred Heart are legit, so we don’t know which yours are.

I would say that you should explore Catholicism with the people you already know, and given what you’ve found online, be careful about the local sisters who already seemed off to you (while withholding judgment, because they might be fine).

And “nun” and “sister” are technically different terms, but most people in casual conversation use them somewhat interchangeably, so, it’s whatever

 

[Tis_Bearself]

TisBearself doesn’t seem to be saying whether they were discriminated against or not, only that by virtue of the fact they were not employees, they were not eligible to sue under the statute they chose.

From a legal standpoint, if you allege “employment discrimination”, you have to first actually be employed by the place. There isn’t a legal cause of action for “volunteer discrimination”. So legally, there was no discrimination.

Obviously there was a difference of opinion between the nuns and whoever at the Red Cross decided not to continue having them volunteer, but that’s not “discrimination”. It means that for whatever reason you have a difference of opinion with whoever is coordinating volunteers, and you can go volunteer someplace else.

 

[Aspidistraflyer]

Yeah, so I read you correctly, then? You were not saying whether or not RedCross was discriminatory in a commonly understood sense, but regardless, they did not have a legal case.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

The Red Cross can’t be “discriminatory” in this case if the people weren’t even employees. The whole point of employment discrimination is that someone is unfairly kept from earning a living at their job because of their race, religion etc.

These sisters weren’t earning a living at a job with the Red Cross. They were volunteers. There is no way they could be “discriminated” against.

 

[Aspidistraflyer]

Right, legally, this is not in violation of a discrimination statute. But we don’t know whether or not Red Cross was mean and/or prejudiced, which is how most people read the term (which, yes, is legally irrelevant).

Of course, I digress.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Being “mean”, without a legal cause of action, is a matter of opinion. I presume it’s one of those “three sides to every story” deals where the nuns will tell one story, the Red Cross will tell another, and the truth will be out there somehow also. There are a million reasons why an organization might or might not want somebody to volunteer. Since we are not hearing all the sides to this story, it is impossible to know one way or the other.

 

[Aspidistraflyer]

Right. That was my point.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Okay, fwiw. I don’t see why it matters.

 

[awesomecatholic]

The nuns you mentioned could be Anglican nuns,not for sure though, To not be in communion with Rome means to disagree with the teachings of the Roman Catholic church or are not in union with the pope.

 

[phil19034]

While rare, there are some religious orders that are part of schismatic groups.

For example: There is a Franciscan Friary down the road from my house that is part of the schismatic “Old Catholic Church” and they are NOT part of the Catholic Church that has Pope Francis as her head.

So occasionally, you may find a group of religious (male or female) who are part of a schismatic sect.

I hope this helps.

 

[dochawk]

I’d push back on this – I’d wager their church has valid sacraments and so forth, and only a tiny amount of Protestantism could be argued to have that. I’d view them more similarly to the Orthodox than to Protestants.

That’s a serious question in itself . . . is this a group with or without a bishop? The one here is a freelance laicized priest or some such, while there are indeed vagante bishops about who do have orders–although these tend not to have other parishes . . .

These vagante bishops exist in both Catholic and Orthodox variants (and tend to use both in the names of their churches), although the RCC tend to have an augustinian view of orders (indelible mark), while Orthodox tend to have the Cyprianic view (that orders are tied to and dependent on the tie to the bishop/church, and are lost out of communion). [sidenote: the RCC does seem to be showing some drift to the cyprianic view]

You’re probably right! Sounds like they are extremely traditional which I’m guessin’ means that they’d be trying to do things almost exactly the way that it used to be done(?)

In EC and EO circles, “tradition” tends to translate as “at the time of my grandfather’s chrysmation . . .”

For RCC breakaways, there is a bizarre simultaneous reliance upon and rejection of the First Vatican Council . . . V1 strengthened the papal role to an extent far out of historical context to protect the church . . . but too the point that it’s impossible to reject V2 from that context . [historical note: before V1, Rome had little to any role in appointing bishops outside of Italy and the Americas . . ]

Also - I’m sorry! I thought that “Sisters” and “Nuns” meant the same, could be used indiscriminately to mean the same thing- I’m still learning! (Apologies)

Don’t worry about it, so do most Catholics

No, they’re pretty boring.

Yeah, that.

My stock response to my bankruptcy clients asking if they should show up for their confirmation hearing is, “only if you’re suffering from insomnia!”

 

[SPQR1]

May I ask where this happened? I was raised sedevacantist and I know where a lot of their Mass centers are located. If you could be a little more specific with the details, I may be able to answer some of your questions. I came fully into communion with the Church over a year ago, but I still have a lot of connections in the various schismatic traditionalist groups.