Religious Sisters' Letter to Congress in support of HHS mandate

[JReducation]

Isn’t participating in abortion an automatic excommunication? So wouldn’t supplying abortificant drugs participating in abortion? Wouldn’t supporting the forcing of other Catholics to supply these drugs be participating in abortion? Seems to me they’ve excommunicated themselves and the Bishop only needs to point it out publicly.

No. Canon Law does not work that way. First of all, we must understand that Canon Law is based on Roman Law, not English Law. In Roman Law, the principle is that if it’s not prohibited the burden falls on the law giver, not the individual.

In this particular situation, what the sisters have done is support what they believe to be a compromise favorable to Catholic institutions and to their patients. Canon Law looks exactly at what they did. Their support is mistaken and dangerous, but it is not a direct endorsement of abortion.

The canon speaks about direct participation in abortion and direct endorsement. By that, it means that the person must directly facilitate an abortion. It applies to a Catholic who can do something to stop it and does the opposite. If we were to use the rule remote participation, every Catholic in the USA would be guilty; because we pay taxes knowing that they are going to pay for abortions. We are remotely funding abortions. Philosophers can argue that there is always civil disobedience in which one refuses to pay taxes for what one considers in immoral or unjust cause, as did the Founding Fathers.

In addition, there is no law that prohibits the sisters from making such a statement. Again, Canon Law follows the principles of Roman Law. If it’s not prohibited, it’s not a crime. The sisters were not ordered to stand by the bishops. Such an order would have to come from their major superiors. The bishops can only give such orders to the laity and to diocesan clergy, never to religious.

Had their superiors ordered them to stand by the bishops, they would have been guilty of disobedience. However, this would fall under the canons that address consecrated life, not the canons that address abortion. In the canons that address consecrated life, the law says that religious superiors may command and prohibit whatever the founder and the constitutions allow him/her to command and prohibit.

Here again, we go back to Roman Law. If there is nothing in the constitutions of a religious community that covers this, the superior does not have any ground to command in this area. I’ll give you an example. Among male Franciscans, the rule written by St. Francis says that we will obey Francis, our superiors and the bishops without questions as long as what they command is not contrary to the moral law, not matter how foolish the command. That clause would allow the male superior to command Franciscan men to stand by the bishops on this issue, which we have done. Those who may disagree with the bishops or have questions, may not speak their mind. End of story.

Franciscans sisters do not have this in their rule, because Francis felt strongly that women should not be made to submit to males. Their rule says that they are to submit to the authority of the superior as defined by the sisters being governed. The sisters decide how and when the superior can govern. If those sisters have no clause in their constitutions that allows the superior to command in one direction or another, there is no reason for penalties.

We’re used to the American system of law, which is English. In our system of law if the speed limit is 45 mph, it means that you don’t go over that. In Roman Law, if the speed limit is 45 mph, that means that this is the desired goal, but unless there is a penalty attached to it, there is no specific punishment if you go over. It’s up to the person in authority to decide what is appropriate punishment. That’s how Canon Law works.

When there is no explicit law that addresses a situation or there is no penalty attached to the law, the only person who can make a universal decision is the pope. The religious superior can make a case by case judgment, but must stay within what the law allows him/her to do. There is never going to be a consistent consequence for every possible infraction. The Church never wanted such a code of law. It’s too rigid. The fear has always been that the law would guide the Church instead of the Church guiding the law.

Therefore, Canon Law is written to reflect good theology, in the day to day matters of the Church, not to control every possible situation. That would create a system as we have in the USA that the government must abide by the law or the Supreme Court can declare it unconstitutional. It would place the Holy See and the college of bishops under the same microscope as is the President and Congress. The Signatura, which is the highest court in the Church, could theoretically claim that a bishop or a pope is breaking the law and overrule him. For that reason, Canon Law is not as rigid and our constitution. It flexes and bends to fit the needs of the Church in each situation. Only the pope can decide how far it can flex and bend.

Finally, we tend to be too eager to hear bishops declare that this person or that person has been excommunicated. That is not the proper view of excommunication. Excommunication is a medicine, not a punishment. When you’re trying to cure a problem, you try what you believe will work. We must always guard ourselves against the temptation to want to see others punished. Such a temptation is void of mercy and forgiveness. It is often by frustration, anger, disappointment, even hatred. Discipline must be driven by justice and tempered by love as Jesus told St. Faustina.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[iloveangels]

This is actually Church law. …This is one of the Commandments of the Church and in canon law under religious life.

We have only one house of aging sisters in this local area. Their apostolic works include an eco-justice-farm and drumming ceremonies under the moonlight on solstices during the year. I was innocently dragged over there on a “professional retreat” when I worked in the Catholic schools, and being a naive convert, I expected it to be a good retreat. At this retreat, we were instructed to “pray for the oppressor” and treated to a sister-led para-liturgy on that night so we could “fill our mass obligation for the weekend.” [It was a Saturday night.] Needless to say, I got in my car & left after a couple of hours of this nonsense, my boss notwithstanding. Luckily he understood. The retreats were terminated that year.

PS, I’m not even worried about my location being identified by my being this specific. That’s how common this kind of behavior is.

It’s not as bad as people think. Remember, the odd man gets more publicity than the one who is doing what he should be doing. There are many more faithful and orthodox women religious than dissenters.

Perhaps I haven’t seen what I’ve really seen with my own eyes? I’m not willing to say that. I will agree that it’s split, with some good ones and some errant ones, but it’s not just a few errant ones. There are a lot of them. This local example is not the only instance of this kind of nonsense I’ve seen, BTW, even though it’s probably the one I know best. I get around a bit.

In the local case I just described, this was the motherhouse of a formerly large congregation of sisters. They used to have defined apostolates, but they abandoned those long ago, the associated property having been sold off for income to support the aging order. The local house is actually split down the middle, and the two halves have duplicate structures for just about everything, even leadership. If you go and stay in the house, which I’ve done, you will see the two groups in the cafeteria. It’s a bit shocking. There is some martyrdom going on in that house. And some real mischief too.

There are two reasons for this. The first is a decline in the number of religious. The second is that most religious communities were founded to work among the poor. …

I have no doubt that this is mostly true, particularly among the larger men’s orders. But among the women’s congregations, not quite. Many of them are aging fast, and many of them have completely retreated from their former apostolates. When you see what’s left of many of these congregations, when they have outreaches, they consist of leasing out space to retreatants of various types, “spiritual direction” of dubious quality, and politics. Some of them are quite contemptuous of the Church. We have regular visits from dissidents invited by this congregation, but most of the local catholic population ignores them because, seriously, they’re very fringe.

Where I work there are about 250 priests, most of them diocesan and 198 religious brothers. Most Catholics do not know the brothers, because they do not work in the middle class neighborhoods. …

We do not have this situation here. We have only one stagnating established congregation. We have had a couple of startups which have not been successful here also, for various reasons. These are pretty common everywhere and most of them don’t get off the ground anywhere, though, so that’s not unusual. We also had some activity by a congregation that has met with some internal troubles. Their presence has waned now dramatically here.

We have a fair number of poor, many migrants too. They do not get served by the religious congregation in our area, and the startups didn’t serve them either, focusing on the middle class instead. Same with the congregation with internal problems.

We have to be careful here. The misbehavior is not usually an entire congregation, but a few people.

When the leadership of an order or congregation does not control the bad behavior of the members of the congregation, I don’t know who else would be the logical choice. The leadership of these congregations is elected by the members.

In the case of a fracture down the middle, such as in the case of our local congregation, I would agree, it’s not all of the members causing the craziness, only about half.

He’s an amazing man. I attended a seminar that he taught when he was a cardinal. It was only several weeks a few hours a week. He’s a gentleman, soft spoken,a little shy, and very peaceful. Yet, his level of energy is incredible. I hope I’m in that shape when I reach my 80s.

But he has been very clear about the USA. It is not his main concern right now. …

Agree. I firmly believe God is responsible for his energy and long life, as well as his holiness. He is a saint-in-the-making, I think.

They think that American Catholics are nuts.

American Catholics are nuts. But largely because of their ignorance and isolation. Many American Catholics don’t know any better. Many Catholics also don’t realize that a big part of this Evangelization crusade the Church has entered into is designed to evangelize THEM. This is appropriate. We need it. The parishes here, under the direction of our good bishop, are engaging in a lot of basic Christianity classes, and this is a good thing. Parishes are also giving away these books by Matthew Kelly, that are very basic introductions to Catholicism, for FREE. Also a good thing.

 

[iloveangels]

Also this HHS mandate thing is giving Catholics a major headache, but it has benefits to add to its headaches. People are having to think about their faith and how it relates to the rest of their life. For some people, this is an entirely new enterprise, no matter how much lip service they’ve paid to it in the past.

It also is serving to break up a very self-satisfied approach to the works of mercy that we’re all called to do. Works of mercy are not something that we can just shove off on the government to do for us, any more than we can just shove them off on some religious order to do for us.

Works of mercy don’t align themselves to a particular political party, or a particular 45 minute period of our week, so we can dispense with them quickly and be done with it without disrupting our week. No political party has the whole answer. There is no pigeon-hole or banner or club that one can join to avoid actually being a Catholic, if one really wants to be a Catholic. [FACEPALM]

This getting people to do stuff for us, the compartmentalization of Catholic life so we can say we’re Catholic while doing next to nothing, is a profoundly deep habit that American Catholics have, and a very destructive one.

 

[iloveangels]

I realized not long after I converted how interesting it is to watch someone who knows all the key words, body movements and gestures that make them look as Catholic as the pope, but when you ask them the most basic question about Christianity they have. no. clue. whatsoever.

They might be able to tell you all about Fatima, for instance, but also want to tell you that it’s okay to get an abortion or use birth control, which is not only a violation of church teaching, but a violation of one of the oldest and most historically validated teachings of the Church. Even the ancient Jews taught that these things were reprehensible.

 

[incense]

Finally, we tend to be too eager to hear bishops declare that this person or that person has been excommunicated. That is not the proper view of excommunication. Excommunication is a medicine, not a punishment. When you’re trying to cure a problem, you try what you believe will work. We must always guard ourselves against the temptation to want to see others punished. Such a temptation is void of mercy and forgiveness. It is often by frustration, anger, disappointment, even hatred. Discipline must be driven by justice and tempered by love as Jesus told St. Faustina.

I’m not wanting to see them punished. I’m wanting their words and actions to be condemned by our shepherds so that we’re not lead astray. Their souls are important. The souls they are misleading are important too. If the bishops don’t speak out, how will we know that we’re being mislead?

I heard of a new book out called “How do you kill 6 million people” or something like that. The author was referring to the holocaust and how the Jews willingly entered the cattle cars and were shipped off to death, thinking they were going to new jobs and schools. The answer to the title’s question, how do you kill 6 million people, YOU LIE TO THEM

I believe that’s a way to kill 6 million souls too. It’s important for us to get the truth out. Jesus must have thought the truth was important too, since He said that He is the Truth.

 

[JReducation]

I’m not wanting to see them punished. I’m wanting their words and actions to be condemned by our shepherds so that we’re not lead astray.

You’re asking for the impossible. The Council of Trent ruled that no bishop and no layman can ever call out a religious. The only person who can do so is the pope. The pope has already said that he is not interested in these issues and that they need to be resolved within the community. He’s interested in the big picture, the preservation of religious freedom.

The communities can only govern as far as the religious allow them to govern. Remember, in women’s communities, it is the religious who determine the rules as well as the rights and limits of superiors. Superiors cannot violate their own constitutions. That superior would be slammed so hard by the pope himself that she wouldn’t know what hit her, because those constitutions are approved and signed off by the pope and the prefect for the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life. There are no surprises in those constitutions. When a community of women religious drafts or modifies its constitutions, they must be ratified by the Holy See.

For example, if the constitution says that the sisters ride a Harley to church, the Holy See knows it and approved it.

Men’s communities are different, because there are two kinds of men’s communities. There are religious orders and religious congregations. The congregations run just like the sisters. The governed decide how they will be governed, by whom, and when.

In religious orders, there is a rule or a set of statutes left by the founder that must be followed. The only religious order that does not have a rule to follow is the Society of Jesus, because the Holy See has always wanted them to have a lot of freedom. St. Ignatius did not want them to be tied down by too many rules. But the rest of the orders have a rule of life, hence the term “order”.

The sisters do not belong to religious orders. They belong to religious congregations. The only women religious who are allowed to belong to religious orders are cloistered nuns. They follow the rule of the order handed down by the founder.

I think that we have to do as St. Francis taught his sons and daughters in the middle of the insanity of his time. He always taught us to cultivate an inner silence where we see what is wrong, we do our part to fix it, but we do not dwell on it. Rather, we dwell on how much more wretched we are than the person or people whom we’re watching. You’d be surprise the degree of peace that such a spirituality brings. It allows us to look at these things without feeling anything. We can say, “This is wrong; therefore, I won’t do that.” or “That’s a mistake, I’m not going there,” and we move on. If anyone asks us we answer the same way. This is wrong and that’s a mistake. And we move along.

To wish for the impossible is not a good use of our time or our energy. As St. Francis pointed out to his sons and daughters, “When we see a person in error, remember that you are much more wretched and more deserving of condemnation.”

One of my favorite sayings from Franciscan spirituality is, “I am what I am before God, nothing else.”

What are we before God? Francis tells us that we are worthless sinners redeemed by his mercy and love. Therefore, we judge an action, but we leave the person to the mercy of God. For all we know, that person may not be as culpable as we think. Only God knows that for sure. We only know how culpable we are of our sins and sometimes we’re not to clear on that either. It’s human to be confused even about one’s own sinfulness.

We have try to be at peace, regardless what others do or say.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Captain_America]

This kind of stuff is why they invented the word “scandal.”

It really DOES scandalize me. I’m shocked, and sorry, and saddened by this kind of “betrayal” or turn-coat behavior.

I just don’t understand it at all.

 

[JReducation]

This kind of stuff is why they invented the word “scandal.”

It really DOES scandalize me. I’m shocked, and sorry, and saddened by this kind of “betrayal” or turn-coat behavior.

I just don’t understand it at all.

I’m not scandalized; but then again, I’m not easily scandalized. If there was one thing that St. Francis taught us was how to avoid being scandalized.

Having said that, I do believe that their statement was a mistake and it was premature. They should have allowed the bishops to respond first, since the bishops are ultimately responsible for the pastoral life of the Church.

It is also a mistake, because it’s not enough to say that insurance companies must bear the brunt of the cost. Cost is not the issue. The issue is religious freedom. The government has said nothing about conscience. That’s the key here. No government has the right to violate or force its citizens to violate conscience.

The Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious, the National Association of Religious Brothers, the Council of Male Religious Superiors were more restrained. They waited to hear what the bishops had to say. Then they sent their questions to the USCCB, received clarification and they fell in line. There are many more religious behind this, than against it, not to mention the number of diocesan clergy behind it.

I am still wondering why they don’t put some of these women religious superiors and some high ranking Catholic laywomen in front of the cameras. We have laywomen in very high ranking positions in the Church. They are eloquent and dignified. I’m a little confused as to why they’re not in front of the cameras or in the news.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[opus101]

Also this HHS mandate thing is giving Catholics a major headache, but it has benefits to add to its headaches. People are having to think about their faith and how it relates to the rest of their life. For some people, this is an entirely new enterprise, no matter how much lip service they’ve paid to it in the past.

It also is serving to break up a very self-satisfied approach to the works of mercy that we’re all called to do. Works of mercy are not something that we can just shove off on the government to do for us, any more than we can just shove them off on some religious order to do for us.

Works of mercy don’t align themselves to a particular political party, or a particular 45 minute period of our week, so we can dispense with them quickly and be done with it without disrupting our week. No political party has the whole answer. There is no pigeon-hole or banner or club that one can join to avoid actually being a Catholic, if one really wants to be a Catholic. [FACEPALM]

This getting people to do stuff for us, the compartmentalization of Catholic life so we can say we’re Catholic while doing next to nothing, is a profoundly deep habit that American Catholics have, and a very destructive one.

I wholeheartedly agree with you!

 

[opus101]

You’re asking for the impossible. The Council of Trent ruled that no bishop and no layman can ever call out a religious. The only person who can do so is the pope. T

But certainly the Bishop does not have to mention them by name. All he has to do is make reference to what happened, and point out his opinion on the matter. I believe this has already been done by Cardinal Dolan (or was it Bishop Lori). Whoever it was, referred to those whom the government has appointed as “official spokespersons” for the Catholic faith (instead of the Bishops!).

And, although your statements about not getting too upset over things ,and considering one’s own sinfulness might be helpful under normal circumstances, it’s good to realize that THESE ARE NOT NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES!!!

Our conscience rights are being violated, and Catholics may be forced to pay for abortifacients, sterilizations and contraceptives for others! One thing leads to another, and down the road, there could be disastrous consequences. The Bishops MUST speak out against these things and those who support them, even if they are Catholic religious sisters! The welfare of everyone else is at stake!

I agree with the analogy someone else made about the holocaust…we must not remain silent and “at peace”, and our Bishops need to speak up!

 

[iloveangels]

But certainly the Bishop does not have to mention them by name. All he has to do is make reference to what happened, and point out his opinion on the matter. I believe this has already been done by Cardinal Dolan (or was it Bishop Lori). Whoever it was, referred to those whom the government has appointed as “official spokespersons” for the Catholic faith (instead of the Bishops!).

And, although your statements about not getting too upset over things ,and considering one’s own sinfulness might be helpful under normal circumstances, it’s good to realize that THESE ARE NOT NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES!!!

Our conscience rights are being violated, and Catholics may be forced to pay for abortifacients, sterilizations and contraceptives for others! One thing leads to another, and down the road, there could be disastrous consequences. The Bishops MUST speak out against these things and those who support them, even if they are Catholic religious sisters! The welfare of everyone else is at stake!

I agree with the analogy someone else made about the holocaust…we must not remain silent and “at peace”, and our Bishops need to speak up!

Br JR, is right that you can’t let it get to you, Opus101. It is what it is, no more and no less. This is a scary time and that’s going to make the problems we’ve been dealing with seem even worse, but they’re not really. Look, we now have a unity that I haven’t seen in decades.

About the mandate specifically, various people in general need to be careful about interfering with what the bishops are doing just now. These organizations, America magazine and all that, need to cool their jets because they are not the bishops and they do not lead the Church. It’s presumptuous of anyone who’s not the bishops to step in at this point, and just as silly for anyone to abandon the bishops to go traipsing off after some magazine article. What a bad, bad trade, eh?

Nonetheless, there is always somebody in the crowd who has to step out of line, unfortunately, and it is what it is.

Per my stories about the congregations I’ve seen and so on, this sort of thing has been a problem in the Church for a long time, and I don’t like to pretend it doesn’t exist, because it does. It’s been a real problem and it still is. However, on the personal level, the best thing to do is realize that each person has their own life to live and their own soul to manage. You can’t go around being angry at others for what they do or don’t do. It’s missing the point.

You have to rise above it and realize that you are a Christian too, and you have a Christian vocation to live out the Gospel too. It took me the longest time to figure this out and get over my very real anger and anxiety over this stuff and get on with what I have to do. I can’t control what anyone else does; but I can work on what I need to do.

 

[iloveangels]

But certainly the Bishop does not have to mention them by name. All he has to do is make reference to what happened, and point out his opinion on the matter. I believe this has already been done by Cardinal Dolan (or was it Bishop Lori). Whoever it was, referred to those whom the government has appointed as “official spokespersons” for the Catholic faith (instead of the Bishops!).

And, although your statements about not getting too upset over things ,and considering one’s own sinfulness might be helpful under normal circumstances, it’s good to realize that THESE ARE NOT NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES!!!

Our conscience rights are being violated, and Catholics may be forced to pay for abortifacients, sterilizations and contraceptives for others! One thing leads to another, and down the road, there could be disastrous consequences. The Bishops MUST speak out against these things and those who support them, even if they are Catholic religious sisters! The welfare of everyone else is at stake!

I agree with the analogy someone else made about the holocaust…we must not remain silent and “at peace”, and our Bishops need to speak up!

Wait. Yes, our conscience rights are being called into question, but that doesn’t mean that the bishops should punish anybody in public. It does mean that our bishops should speak very clearly about the rights of conscience and the religious rights of every human being. And it also means that they should do all their prep work, legal work and all that, which they are doing.

Does it also mean that they might ask the sisters etc nicely & privately to tone it down? Yes. Does it mean that the bishops might speak to the Vatican about the problem. Maybe, whether they think it will help or not, the Vatican deserves to know. Does it mean that laypeople can make a mental note about who’s not been helpful and who doesn’t need to receive much money? Certainly, and I think that would actually be quite appropriate, myself.

There is an old saying about religious congregations: If they serve the will of God, he keeps them; otherwise they fade away. This is good to keep in mind. God is in control of this situation and nothing escapes his notice. Be at peace on this one.

History says that these things turn out, and the Church definitely has history on her side. This is just one more challenge in a long, long line of challenges, and ultimately it will turn out the same way as all the others. You watch.

 

[JReducation]

But certainly the Bishop does not have to mention them by name. All he has to do is make reference to what happened, and point out his opinion on the matter. I believe this has already been done by Cardinal Dolan (or was it Bishop Lori). Whoever it was, referred to those whom the government has appointed as “official spokespersons” for the Catholic faith (instead of the Bishops!).

That is allowed and his been done on different occasions. Remember the Notre Dame issue? Protesting was the most that the Holy Father would allow the bishops to do, because of the canonical status of the university. It did not fall under their jurisdiction. It fell under the Holy Father’s jurisdiction and he was not about to get involved.

And, although your statements about not getting too upset over things ,and considering one’s own sinfulness might be helpful under normal circumstances, it’s good to realize that THESE ARE NOT NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES!!!

If you stop and think about it, every generation feels that their circumstances were extraordinary. Certainly Francis, Dominic, John de Matha, and the founder of the Servites thought they lived in rather extraordinary circumstances, which propelled them to found the greatest religious order in history, the mendicants. However, they never got swept up by the emotion of the moment, nor did they ever get involved with those who were at the center of the problem. As Dominic said, they preached when they were asked to do so. When they were not asked to preach, they preached through great kindness and charity. Dominic meant kindness as in being very gentle with people, even when he was offering correction.

Then you had the Protestant Reformation. Again, we see John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila, Ignatius of Loyola, Francis of Osuna, Perter of Alcantara, and Matero de Baccio, the greatest reformers of their era. Once again, you witness their inner silence, which comes from a spirit of detachment from what’s going on. Their vision was to preserve the faith, not to engage in conflict. Preserve the faith they did. They triggered a revival in the Church that led to the foundation of hundreds of religious congregations. They inspired men like Alphonse Ligouri, Francis de Sales, John Bosco, John Baptist de La Salle and many others.

Then we had the insanity of the 60s, then came Bl. John Paul II who inspired the youth and who has stimulated thousands of vocations to the priesthood, but more so to the brotherhood and the sisterhood. Do you know that under Bl. John Paul, he approved the foundation of more than 300 religious congregations of brothers and sisters, including my own. We’re what the Vatican calls the John Paul II Generation. Again, you will not see the Franciscans of the Renewal, Franciscans of the Immaculate, Sisters of Life, Sister of Mary, Franciscan Sisters of the Eucharist, Francis Brothers of Life, Franciscan Brothers of Peace, Daughters of Mary or any of the John Paul communities agitated about this statement or even talking too much about it, other than to say what I’ve said repeatedly. “It’s a mistake and it was premature.” If you visit any of our houses, you will find a sense of calm and that life goes on. We have said what we had to say on the issue. Now, the most important thing is to move people to protect the rights of conscience, not only of Catholics, but of all people.

Again, I believe that every era in the Church’s history goes through extraordinary problems and circumstances. However, the formula that seems to keep the Church thriving is that search for interior silence. The Holy Father sent a memo to religious and clergy this morning. He includes the talk that he gave at the Angelus on Sunday. It’s all about this silence and looking for the Transfigured Christ, not outside of us, but within us. We can’t find him, if we’re so upset.

One of the behaviors that drove many people crazy about Pope Pius XII was his silence and what they thought was his indifference. We know that he was not indifferent. He was a man of great peace in a world that was at war and a world where millions were being slaughtered. He did what he had to do, but with calm. We never hear of him ever losing his cool in such a horrible situation. However, we do look back and find out that he did much to save lives and allowed much to be done, even things that were illegal.

The Bishops MUST speak out against these things and those who support them, even if they are Catholic religious sisters! The welfare of everyone else is at stake!

The bishops are speaking out, but they are not going to single out people by name. That’s not the way that the Catholic Church does business. They have spoken about the issue over and over. They have asked people to take a close look at what the current administration is trying to do. They have restrained themselves and not have demonized anyone. That would be counterproductive and contrary to Church law. We acknowledge the sin, but we commend the person to the mercy of God, because we don’t know what’s in his heart and mind.

Not really, I look at mean like Pope Pius XII, Karol Woytyla, Maximilian Kolbe and the thousands of religious, priests and lay people who very quietly did what they had to do. Some lost their lives for it.

 

[JReducation]

Wait. Yes, our conscience rights are being called into question, but that doesn’t mean that the bishops should punish anybody in public. It does mean that our bishops should speak very clearly about the rights of conscience and the religious rights of every human being. And it also means that they should do all their prep work, legal work and all that, which they are doing.

This is correct.

Does it also mean that they might ask the sisters etc nicely & privately to tone it down? Yes.

And we don’t know what conversations CHA and LCWR have had with the bishops. We don’t even know if the bishops gave them advanced warning of their statement before they put it out. We’ll never know these things, because they’re on a need to know basis.

Does it mean that the bishops might speak to the Vatican about the problem.

The Vatican knows about the President’s compromise and responded to it by advicing the bishops. The Holy Father said that fighting for the right of conscience for Catholics was unacceptable. The Church must fight for the rights of conscience of every human being. If we only secular the exemption for the Catholics, that’s not good enough for him.

As far as the statements made by CHA and LCWR, the Holy Father probably does not know and will never know. That’s Msgr Georg Gaenswein job, to filter out anything that is not on the Pope’s agenda and pass it along to those who need to deal with it.

History says that these things turn out, and the Church definitely has history on her side. This is just one more challenge in a long, long line of challenges, and ultimately it will turn out the same way as all the others. You watch.

You’re right. We have to stick to our moral principles and focus on the real threat. The enemy has a way of distracting us. The statements by CHA and a few sisters on the LCWR are not the real problem. At the end of the day, neither the CHA nor the LCWR can grant or restrict our religious freedom. While we’re busy focusing on a few people who made an obvious mistake, the real threat is flies under the radar. This is another good reason for cultivating interior silence. Interior silence brings the grace of mental clarity.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[incense]

Not really, I look at mean like Pope Pius XII, Karol Woytyla, Maximilian Kolbe and the thousands of religious, priests and lay people who very quietly did what they had to do. Some lost their lives for it.

I think you need to explain being quiet. Some would interpret that as meaning ignoring what’s going on and leaving it up to God, and not co-operating with the bishops. Kind of like burying your talents instead of investing them.

Kolbe is known for his newspaper and using media to spread the Gospel.

Pope JPII wrote lots. Plus he traveled around the world constantly.

 

[iloveangels]

I think you need to explain being quiet. Some would interpret that as meaning ignoring what’s going on and leaving it up to God, and not co-operating with the bishops. Kind of like burying your talents instead of investing them.

Kolbe is known for his newspaper and using media to spread the Gospel.

Pope JPII wrote lots. Plus he traveled around the world constantly.

I think the point you’re making, incense, is that there’s a different role here for consecrated religious and laypeople. Laypeople are supposed to get out there and spread the word in a constructive way. It’s part of the vocation of the laity to bring the Church to the world, including the political world. And indeed, Cardinal Dolan himself has asked laypeople to become more politically involved this year.
radio.foxnews.com/2012/03/03/new-yorks-cardinal-dolan-urges-catholics-to-be-more-politically-active/

You mention St. Maximilian Kolbe. Yes, there’s even maybe a difference among religious as to what their level of involvement should be. That’s up to them though. Depends on what their charism says and what their orders/congregations etc decide they should be doing. What they do is not really a matter for laypeople to decide at all.

 

[Holly3278]

This just totally sickens me. How any religious sister or nun could get away with doing something like this without being reprimanded by their bishop just totally astounds me. It makes no sense whatsoever. How can they support a mandate that forces Catholics to go against their conscience. I mean, did we not have the unanimous condemnation of all American bishops on the HHS mandate???

 

[GaryTaylor]

Anyway, I listened to Helen M. Alvaré who’s an Associate Professor of Law at George Mason, prior to joining the George Mason faculty she was an associate professor at Catholic University’s Columbus School of Law. Professor Alvaré received her law degree at Cornell University in 1984 and a master’s degree in systematic theology from The Catholic University of America in 1989.

Professor Alvaré specialized in commercial litigation and free exercise of religion matters. For three years, she worked at the Office of General Counsel for the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, where she drafted amicus briefs in leading U.S. Supreme Court cases concerning abortion, euthanasia and the Establishment Clause. For the next ten years, she worked with the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities at the NCCB. There, she lobbied, testified before federal congressional committees, addressed university audiences, and appeared on hundreds of television and radio programs on behalf of the U.S. Catholic bishops. She also assisted the Holy See on matters concerning women, marriage and the family, and respect for human life.

Brilliant speaker, well researched.

“Don’t claim to speak for all women,” the Feb. 17 letter tells President Barack Obama, Health and Human Services secretary Kathleen Sebelius and members of Congress.

Women from a wide span of political, religious and educational backgrounds joined together to back Catholic organizations protesting a new federal mandate that will require employers to provide health insurance plans that cover contraception, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs.

Organizers said the letter has received about 2300 signatures in less than a week.
The signatories include women from a variety of professions, including doctors, teachers, lawyers, mothers, business owners and community volunteers.

Although the signatories are not all Catholic, they all proclaimed that they are “proud to stand with the Catholic Church and its rich, life-affirming teachings on sex, marriage and family life.”

Many have worked for Catholic schools, hospitals and social service organizations at some point and “are proud to have been part of the religious mission” of those institutions.

They noted “the shared sense of purpose” with which employees performed their service for the community and observed that “in a religious institution, a job is always also a vocation.”

The letter was initiated by Helen M. Alvaré, associate professor of law at George Mason University School of Law, and Kim Daniels, former counsel to the Thomas More Law Center, where she focused on health-care related conscience rights.

It was written as a response to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other supporters of the mandate who have repeatedly suggested that few if any women in the U.S. oppose it.

“We listened to prominent women purport to speak for us,” said Alvaré and Daniels in a Feb. 21 National Review Online article explaining the letter.

“We watched them duck the fundamental religious-liberty issues at stake,” they added. “And we saw them assume that all women view cheaper contraceptives and abortion-causing drugs as unqualified goods.”

Alvaré and Daniels circulated their letter of protest to a few dozen friends. Within days, it had spread to thousands of women who were eager to make their voices heard.

“Almost every email contained a letter expressing the woman’s enormous relief at the chance to speak for herself,” said Alvaré, who also serves as the chair of the Witherspoon Task Force on Conscience Protection and a consultant to the Pontifical Council for the Laity.

She said that it was “moving” to read the emails expressing “gratitude for the Catholic Church’s willingness to stand down the government’s claim to speak for all women and women’s health.”

Notable signers of the letter include Dr. Janet Smith, professor of ethics at Sacred Heart Minor Seminary in Michigan; Angela M. Pfister, associate director of the Notre Dame Center for Ethics and Culture; and Joan Desmond, writer and senior editor for the National Catholic Register.

The signatories called it “more than a little mistaken, and more than a little dishonest” to try to silence those who disagree with the mandate by invoking “women’s health.”

They noted the serious side effects of many contraceptives, as well as the destruction of embryos and the fact that government contraceptive programs have led to “more empty sex, more non-marital births and more abortions.”

“It is women who suffer disproportionately when these things happen,” they explained.

“No one speaks for all women on these issues,” the signatories said. “Those who purport to do so are simply attempting to deflect attention from the serious religious liberty issues currently at stake.”

The women called on the administration “to allow religious institutions and individuals to continue to witness to their faiths in all their fullness.”

Thousands Answer: Where are the Women? We are Here.

womenspeakforthemselves.com is a web petition initiated by Helen M. Alvare, JD, and Kim Daniels, JD, that has been signed by thousands of women who answered the question, Where are the women?, by saying, Here we are, “Women who support the competing voice offered by Catholic institutions on matters of sex, marriage and family life. Most of us are Catholic, but some are not.” To sign the womenspeakforthemselves.com petition, visit their sight.

There’s two sides to the story, the right and the wrong, help the women supporting the correctly detailed side.

 

[iloveangels]

This just totally sickens me. How any religious sister or nun could get away with doing something like this without being reprimanded by their bishop just totally astounds me. It makes no sense whatsoever. How can they support a mandate that forces Catholics to go against their conscience. I mean, did we not have the unanimous condemnation of all American bishops on the HHS mandate???

Read what Br JR said earlier in this thread. The bishop may not be able to do anything about this sister and her wacky views.

 

[JReducation]

I think you need to explain being quiet. Some would interpret that as meaning ignoring what’s going on and leaving it up to God, and not co-operating with the bishops. Kind of like burying your talents instead of investing them.

Kolbe is known for his newspaper and using media to spread the Gospel.

Pope JPII wrote lots. Plus he traveled around the world constantly.

Silence takes two forms. Interior silence that ability not to dwell on anything that is not Christ for any length of time. For example, we look at this situation. We figure out what we can contribute to fixing it. We do execute the action and we move one. It’s over until we have to deal with it again. We go back into the silence where God is to be found and we go on about our other duties.

The second form of silence is an exterior form. This is pretty concrete. It simply means that one avoids being billigerent, antagonistic, argumentative, and offensive. We invite to dialogue. We teach what is true. We refute what is false; but we never engage in unseemly behavior.

This is how St. Max handled Nazism, how Bl. John Paul handled Communism and how St. Giana Molla handled abortion.

I don’t know if it’s the anonymity of the internet or the fact that we can’t see the people who are writing, therefore, we may be reading them incorrectly. But since I’ve been on CAF, my experience has been that many people who post here have crossed the line from righteous indignation to open hostility, not just on this subject, but on many. To the point, that they argue for the faith in one breadth and they hope that someone gets struck by a bus with the next breadth. That’s not good and it feeds other people. We have to be very careful how and what we say that we’re not feeding other people our hostility. Hostility is not Christian.

This just totally sickens me. How any religious sister or nun could get away with doing something like this without being reprimanded by their bishop just totally astounds me. It makes no sense whatsoever. How can they support a mandate that forces Catholics to go against their conscience. I mean, did we not have the unanimous condemnation of all American bishops on the HHS mandate???

Religious do not answer to bishops. That is against Church doctrine, which teaches that the religious state is a complete vocation of its own and is distinct and separate from the vocation of the clergy and that of the laity. Based on that, the Church has ruled that neither clergy nor laity may ever call religious to task or intervene in the affairs of religious. The Church has also ruled that the clergy must protect the religious and that the laity must support the apostolic work of the religious, even when there is a disagreement with the individual religious. What they’re thinking is that the soup kitchen run by Sister Nutjob should not suffer, because the laity does not like Sister. You’re not supporting her. You’re feeding the hungry or the elderly sisters, etc.

Even those of us who are religious cannot interfere with another religious, because the exemption is granted to the individual, not to the community. Therefore, I cannot intervene in their affairs, unless the law allows me to do so. I can disagree, but that’s as much as I can do. Only the pope can call religious to task and he only does this when the problem is beyond the borders of a jurisdiction. As long as it’s contained to a jurisdiction, the principle of subsidiarity applies.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF