Should we hope and pray that certain religious congregations die a natural death?

[otjm]

This is a line touted by just about everyone with exception of the most nominal/borderline heterodox Catholics, but I’m really not sure how much truth there is to it. Some bishops have disputed these claims (I know that doesn’t give much credibility for many here on CAF, and rightly so), but I would like some solid documentation of this just for record-keeping purposes…sources, anyone?

I think it was Michael Rose in his book Goodby Good Men; although the book was more about homosexuality in the priesthood and seminaries. The book was rather roundly criticized in an editorial in National Catholic Register (not National Catholic Reporter, the liberal newspaper); he responded, and they in turn responded to his response noting that he didn’t really address their comments.

I read the book, which I found to be very frustrating in its approach and methodolgy, and agreed with their comments. As to the truth, I am sure that there have been some men turned away from a seminary because they were too conservative (which I separate from orthodox).

 

[freudmacher]

I would imagine that people who were faithful and orthodox would be unlikely to be accepted by the vocations director.

I don’t really agree with this. I just got back from a Vocation Awareness Weekend and every one of those priest were ‘feeling’ us out first, seeing what we believed, and then they agreed to it too. And they were willing to start the application process with who ever wanted it. I would be considered ‘orthodox’ and when they realized that, the obviously non orthodox suddenly became even more orthodox than I.

 

[redbird444]

I wish you would be more specific as to what you mean when you say “certain religious congregations”. Why don’t you spell it out? If you have something to share, put it out there.

Any time I see a book or article that contains the words “…the liberals have ruined…” blah blah… I tend to shrug and leave it be. It reeks of casting stones into political glassware.

It seems someone is always looking to blame someone else for something. And often times its those horrid little “liberals”
who are undermining everything that is just and good! Sounds like an AM radio talk show topic. I have heard the whole spiel on gays taking over the seminaries and this sounds similar.

I wonder what the priests who recently went through seminaries feel when they see this book which states two generations of good men were turned away?

 

[Cloisters]

Most of the religious congregations–in fact, a majority–of whom are being spoken of here are members of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR). Ann Carey, in her book “Sisters in Crisis,” spells out what happened after VatII with LCWR.

Anyone can go onto LCWR member websites, and count the number of vocations they have (very, very small). We also have documented cases of motherhouses being sold because of the shrinkage in vocations.

One of the members of our women in discernment yahoo group is a former Dianic priestess, and she says many of the “updated” and “liberal” convents are spiritually dangerous places to be because of the neo-pagan practices she saw there.

I also know for a fact that a self-professed “Catholic” neo-pagan was hired (knowingly/unknowingly?) by a “liberal” convent, and she eventually had them offering incense to the four winds. They destroyed the choir stalls in their chapel, and used the wood for retreat huts.

Nobody can tell me that there aren’t problems. I grew up in a state with four motherhouses historically situated there, and they all went wiggy after VatII.

Pointing a finger? No. Calling it as I see it? Yes.

One “liberated” sister said to some discerners that if the habit were that important to them, they could go elsewhere.

We’re “St. Elsewhere:” cloisters.tripod.com/

Blessings,
Cloisters

 

[Lepanto]

I wish you would be more specific as to what you mean when you say “certain religious congregations”. Why don’t you spell it out?

I would like to know, too.

I wonder what the priests who recently went through seminaries feel when they see this book which states two generations of good men were turned away?

They must feel like they are survivors.

 

[redbird444]

As a new convert with no knowledge of how certain practices are upheld or changed, how does the catholic church allow such neo-pagan practices? Is there a blind eye being turned? Surely, someone has said something?

Do the cloisters who are, for example, burning incense to the four winds, doing so without anyone voicing any protest? Are these cloisters unaccountable to someone in the heirarchy?

 

[otjm]

As a new convert with no knowledge of how certain practices are upheld or changed, how does the catholic church allow such neo-pagan practices? Is there a blind eye being turned? Surely, someone has said something?

Do the cloisters who are, for example, burning incense to the four winds, doing so without anyone voicing any protest? Are these cloisters unaccountable to someone in the heirarchy?

There is a misperception that the local bishop controls everything. It is not so. A group of nuns largely is self regulatory, answerable to their own group (e.g. whoever is head of the order within the world). The bishop generally has little or nothing to say as to what goes on, and most often has no personal knowledge. While they may be in the diocese by permission, Canon law will not generally allow the bishop to remove them, nor will Canon law allow Rome to do much in a hurry. There have been relatively few nuns or priests who have been censured, in part because neither Rome nor the local diocese micro manage everything that goes on, and in part becasue if there is going to be any form of censure, it is a process that usually literally will take several years.

Both Catholics and non-Catholics see the Church as a monolith tightly run by an all-seeing and all-knowing Rome. The myth continues in spite of the fact that it never was that way in anyone’s lifetime - and that includes some fairly old people.

Previous to Vatican 2 (which, by the way, was also previous to television, the Viet Nam War, hippies, free love, Esalen, the Civil Rights Movement, etc. etc.) most people - Catholic and non-Catholic - respected authority, obeyed laws, went to church, didn’t shop on Sundays, didn’t question authority, and generally did not have college degrees. All of these have had effects on the populace, and part of that populace is Catholic. The net effect was that most people didn’t question Rome, or its rulings, or the local bishop. Thus came the perception that the Church ruled with an iron fist in a velvet glove, and when someone in the Curia or the local chancery said “frog”, everyone asked “how high?” on the way up.

 

[Cloisters]

As a new convert with no knowledge of how certain practices are upheld or changed, how does the catholic church allow such neo-pagan practices? Is there a blind eye being turned? Surely, someone has said something?

Do the cloisters who are, for example, burning incense to the four winds, doing so without anyone voicing any protest? Are these cloisters unaccountable to someone in the heirarchy?

The cloisters aren’t doing it. The active orders are–but not all of the active orders have gone wiggy like that.

The faithful can complain to the bishop, and he can form an inquiry commission–or investigate in some other way, and then come out strongly condemning the acts, but it’s rare for a bishop to throw an order out of his diocese. Some of the convents are participating as a group–others there’s just one or two rebellious sisters. That’s when they get censured.

HTH

Blessings,
Cloisters