T
Tolle_Lege
Guest
The Catechism should be your first reference. Starting threads on here with “What does the Church teach about [this topic]” will give you as many answers as responses.
- Status
blackforest
Well-known member
True. I was banking on the threads referencing the Catechism, but that could be a naive assumption.
P
Peeps
Guest
I agree with you, but the Catechism will not give me a list of those who have been discredited in some way by the Church, or who have been reprimanded or cautioned by the Holy Father or the Magisterium.
That’s why I came here–because after searching the Internet and finding nothing but “Left” articles about how wonderful Sister Joan is, I thought it would be good to see if any of the CAF Catholics know if there is any “question” about her status with the Church.
I know that there are organizations that call themselves Catholic, but aren’t in union with the Church. So isn’t it possible that some people call themselves “Catholic,” but aren’t?
Not sure if there is such a word as “de-nunned.”
J
JimG
Guest
I think Sister Joan is an old line 1960’s era liberal feminist. Not unusual but that era is passing.
J
jeannetherese
Guest
She does write for the national Catholic Reporter. On more than one occasion, bishops from the diocese, in which the Reporter is located, have requested that the newspaper remove the word Catholic from its name. The publishers have refused to do as requested.
Sister Joan has chosen to remain with the paper despite this decision on the part of its editors and the editors have chosen to keep her as a columnist.
Sister Joan has chosen to remain with the paper despite this decision on the part of its editors and the editors have chosen to keep her as a columnist.
E
Edmundus1581
Guest
We have a couple of “prominent” Catholic clergymen (no women, I can think of) here in Australia who are prominent for the same reason. Whenever the church is in the news they get airtime to criticise the Church and they claim to speak for ordinary Catholics against the heirarchy. The media love them and present them as important spokesmen for the Church. They also get themselves into the news commenting on “social justice” issues.Peeps:
This. It’s as if she’s used to say, “See? A Catholic nun believes it. You should, too.”
If Sr Chittester had come here she probably would have got the same favourable coverage, with extra credibility for being a nun.
Last edited:
T
tafan2
Guest
I did not say there were not pro-life people in favor of the death penalty. I am not, but if someone is I do not consider it hypocritical. I said I do not recall any pro-deatg penalty protests.
Budget cuts to a program’s growth are not the same as being vehemently opposed to food programs.
Last edited:
O
otjm
Guest
If one looks at the history of the Church - in particular many of the “players” - throughout the last 2,000 year, one will find there was never a time where everyone was homogeneous - all on the same page, no one kicking up a fuss. It is exhibited in Acts and is reflected in a number of the Epistles.and thus it has been ever since.
And many have provided no grounds for the Church to “rein them in” as they have not espoused heresy. Some have skittered close, but close is not the same as outright heresy.
Further, some of the disputes have been less about doctrinal matters than they have been about emphasis, and about peripheral matters.
Further, we no longer have societies in Europe and North America where the Church has influence such that the media would back it. If nothing else, there are times where action is likely to cause a bigger problem than the matter at hand. And the Church may correct someone without it becoming a public matter.
It may be stating the painfully obvious, but the media has changed over the last 60 years in that it is louder, more powerful, and far, far more liberal/progressive/secularist than it was “back then”. It requires far more discernment as to what outlets we get our news from, and what faith we put in their ability to approach, let alone state the truth.
And many have provided no grounds for the Church to “rein them in” as they have not espoused heresy. Some have skittered close, but close is not the same as outright heresy.
Further, some of the disputes have been less about doctrinal matters than they have been about emphasis, and about peripheral matters.
Further, we no longer have societies in Europe and North America where the Church has influence such that the media would back it. If nothing else, there are times where action is likely to cause a bigger problem than the matter at hand. And the Church may correct someone without it becoming a public matter.
It may be stating the painfully obvious, but the media has changed over the last 60 years in that it is louder, more powerful, and far, far more liberal/progressive/secularist than it was “back then”. It requires far more discernment as to what outlets we get our news from, and what faith we put in their ability to approach, let alone state the truth.
Last edited:
E
Ender
Guest
An opinion carries no particular weight because it comes from Sr Chittester. Her opinion is no more valid than yours or anyone else’s. The better way to oppose her comments is to find opposing comments from those whose opinions actually do inform church teaching. If shouldn’t be too hard to find her more controversial statements, and not hard at all to refute them. Her stance on women priests being a prime example.
If you want help with that, post some of her comments and see what kind of rebuttals are supplied to you.
R
RyanBlack
Guest
But Catholic pro-life groups don’t account for all who claim the pro-life label. Taking the entire American pro-life movement into account, I can’t agree that it’s a baseless accusation.
R
RyanBlack
Guest
No, it is not. The pro-life movement in this country no doubt has many, many people who both oppose abortion and support caring for pregnant women in crisis and the poor in general. On the other hand, there are plenty of people-politicians and certain sorts of conservative activists-who claim to be pro-life but oppose policies that would help address conditions that would help pregnant women in crisis. Pointing this out isn’t calumny.
Last edited:
C
CilladeRoma
Guest
It does when you promote anti abortion policy but then also fight against program funding for safety nets for the poor. It is subtle and plays out every single day in American politics and that is the mindset Sr. Joan is speaking out against.
S
skelly
Guest
So it’s the governments role to carry out Catholic social teaching and also the government’s role to subvert Catholic moral teaching?
R
RCIAGraduate
Guest
If someone is a religious though, doesn’t that mean they ought to be given special attention or consideration? Even then, are not the religious more likely to come from a thoughtful and reflective view, specially since much of their life may be spent in meditation if not contemplation? Or am I putting them at a pedestal?
R
RyanBlack
Guest
I believe that the government should recognize and protect the right to life of the unborn and promote Catholic social teaching. I also believe there are even strong secular arguments that can be made in opposition to abortion and in favor of Catholic social teaching. Catholic social teaching promotes the common good, while abortion is an offense against the common good.
E
Ender
Guest
Yes, that is I think the proper response, but an opinion carries weight because of how reasonable it is, not by who makes it. This is why the church teaches both that we must respect such opinions, but are not obliged to follow them.
This goes to the point I made earlier: find out what she has said and refute it. From what I’ve seen of her comments that isn’t all that difficult, and it is a much better approach than attacking her legitimacy within the church.
E
Ender
Guest
Every government ought to concern itself with the welfare of its citizens, but it is not reasonable to expect any government to promote Catholic social teaching because when it comes to specific proposals and programs the church is utterly silent. She tells us to feed the hungry; she does not demand that we raise the minimum wage. We have to distinguish between means and ends. The church specifies the ends, but we are left to our own intuition to devise the means. That is in fact a lay - not a clerical - responsibility.
R
RyanBlack
Guest
What I mean in terms of the state promoting Catholic social teaching is that the state should promote the common good, the dignity of all persons, the solidarity of all peoples, and so on, while allowing for a range of ways in which these goals can be best achieved.
T
tafan2
Guest
It all sounds so nice and wonderful. But the fact of the matter is, this rhetoric is used to generally denigrate the pro-life cause in general.
You say things such as they want baby’s to starve and for kids to have no education. If one so much as opposes the growth in spending for social safety nets that the bureaucrats decide is needed, they are hypocrites and are not fully pro-life.
The idea you guys are expounding is that one cannot be politically conservative and be pro-life without being a hypocrite. Never mind that the politicians who support the programs you claim are litmus tests for being a true pro-life person invariably support very liberal abortion laws.
Not buying it. Not for a second. I fully support the Bishop’s and the Church’s right to speak out on issues involving social safety nets, immigration, the death penalty, etc. Heck, I almost always agree with them. But I do not, for a second, accept the idea that politically conservative people are not consistent pro-life advocates because of some of their positions. It is not subtle hypocrisy, it is not hypocrisy at all. But the end result, of damaging the pro-life cause is clear and evident, and is seemingly the intended result.
You say things such as they want baby’s to starve and for kids to have no education. If one so much as opposes the growth in spending for social safety nets that the bureaucrats decide is needed, they are hypocrites and are not fully pro-life.
The idea you guys are expounding is that one cannot be politically conservative and be pro-life without being a hypocrite. Never mind that the politicians who support the programs you claim are litmus tests for being a true pro-life person invariably support very liberal abortion laws.
Not buying it. Not for a second. I fully support the Bishop’s and the Church’s right to speak out on issues involving social safety nets, immigration, the death penalty, etc. Heck, I almost always agree with them. But I do not, for a second, accept the idea that politically conservative people are not consistent pro-life advocates because of some of their positions. It is not subtle hypocrisy, it is not hypocrisy at all. But the end result, of damaging the pro-life cause is clear and evident, and is seemingly the intended result.
A
angel12
Guest
Amazing, how many people here claim to know what Sister “hates.” I guess you all must know her personally?
- Status