L
Luigi_Daniele
Guest
It is if I agree with them
- Status
I
iloveangels
Guest
Said like that, it doesn’t sound very good to an American.
But Julia, in a way, you’re certainly correct. And the way it’s done is actually not a bad thing. As they say, the Church isn’t a democracy. I’d rather they run it like a religion with truths and falsehoods identified, regardless of someone’s personal opinion.
About modern technology: The reason it’s good that we can get information, is that it makes it easier to make sound choices and stay out of trouble we would not have expected before. Note that we always had to put our heads together to do this–Catholics have done it forever–I am remembering one of my “funny-peculiar stories.”
But now it involves a lot less intrigue, scandal, false accusation and so on. You can simply check. You don’t need the “neighborhood grapevine” like you used to. The neighborhood grapevine could be a nasty and erroneous thing too. Sometimes rumor overran the truth. And sometimes you found out too late to save the day because it wasn’t a rumor! This really is better.
Also one of the great things about the internet is that it makes it a lot harder for someone to do something absolutely bat-**** crazy, disappear from view and then just pop up later someplace else as a moral or religious authority beyond question, like nothing happened, just so that they can do something bat-**** crazy to somebody else. It tends to inhibit that kind of thing. There are a certain number of people who go around setting up these little personality cult things and “opportunities.” It’s a feature of any religious landscape in any major religion. Protestants have it too. In fact, even Hindus and Muslims have these phenomena. It’s not even particularly clerical. People do all kinds of interesting things. It’s part of human religious experience. Not a good part, not a holy part, but nevertheless part.
D
Dirt
Guest
From Sr. Farley, this past Friday at the Catholic Theological Society of America (CTSA) meeting:
““We clearly have grown in many spheres of knowledge — about humans, about the way the universe runs,” said Farley. “It seems reasonable … that if we come to know even a little bit more than we knew before, it might be that the conclusions that we had previously drawn need to be developed. Or maybe even let go of.”
“Because it would be a contradiction to Roman Catholic frameworks for doing moral theology to say that we can’t. That would be to imply that we know everything we can know and there’s nothing more to be done.”
From Pope St. Pius X in Pascendi Domenici Gregis:
“Hence it is quite impossible to maintain that they absolutely contain the truth: for, in so far as they are symbols, they are the images of truth, and so must be adapted to the religious sense in its relation to man; and as instruments, they are the vehicles of truth, and must therefore in their turn be adapted to man in his relation to the religious sense. But the object of the religious sense, as something contained in the absolute, possesses an infinite variety of aspects, of which now one, now another, may present itself. In like manner he who believes can avail himself of varying conditions. Consequently, the formulas which we call dogma must be subject to these vicissitudes, and are, therefore, liable to change. Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. Here we have an immense structure of sophisms which ruin and wreck all religion.”
Please read the entire encyclical: papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10pasce.htm
It will put this entire episode, along with most of the other disenters, into perfect perspective regarding their thought processes and ideology. Amazing when you think about the fact that Saitn Pope Pius X wrote this in 1907!
““We clearly have grown in many spheres of knowledge — about humans, about the way the universe runs,” said Farley. “It seems reasonable … that if we come to know even a little bit more than we knew before, it might be that the conclusions that we had previously drawn need to be developed. Or maybe even let go of.”
“Because it would be a contradiction to Roman Catholic frameworks for doing moral theology to say that we can’t. That would be to imply that we know everything we can know and there’s nothing more to be done.”
From Pope St. Pius X in Pascendi Domenici Gregis:
“Hence it is quite impossible to maintain that they absolutely contain the truth: for, in so far as they are symbols, they are the images of truth, and so must be adapted to the religious sense in its relation to man; and as instruments, they are the vehicles of truth, and must therefore in their turn be adapted to man in his relation to the religious sense. But the object of the religious sense, as something contained in the absolute, possesses an infinite variety of aspects, of which now one, now another, may present itself. In like manner he who believes can avail himself of varying conditions. Consequently, the formulas which we call dogma must be subject to these vicissitudes, and are, therefore, liable to change. Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. Here we have an immense structure of sophisms which ruin and wreck all religion.”
Please read the entire encyclical: papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10pasce.htm
It will put this entire episode, along with most of the other disenters, into perfect perspective regarding their thought processes and ideology. Amazing when you think about the fact that Saitn Pope Pius X wrote this in 1907!
I
iloveangels
Guest
Dirt,
I don’t know that that’s really helpful. Anyone could have hauled that bit of proof-texting up. And it doesn’t address the letter from the Franciscans to the LCWR, which is really the topic of this thread.
I don’t know that that’s really helpful. Anyone could have hauled that bit of proof-texting up. And it doesn’t address the letter from the Franciscans to the LCWR, which is really the topic of this thread.
K
Kathryn_Ann
Guest
Amen. I am fervently praying for Our Holy Father and The Church Christ founded, “that all may be one,” in His truth, following the Magisterium, the CCC, and Church Law. Individual interpretations without the guidance of the Vatican creates dangerous schism.
I
iloveangels
Guest
Oops. Got a problem. Quick, blame the protestants!
Did it ever dawn on any of you guys that this problem might be a Catholic problem? That is, that it might have been caused by Catholics, involve Catholics, and have to be solved by Catholics? The Franciscans sending a letter to the LCWR has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with Protestants. Do you even realize that?
Another thing…when Catholics, who’ve never been anything but Catholics, lose their faith in God and stop acting like Catholics, do you know what they become? Generally not protestants. They become either completely secularized and hate all religion OR they become New Age Pagan weirdos. Fact. So lay off the protestants because they’re not doing anything to you. They have nothing–not a thing–to do with this thread.
I
iloveangels
Guest
Oops. Got a problem. Quick, blame the protestants!
Did it ever dawn on any of you guys that this problem might be a Catholic problem? That is, that it might have been caused by Catholics, involve Catholics, and that the whole thing is about and by Catholics? The Franciscans sending a letter to the LCWR has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with Protestants. Do you even realize that?
Another thing…when Catholics, who’ve never been anything but Catholics, lose their faith in God and stop acting like Catholics, do you know what they become? Generally not protestants. They become either completely secularized and hate all religion OR they become New Age Pagan weirdos. Often with atrocious morals. Fact. So lay off the protestants because they’re not doing anything to you. They have nothing–not a thing–to do with this thread.
C
choliks
Guest
Phewww. This thread is so draining. why can’t we just remain at the sidelines, and watch and learn. Why must we always hurl mud at each other, especially at the vowed religious? Let them be. A lot of us from the laity complain when the religious try to teach us, but we make it a hobby to meddle in their affairs. 
C
catharina
Guest
PLEASE!!!
If you decide that you MUST state your outrageous version of “FACT”
on this site, then do provide some documentation for it. Until/unless you
do so, I’m entitled to ignore your claim of FACT.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Could it be that you misunderstood the poster ‘Dirt’? He was making a comparison. He criticized the tendency (of disaffected Catholics) to ‘make it up as they go’ “like Protestants [do].” He wasn’t saying that people who affiliate with Protestant sects are responsible for The Letter, let alone any “crisis.”
Separately, for the record, yes, many disaffected Catholics simply stop practicing & become secularized to the max, or drift into New Age. But a significant portion (in the last 20 years) have also drifted into evangelical churches and into Episcopalian Churches. Those are “facts” that can be supported with statistics, but they are not statistics I’m interested in, so I won’t be searching for them.
I
iloveangels
Guest
Short and sweet:Could it be that you misunderstood the poster ‘Dirt’? He was making a comparison. He criticized the tendency (of disaffected Catholics) to ‘make it up as they go’ “like Protestants [do].” He wasn’t saying that people who affiliate with Protestant sects are responsible for The Letter, let alone any “crisis.”
Separately, for the record, yes, many disaffected Catholics simply stop practicing & become secularized to the max, or drift into New Age. But a significant portion (in the last 20 years) have also drifted into evangelical churches and into Episcopalian Churches. Those are “facts” that can be supported with statistics, but they are not statistics I’m interested in, so I won’t be searching for them.
- The ones who become secularized no longer believe in God.
- The ones who become pagan go out of their way to get a new version of God and a new version of themselves.
- The ones that become protestant still believe in God–they just don’t believe in you anymore. The church ceases to make sense to them and so they make the best of it. When Catholics become protestants, that’s the pattern right there. That’s how it’s always worked.
Going out and side-swiping people that had nothing to do with it, just to make oneself feel better, is low and despicable. Just saying.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
And I’m “just sayin’” that your response, both to him and to me, is excessive, i.m.o. The poster in question did not initiate a diatribe against Protestants or Protestant sects as somehow implicated in the dynamics among LCWR, The Franciscans, and the Holy See. The poster correctly makes a parallel between those Catholics who become the seat of their own moral authority and the similar dynamic that is perfectly acceptable in many Protestant traditions.
Why was it necessary to rudely bring in me, all of a sudden, as in what you did here?
The purpose of my previous post was to clarify the thinking of another poster. You have turned the tone into one of belligerence. Very mystifying. It seems to me that if you have a problem with the poster Dirt – the one who drew a parallel with one aspect of Protestantism, the proper thing to do would be to address your differences with his point in an email or PM.
What he did not do was “blame Protestants” for tensions within the Catholic Church, which is what you accused him of earlier.
Perhaps you could lighten up a little?
Why was it necessary to rudely bring in me, all of a sudden, as in what you did here?
Why would you think that I or anyone else on this thread wants Catholics to believe “in” other Catholics.
The purpose of my previous post was to clarify the thinking of another poster. You have turned the tone into one of belligerence. Very mystifying. It seems to me that if you have a problem with the poster Dirt – the one who drew a parallel with one aspect of Protestantism, the proper thing to do would be to address your differences with his point in an email or PM.
What he did not do was “blame Protestants” for tensions within the Catholic Church, which is what you accused him of earlier.
Perhaps you could lighten up a little?
C
catharina
Guest
See bolded above:
YOUR opinion!
Just saying - it’s your opinion and you’re over-reacting in my opinion.
D
Dirt
Guest
I respectfully disagree. The specter of Modernism and Modernistic theology is clearly evident in the quote from Sr. Farley. Numerous Popes have warned us of this type of theology and where and to what it will lead. I posted Sr. Farley’s own words and the Quote from His Holiness Pope St. Pius X to remind all of us that the issues with Sister Farley are neither new, nor abstract. This is an assault on the church that started during the renaissance and the reformation and has continued through the centuries. It has gained quite a bit of momentum over the last fifty years. Whether you agree or not, I personally do not care. the Quote was Sr. Farley, who is part of the subject of this thread, and Her theology is in conflict with approved Catholic teaching. Supporting her gives credence to Her Theology and leads the Faithful astray. Pax.
J
JReducation
Guest
There is no connection here between Sister’s statements and the content of this letter. We need to be very careful not to go looking for skeletons and dirt unrelated to the Friars, just because we want to make our agenda stick.
We must also remember that in trying to make such dirt stick to seven major superiors of a religious order, be they Franciscans or Benedictines, we are disparaging the reputation of seven ordinaries of the Catholic Church. Such behavior is beneath us and should be avoided.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
C
Cathy
Guest
I haven’t been following this blog, except that I did read all the recommended articles at the very beginning. I want to pipe up in favor of the CDF. I want to say “God bless them!”
I feel like the little kid who has been enduring emotionally abusive treatment by the older kids, and my dad has finally come home to the rescue.
I feel like the little kid who has been enduring emotionally abusive treatment by the older kids, and my dad has finally come home to the rescue.
D
Daizies
Guest
Thanks Br. Jr for all your discussion on this. I had been hearing a lot about this in the media (even in Canada this is big news), and honestly, as a newish convert it was freaking me out a lot. After reading your explanations, I think I’m just going to try not to worry about it and let the Church work it out (not that my worrying would make any difference anyhow ).
).
J
JReducation
Guest
You’re welcome. On Tuesday, the Vatican announced that the sisters had met with Cardinal Levada, asked their questions and that the meeting had been a positive one. They would not comment more, leaving it up to the sisters to share as much as they wanted to. However, Cardinal Levada did clarify that the reason that a bishop had been assigned to work with the LCWR was not to make any corrections to individual sisters or religious congregations. The CDF has no authority there. Only the Pope can do that.Thanks Br. Jr for all your discussion on this. I had been hearing a lot about this in the media (even in Canada this is big news), and honestly, as a newish convert it was freaking me out a lot. After reading your explanations, I think I’m just going to try not to worry about it and let the Church work it out (not that my worrying would make any difference anyhow
According to reports, they made an important distinction between the LCWR and the religious congregations. The religious congregations govern themselves. Neither the CDFnor the LCWR governs them. However, the conferences of religious superiors are canonically erected by the Church with the purpose of helping the religious fulfill their mission in the Church, which of course requires fidelity to the teachings of the Church. That does not mean that the Church is going to interfere with individual religious who have their own opinions. That’s up to the superiors to decide what they allow or don’t allow, not up to the CDF. The CDF can respond, as it did to a book that was recently published by a sister. I can’t recall its name. I have not read it. Apparently, the CDF read it and saw some inconsistencies with Church doctrine and asked the writer to make the corrections. But the CDF never disciplined the sister nor mandated that her superiors do so. The CDF is not in the business of disciplining religious. It’s job is to protect the faith and it limits itself to correcting errors against the faith.
This was a good thing. Because the way that the media has told this story, it has sounded as if the Vatican is slamming the sisters or striking them with the proverbial ruler when nothing is further from the truth. The CDF simply wants the part that it governs brought back in line. That part is the conference, not the individual religious or the religious communities.
In a sense, they did not say what we have always known. Canon Law says that the highest ranking authority over religious orders, religious congregations, secular orders, secular institutes and societies of consecrated life is the pope. He is the only one who can involve himself directly with the religious and directly inside the communities. As we have all known since the days of Pope Pius XII, popes are not interested in getting involved in the affairs of religious, unless there is no authority at the local level to deal with the problem, as was the case with the Legion. The Holy See gets the report from the religious communities when they hold their general chapter and submit their documentation or if after trying to get the attention of the superior they fail to do so, the bishops then submit a formal complaint.
My guess is that from this point forward, if either the religious or the bishops want further dialogue with each other, they can convene of council of bishops and religious, with more religious than bishops, so as not to give the bishops the controlling number of votes over the religious. They can discuss whatever they want to discuss in private.
I think this is what had many religious orders on edge. The Catholic and secular press were making it sound as if the CDF was violating its own laws, laws that the Holy Father had approved, including laws of secrecy. From where I’m sitting, it looks like that’s not the case. It looks like someone (as usual) made some comments when they should not have, the media ran with it and filled in the blanks. By the time that the CDF’s letter to the sisters came out, no one was taking it at face value, because all kinds of things had been read into it that were not there.
In my own head, this explains the Holy Father’s apparent non sequitor comments to the last group of American bishops who presented themselves to him for their Ad Limina visit. I believe that it was less than a week after the CFF’s report and letter was delivered to the LCWR when the Holy Father, out of the apparent blue, started to speak to the bishops of the sisters and to remind them of the positive contributions that they have made to the Church in the USA and that they continue to make. He told this last group of bishops of his esteem and respect for sisters in the USA. To many of us, that didn’t seem to fit the major concerns of the bishops, which were really religious freedom, same-sex marriage, vocations, finances, administration and many other things that had nothing to do with the sisters.
This was the second time during these visits that the Holy Father went off on what appeared to be a tangent, but we later realized what it was about. On a previous occasion, he expressed his concern that the bishops were promoting vocations to the priesthood and were not promoting vocations to the brotherhood.
In both cases, it became clear later why he was making these comments. This time, I believe that the news had reached the Vatican that even their own newspapers, such as La Stampa, had read into the communication what was not there. Basically, the media read a threat to punish individual sisters and congregations for their misbehavior and polluted the news waves with an image that gave the impression that there were more renegade sisters in the USA than Catholic, which we know is not the case. There is a reason for the term, “the silent majority.” There are also many things that superiors do internally that they never share, not even with the community. It is inappropriate to do so.
My point is that the Holy Father seemed to know that the press had run out of control and had upset many many religious by making it look as if the CDF was overstepping its authority or as if the bishops had skipped a rung on the ladder and had run to the CDF telling tales, when the law clearly says that they must speak to the superiors first.
The problem here is going to be that many people take the media more seriously than they take the Gospel. No matter what the CDF, the Holy Father or the LCWR say at this point is not going to sound as sensational as the image that the media have conjured up. I doubt that the media will report it, even though the Vatican did put out a press release, which is matter of fact and positive.
If there are skeletons in the sisters’ closet, those have been pointed out to the sisters and not shared with the rest of us, which is as it should be. Every family has a right to privacy and no one should be made the center of public attention. We never do a good by violating someone’s human rights. Privacy in matters of discipline is a human right of anyone from a child to a senior citizen, because such privacy protects a person’s good name and provides an opportunity for conversion and reform without being under public scrutiny.
Having said that, don’t be surprised if someone makes a careless comment about a bone and the media comes up with an entire skeleton in the next few days. In other words, all is not well; however, all is not lost either. We’re going through another faze of crisis and recovery. The Church has a crisis every 50 years and then requires 150 to recover. That’s why we feel that we live in a constant crisis. This all began two days after Pentecost and it has not stopped. Our first crisis was about circumcision.
I wonder if that’s why I sleep so well. I just roll my eyes, smile at the Immaculate and say to her, “Now what are we supposed to do?” She lets us know in good time. :yup:
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
C
Cinette
Guest
*Thank you for your explanation. In the circumstances I feel that the Jesuits should not be in charge of Parishes. We, the laity, have rights and that includes asking questions ie why do they support gay marriage?? why don’t they speak out in support of Church teaching??
R
Robert_Bay
Guest
MODERATOR NOTICE
This thread is wandering, please stay on the topic of the original post.
Also please be respectful of all catholic religious and clergy, see the forum rules at the top of the forum.
This thread is wandering, please stay on the topic of the original post.
Also please be respectful of all catholic religious and clergy, see the forum rules at the top of the forum.
- Status