U.S.: Franciscans side with the LCWR

[LittleFlower378]

This is in the letter from the Franciscans.

Moreover, we are concerned that the tone and direction set forth in the Doctrinal Assessment of LCWR are excessive, given the evidence raised. The efforts of LCWR to facilitate honest and faithful dialogue on critical issues of our times must not result in a level of ecclesial oversight that could, in effect, quash all further discernment. Further, questioning your adherence to Church teaching by your “remaining silent” on certain ethical issues seems to us a charge that could be leveled against many groups in the Church, and fails to appreciate both the larger cultural context and the particular parameters of expertise within which we all operate. Finally, when there appears to be honest disagreement on the application of moral principles to public policy, it is not equivalent to questioning the authority of the Church’s magisterium. Although the Catholic moral tradition speaks of agreement regarding moral principles, it also – from the Middle Ages through today – speaks of appropriate disagreement regarding specific application of these principles. Unfortunately, the public communications media in the U.S. may not recognize this distinction. Rather than excessive oversight of LCWR, perhaps a better service to the people of God might be a renewed effort to articulate the nuances of our complex moral tradition. This can be a teaching moment rather than a moment of regulation – an opportunity to bring our faith to bear on the complexity of public policy particularly in the midst of our quadrennial elections.

I have a few questions Br.Jr about some of this letter. My first is when the letter states to “remain silent.” What the Bishops are addressing has nothing to do with remaining silent but is adressing the groups that are dissenting on Church teaching. Also I dont understand the letter when it says “speaks of appropriate disagreement regarding specific application of these principles.” I think the Church does for the most part teach the application of most principals especially ones that have been taught for hundreds of years especially pertaining to the evils of gay marraige.

Thank You,
Matt O.F.S.

 

[iloveangels]

This is in the letter from the Franciscans.

Moreover, we are concerned that the tone and direction set forth in the Doctrinal Assessment of LCWR are excessive, given the evidence raised. The efforts of LCWR to facilitate honest and faithful dialogue on critical issues of our times must not result in a level of ecclesial oversight that could, in effect, quash all further discernment. Further, questioning your adherence to Church teaching by your “remaining silent” on certain ethical issues seems to us a charge that could be leveled against many groups in the Church, and fails to appreciate both the larger cultural context and the particular parameters of expertise within which we all operate. Finally, when there appears to be honest disagreement on the application of moral principles to public policy, it is not equivalent to questioning the authority of the Church’s magisterium. Although the Catholic moral tradition speaks of agreement regarding moral principles, it also – from the Middle Ages through today – speaks of appropriate disagreement regarding specific application of these principles. Unfortunately, the public communications media in the U.S. may not recognize this distinction. Rather than excessive oversight of LCWR, perhaps a better service to the people of God might be a renewed effort to articulate the nuances of our complex moral tradition. This can be a teaching moment rather than a moment of regulation – an opportunity to bring our faith to bear on the complexity of public policy particularly in the midst of our quadrennial elections.

I have a few questions Br.Jr about some of this letter. My first is when the letter states to “remain silent.” What the Bishops are addressing has nothing to do with remaining silent but is adressing the groups that are dissenting on Church teaching. Also I dont understand the letter when it says “speaks of appropriate disagreement regarding specific application of these principles.” I think the Church does for the most part teach the application of most principals especially ones that have been taught for hundreds of years especially pertaining to the evils of gay marraige.

Thank You,
Matt O.F.S.

My problem with this is somewhat different. I understand that the letter is meant to underscore long-standing customs of jurisdiction and cooperation, no problem there. But this statement assumes that there can be a “teaching moment” without a “moment of correction,” even after considerable conversations between the CDF and the LCWR that haven’t been particularly fruitful. In fact, the LCWR is particularly defiant at this point, and remains very far outside normal doctrine and practice.

This really has nothing to do with whether they wear a veil or whatnot. It has to do with the legalities of “going non-canonical” and it has to do with blatant dissidence, as typified by the plans for the next LCWR annual meeting. The keynote speaker is a prominent New Age practitioner. Panelists are outstanding proponents of the emerging church and such. This is where the LCWR is right now.

 

[JReducation]

This is in the letter from the Franciscans.

Moreover, we are concerned that the tone and direction set forth in the Doctrinal Assessment of LCWR are excessive, given the evidence raised. The efforts of LCWR to facilitate honest and faithful dialogue on critical issues of our times must not result in a level of ecclesial oversight that could, in effect, quash all further discernment. Further, questioning your adherence to Church teaching by your “remaining silent” on certain ethical issues seems to us a charge that could be leveled against many groups in the Church, and fails to appreciate both the larger cultural context and the particular parameters of expertise within which we all operate. Finally, when there appears to be honest disagreement on the application of moral principles to public policy, it is not equivalent to questioning the authority of the Church’s magisterium. Although the Catholic moral tradition speaks of agreement regarding moral principles, it also – from the Middle Ages through today – speaks of appropriate disagreement regarding specific application of these principles. Unfortunately, the public communications media in the U.S. may not recognize this distinction. Rather than excessive oversight of LCWR, perhaps a better service to the people of God might be a renewed effort to articulate the nuances of our complex moral tradition. This can be a teaching moment rather than a moment of regulation – an opportunity to bring our faith to bear on the complexity of public policy particularly in the midst of our quadrennial elections.

I have a few questions Br.Jr about some of this letter. My first is when the letter states to “remain silent.” What the Bishops are addressing has nothing to do with remaining silent but is adressing the groups that are dissenting on Church teaching. Also I dont understand the letter when it says “speaks of appropriate disagreement regarding specific application of these principles.” I think the Church does for the most part teach the application of most principals especially ones that have been taught for hundreds of years especially pertaining to the evils of gay marraige.

Thank You,
Matt O.F.S.

There is a lot going on in this context that never made it to the public, because it really belongs in the internal forum between religious orders and the Vatican. This letter was not meant for public consumption, but for the eyes of the LCWR, the CDF, and Franciscan males only. Unfortunately, it found its way into the public forum in which certain statements become ambiguous, because the public has not idea what they’re talking about; but those involved do know what to what they refer. By those involved, I mean the LCWR, CDF and Franciscan men. It’s like writing a letter to your mom and having it end up on the internet. There are pieces that only you and your family understand, because they allude to things that you know. Therefore, the author does not bother to go into detail. Having explained the reason for the apparent ambiguity, allow me to try to explain what those two statements mean in the bigger context.

The first statement about context refers to theological discussion. There is always a danger that in commanding people to remain silent on an issue, moral, theological, canonical, biblical or liturgical, that the issue does not get discussed. The argument has always been that rather than command silence, it is better to direct the discussion. You can command silence and people will give you silence, but that does not guarantee that they will subscribe to orthodoxy. It is important that the body in authority lead the discussion until it the person or persons involved are in line with Church teaching.

While the CDF calls for the LCWR to come into harmony with the doctrinal teachings of the Church, it also needs to provide the education and discussion necessary to lead the sisters to the desired end. Telling the leadership team that it cannot have a speaker on contraception, because that speaker’s point of view in contrary to Church teaching is half of the solution. The whole of the solution is to provide an environment where the group can discuss all opinions on the table, the Church’s and others, with the guidance of the Church. To discuss only the position of the Church is not theology. It’s catechesis. There is a difference between the two and between their ends. Theology seeks to understand. Catechesis seeks information. The sisters don’t want more catechesis. That’s what the Church has always given to women religious. They want catechesis. Unfortunately, their sources of theology are not balanced. That’s what cause the rift between them and the Church. They end up following the wrong teachers.

 

[JReducation]

The second statement on the application of principles. The application of principles is a term of the science of moral theology. It’s not about teaching that gay marriage is an intrinsic evil. That’s not what moral theology calls application. That is the concluding statement of theological and biblical study.

The application is the part that follows. Bl. John Paul started to do this with Cardinal Ratzinger. When Cardinal Ratzinger became pope, the CDF stopped doing it. For example, in this particular subject. Cardinal Ratzinger, under the oversight of Bl. John Paul had produced a primer on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons. That’s an application manual. By The CDF’s admission. the manual was lacking. It needed further development. But it never came, because other things came up and it had to be put on hold. No one ever picked up the project again. What happened was that you got these independent thinkers who picked up the project and started writing their own principles on pastoral care of homosexual persons in an effort to respond to the request of those in the trenches. But these folks do not have oversight from Church authorities and orthodox theological experts.

Some of them came out with some good stuff, such as the Salesians. They came up with Courage International, which the Holy See erected as the official Catholic ministry to people with same sex attractions. But other people came up with other principles or guidelines, if you will. It’s not enough to say to a group that they cannot subscribe to the applications given by X source. You must give the applications from a reliable source or assign a reliable source to develop the applications, if they don’t exist.

Here again, the sisters don’t need to be told of the evil of something like same-sex marriage. They need to be given principles to minister to people in this situation. You have this moral principal that says that same sex-marriage is objectively evil. But you also have unanswered questions. At what point is the person subjectively culpable? What are the conditions for subjective culpability? What are the degrees of culpability? What are the principles that we apply for determining culpability? What are the principles that we use to guide those in this situation? What about their families, friends, fellow parishioners, what do they need by way of pastoral care and guidance and how is it delivered?

If you say that a rogue speaker who gets up there and says all kinds of things about same-sex unions should not be allowed to stand alone without the response from an orthodox theologian, you’re right. But you must not stop there. The next question by the intellectual theological student is going to be, “What do we do in situation X?” That’s the application. Situation X is not the same as situation Y even though the moral issue is the same. This has been a struggle for the lay sister for many decades.

We have to remember that nuns are not involved in pastoral care. These questions about application are not important to nuns. Sisters are involved in pastoral care, but women are not allowed to study theology to the same degree as men are. For example, a Master’s Degree for me consists of an undergraduate degree in philosophy and religious studies and four years of master’s work, a pastoral internship with supervision, a supervized Master’s thesis, a major area of theological expertise and two sets of comprehensive examinations that you must pass, one full day in general theological knowledge and a second full day in your area of expertise. This takes from four to five years. Women are not allowed in this program. This program is for men only.

A woman who goes for a Master’s degree in theology is not required to have the four years of philosophy, which make a big difference, because you learn to think and analyze. It also gives you absolute universal principles that come from reason alone that help you question and answer theological questions. Their Master’s degree is from 30 to 48 graduate credits.

To become a theologian, a woman gets a PhD in an area of theology, which is several years after the masters’s degree.

Men can get an STD, which is far more complete than a PhD. The Sacred Theology Doctorate is achieved through stages: the STB, STL and STD. These are stages beyond the master’s degree that took you four to five years of education. This is another three to five more years of education, writing, researching, and dialogue with the big boys. It requires languages, sciences, research skills and you get to deal with as much as has been written from the early Church to the present on your particular area. By the time this theologian is finished, he has levels of understanding, not just a collection of opinions of different scholars as you would in the traditional PhD program. He has layers and layers of systems and strategies to look at different theological questions. Women do not have access to this level of education. This level of education is only offered in all male theological faculties. Only clergy, religious brothers and SOME laymen are admitted to these programs.

We have sisters our there in pastoral care who have a lot of education, but not enough of the right kind of education. When you don’t have that part, it’s very easy not to have the necessary systems for the proper implementation of a moral teaching. You end up doing one of two things. Either you apply the teaching incorrectly or you become frustrated, because you can’t see how it is to be applied; therefore, you mistakenly conclude that there is something inherently wrong with the way that the teaching is worded.

To do this without all of the education, you need to be told how to do it or we must open up these schools to women. But we can’t allow women to enter pastoral care with only part of the formation. It’s like allowing a cardiologist to do heart surgery. A cardiologist is not a a heart surgeon. He does not have the necessary education to apply his knowledge of cardiology in an operating room. For example, he may have never studies the effects of anesthesia on COPD patients. He happens to have a COPD patient who needs a simple bypass. It’s not so simple when the patient goes into respiratory arrest, because of the wrong anesthesia

The writers of the letter and the recipients of the letter know all of this. There is no need to spell it out. Those simple statements are enough for the parties to know what they are talking about. Think of it like the Gospel. The writers don’t tell all, because they assumed that the readers knew the missing pieces. They never imagined that their writing were going to be around 2,000 years later. These superiors never imagined that this letter was going to be read and even of interest to anyone other than the intended recipient.

Whenever we read this kind of letter, we must remember that the letter was not written for us. Therefore, there are going to be pieces that we have no clue what they’re talking about or that sound off the wall to us, but they are very clear to the intended recipient and not off the wall at all. Those of us who were intended to read the letter know exactly what they’re talking about without them explaining every detail. Most of what they’re talking about is internal to religious life. The person in the pew would look at it and go,

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[iloveangels]

…

The first statement about context refers to theological discussion. There is always a danger that in commanding people to remain silent on an issue, moral, theological, canonical, biblical or liturgical, that the issue does not get discussed. The argument has always been that rather than command silence, it is better to direct the discussion. You can command silence and people will give you silence, but that does not guarantee that they will subscribe to orthodoxy. It is important that the body in authority lead the discussion until it the person or persons involved are in line with Church teaching.

This is not the context of the phrase “remaining silent.” The CDF has not said anyone must remain silent. The CDF has said that the LCWR is inappropriately silent on some issues. They’re being kind and somewhat tactful to the LCWR on that point. There is real disagreement on those issues within the LCWR and that’s no secret, as the CDF well knows.

 

[JReducation]

My problem with this is somewhat different. I understand that the letter is meant to underscore long-standing customs of jurisdiction and cooperation, no problem there. But this statement assumes that there can be a “teaching moment” without a “moment of correction,” even after considerable conversations between the CDF and the LCWR that haven’t been particularly fruitful. In fact, the LCWR is particularly defiant at this point, and remains very far outside normal doctrine and practice.

This really has nothing to do with whether they wear a veil or whatnot. It has to do with the legalities of “going non-canonical” and it has to do with blatant dissidence, as typified by the plans for the next LCWR annual meeting. The keynote speaker is a prominent New Age practitioner. Panelists are outstanding proponents of the emerging church and such. This is where the LCWR is right now.

This is another concern, which is not what the friars are interested in. It has nothing to do with theological scholarship, religious life and the relationship between the religious and the faith. This particular concern is a canonical concern. There is not much to be said here. The answer is simple. If you are under the canonical oversight of the CDF, you must comply with its rules. If the CDF has canonical oversight, then it must provide guidance, not only rules.

In the case of going “independent” for lack of a better word, the LCWR or whoever is suggesting this, is not going to get must (name removed by moderator)ut from other religious, because that’s another issue and it only affects the individuals involved, not the rest of us religious.

Franciscans especially, are mandated not to comment, have feelings or opinions on anything that Francis would not allow us to think about. He certainly would not allow us to consider going outside of the canonical structure. The only Franciscans who have freedom to think about this particular question are major superiors and canon lawyers, because they’re the only ones who deal in canonical questions. This is the beauty of being Franciscan. You can disconnect from that which is not your concern and let them go about their business or if it’s your concern, you can focus on it and let go of everything else that is not under that umbrella. Poverty is very liberating.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[iloveangels]

The second statement on the application of principles. The application of principles is a term of the science of moral theology. It’s not about teaching that gay marriage is an intrinsic evil. That’s not what moral theology calls application. That is the concluding statement of theological and biblical study.

The application is the part that follows. Bl. John Paul started to do this with Cardinal Ratzinger. When Cardinal Ratzinger became pope, the CDF stopped doing it. For example, in this particular subject. Cardinal Ratzinger, under the oversight of Bl. John Paul had produced a primer on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons. That’s an application manual. By The CDF’s admission. the manual was lacking. It needed further development. But it never came, because other things came up and it had to be put on hold. No one ever picked up the project again. What happened was that you got these independent thinkers who picked up the project and started writing their own principles on pastoral care of homosexual persons in an effort to respond to the request of those in the trenches. But these folks do not have oversight from Church authorities and orthodox theological experts.

Some of them came out with some good stuff, such as the Salesians. They came up with Courage International, which the Holy See erected as the official Catholic ministry to people with same sex attractions. But other people came up with other principles or guidelines, if you will. It’s not enough to say to a group that they cannot subscribe to the applications given by X source. You must give the applications from a reliable source or assign a reliable source to develop the applications, if they don’t exist.

Here again, the sisters don’t need to be told of the evil of something like same-sex marriage. They need to be given principles to minister to people in this situation. You have this moral principal that says that same sex-marriage is objectively evil. But you also have unanswered questions. At what point is the person subjectively culpable? What are the conditions for subjective culpability? What are the degrees of culpability? What are the principles that we apply for determining culpability? What are the principles that we use to guide those in this situation? What about their families, friends, fellow parishioners, what do they need by way of pastoral care and guidance and how is it delivered?

If you say that a rogue speaker who gets up there and says all kinds of things about same-sex unions should not be allowed to stand alone without the response from an orthodox theologian, you’re right. But you must not stop there. The next question by the intellectual theological student is going to be, “What do we do in situation X?” That’s the application. Situation X is not the same as situation Y even though the moral issue is the same. This has been a struggle for the lay sister for many decades.

We have to remember that nuns are not involved in pastoral care. These questions about application are not important to nuns. Sisters are involved in pastoral care, but women are not allowed to study theology to the same degree as men are. For example, a Master’s Degree for me consists of an undergraduate degree in philosophy and religious studies and four years of master’s work, a pastoral internship with supervision, a supervized Master’s thesis, a major area of theological expertise and two sets of comprehensive examinations that you must pass, one full day in general theological knowledge and a second full day in your area of expertise. This takes from four to five years. Women are not allowed in this program. This program is for men only.

A woman who goes for a Master’s degree in theology is not required to have the four years of philosophy, which make a big difference, because you learn to think and analyze. It also gives you absolute universal principles that come from reason alone that help you question and answer theological questions. Their Master’s degree is from 30 to 48 graduate credits.

To become a theologian, a woman gets a PhD in an area of theology, which is several years after the masters’s degree.

Men can get an STD, which is far more complete than a PhD. The Sacred Theology Doctorate is achieved through stages: the STB, STL and STD. These are stages beyond the master’s degree that took you four to five years of education. This is another three to five more years of education, writing, researching, and dialogue with the big boys. It requires languages, sciences, research skills and you get to deal with as much as has been written from the early Church to the present on your particular area. By the time this theologian is finished, he has levels of understanding, not just a collection of opinions of different scholars as you would in the traditional PhD program. He has layers and layers of systems and strategies to look at different theological questions. Women do not have access to this level of education. This level of education is only offered in all male theological faculties. Only clergy, religious brothers and SOME laymen are admitted to these programs.

We have sisters our there in pastoral care who have a lot of education, but not enough of the right kind of education. When you don’t have that part, it’s very easy not to have the necessary systems for the proper implementation of a moral teaching. You end up doing one of two things. Either you apply the teaching incorrectly or you become frustrated, because you can’t see how it is to be applied; therefore, you mistakenly conclude that there is something inherently wrong with the way that the teaching is worded.

To do this without all of the education, you need to be told how to do it or we must open up these schools to women. But we can’t allow women to enter pastoral care with only part of the formation. It’s like allowing a cardiologist to do heart surgery. A cardiologist is not a a heart surgeon. He does not have the necessary education to apply his knowledge of cardiology in an operating room. For example, he may have never studies the effects of anesthesia on COPD patients. He happens to have a COPD patient who needs a simple bypass. It’s not so simple when the patient goes into respiratory arrest, because of the wrong anesthesia

The writers of the letter and the recipients of the letter know all of this. There is no need to spell it out. Those simple statements are enough for the parties to know what they are talking about. Think of it like the Gospel. The writers don’t tell all, because they assumed that the readers knew the missing pieces. They never imagined that their writing were going to be around 2,000 years later. These superiors never imagined that this letter was going to be read and even of interest to anyone other than the intended recipient.

Whenever we read this kind of letter, we must remember that the letter was not written for us. Therefore, there are going to be pieces that we have no clue what they’re talking about or that sound off the wall to us, but they are very clear to the intended recipient and not off the wall at all. Those of us who were intended to read the letter know exactly what they’re talking about without them explaining every detail. Most of what they’re talking about is internal to religious life. The person in the pew would look at it and go,

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Laypeople are not naive, uniformed or by definition unintelligent. We have experienced what’s going on with these congregations that are frankly involved with the LCWR as a conference tool, and unfortunately, very unfortunately, this has also affected us in very real ways. It will continue to affect us as long as these congregations, and this conference, exist.

Do we know that the sisters seem to be lacking in the right kind of education? Yes, we do. Do we know that they were often thrust into crazy situations in the past? Yes, we do. Do we know that they have a tendency to pontificate about things about which they have no clue? Yes, we do. This is more than evident to many laypeople because we are not groveling serfs with no educations of our own. We often have experiences and educations that rival or exceed those of the sisters. In this way, the world has changed. For instance, we have had problems here with sisters spouting off about ecology in ways that are just juvenile and unscientific. The scientifically-educated members of the community know this.

These things that have been going on the women’s congregations and conferences have been a big problem for a long time and continue to be a problem “on the ground,” where laypeople are affected. This is why laypeople care, and this is why they are concerned.

To reiterate, I have no problem with some sister having some private flight of fancy about non-existent science, in her own mind, on her own time. I do have a problem with it when I’m publicly confronted with it, and she attempts to use her status as a sister to make nonsense a reality, particularly if there is a teenaged student around being mislead, or another layperson being kidded about reality, or a politician being manipulated, or someone losing their life or soul in an abortion clinic over it.

 

[Elizabeth502]

women are not allowed to study theology to the same degree as men are.

In which country and in which century?

I have never run into such a prohibition in my (large ) corner of the world.

All kinds of women --lay and religious- acquire Ph.D’s and M.Div.'s and other high-level academic licenses. They do indeed have

a pastoral internship with supervision, a supervized Master’s thesis, a major area of theological expertise and two sets of comprehensive examinations {etc.)…

A woman who goes for a Master’s degree in theology is not required to have the four years of philosophy, which make a big difference, because you learn to think and analyze. It also gives you absolute universal principles that come from reason alone that help you question and answer theological questions. Their Master’s degree is from 30 to 48 graduate credits.

But many choose to, and have indeed done so, and have the same level of understanding of absolute universal principles which their male counterparts do. They have studied philosophy in depth, just like men.

To become a theologian, a woman gets a PhD in an area of theology, which is several years after the masters’s degree.

and she has often taken extensive philosophy prior to that.

And her expertise often

requires languages, sciences, research skills and you get to deal with as much as has been written from the early Church to the present on your particular area.

This doesn’t mean that all sisters avail themselves of expert training, but many have. (They may or may not be among the members of the LCWR.)

What women are prohibited from doing is taking particular course work which is suitable for priestly-only ministry, such as training in hearing confessions, etc. (Which is only proper.)

 

[iloveangels]

In which country and in which century?

I have never run into such a prohibition in my (large ) corner of the world.

All kinds of women --lay and religious- acquire Ph.D’s and M.Div.'s and other high-level academic licenses. They do indeed have

But many choose to, and have indeed done so, and have the same level of understanding of absolute universal principles which their male counterparts do. They have studied philosophy in depth, just like men.

and she has often taken extensive philosophy prior to that.

And her expertise often

This doesn’t mean that all sisters avail themselves of expert training, but many have. (They may or may not be among the members of the LCWR.)

What women are prohibited from doing is taking particular course work which is suitable for priestly-only ministry, such as training in hearing confessions, etc. (Which is only proper.)

There are many laypeople with graduate degrees in Philosophy. I have one, in addition to my degrees in Chemistry. I’m female. Not much stops a laywoman from having a decent education if she really wants one. If the governing bodies of these congregations are limiting the amount and type of education that the women in their congregations get, then that’s a problem, not so much maybe for them, but for people who assume that sisters can make the kinds of decisions that they seem to reserve for themselves, in some cases rather pompously, I might add.

It’s my contention that there are many good-hearted sisters, who are basically retired elementary school teachers and practical nurses. You normally don’t ask an elementary school teacher or a practical nurse to be your heart surgeon or your financial advisor or anything else exceeding their education and their life experience, which is by definition limited.

Have many sisters, after leaving the hospital and school, gone on to get advanced degrees? Some have, yes. I know one teaching math at a university. She’s qualified to do that, but not any more qualified in political science, say, than I am. She’s far less qualified to speak about science or philosophy than I am. However, if she had wanted to study philosophy instead of mathematics, my guess is that she could have. She chose not to do so, instead choosing mathematics.

 

[LittleFlower378]

Thank You Br.Jr, your insight gave me understanding which will help when discussing this at our fraternity meeting tomorrow. While I think more can be added to the application of principals of such things as the problems with homosexual unions, there are still a few Vatican Documents that can help.

LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
ON THE PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS
TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION
TO UNIONS
BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

ILOVEANGELS,
I think there is a difference of a Catholic not understanding a doctrine or article of faith, but still believing it to be true and always looking for understanding on the subject.

But there is a difference in a Catholic not understanding a doctine or article of faith, but due to their own pride and moral relativism, teach others what is contrary to what the Church teaches.

Peace,
Matt, O.F.S.

 

[iloveangels]

ILOVEANGELS,
I think there is a difference of a Catholic not understanding a doctrine or article of faith, but still believing it to be true and always looking for understanding on the subject.

But there is a difference in a Catholic not understanding a doctine or article of faith, but due to their own pride and moral relativism, teach others what is contrary to what the Church teaches.

Correct, and this is the openness of assent you are describing. This also seems to be what the letter is about. The conversation appears to be along the lines of an anonymous reminder from the Franciscans that “we have to assume that the assent is present” vs. the CDF’s instruction to the LCWR that assent must indeed be revived if it is weak or re-generated it if is absent.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Not much stops a laywoman from having a decent education if she really wants one.

You probably understand that that was my point.
And a point I didn’t make explicitly is that some such women enter religious life after a high level of such education. (That education is one of her pathways to discernment.)

It’s my contention that there are many good-hearted sisters, who are basically retired elementary school teachers and practical nurses.

Probably true. Perhaps I meet more than my share of highly educated sisters, and fewer of the above.

For example, probably neither you nor I (nor several women I can think of on this board) would ever use the kind of language that was recently criticized by the Doctors/Sisters of Mercy. (See the thread about that in Catholic News.)…Because my education was excellent enough that I know the difference between theological/ecclesiastical concepts and secular terms of “power,” “equality,” and even the way some of the LCWR documents refer to “faith.” Such concepts and terms are irrelevant to consecrated religious life. And it’s not necessary to have male seminary training to be intuitive about that.

 

[iloveangels]

You probably understand that that was my point.
And a point I didn’t make explicitly is that some such women enter religious life after a high level of such education. (That education is one of her pathways to discernment.)

This is true. And in fact, most congregations will not accept women right out of high school anymore. Most of them require some kind of professional training, a Bachelor’s degree in something at least. As vocations become later and later, people tend to come with more education & experience than before.

Probably true. Perhaps I meet more than my share of highly educated sisters, and fewer of the above.

For example, probably neither you nor I (nor several women I can think of on this board) would ever use the kind of language that was recently criticized by the Doctors/Sisters of Mercy. (See the thread about that in Catholic News.)…Because my education was excellent enough that I know the difference between theological/ecclesiastical concepts and secular terms of “power,” “equality,” and even the way some of the LCWR documents refer to “faith.” Such concepts and terms are irrelevant to consecrated religious life. And it’s not necessary to have male seminary training to be intuitive about that.

Correct. And it doesn’t take much intellectual steam to evaluate the likes of Barbara Marx Hubbard and Company. She is this year’s headliner at the LCWR convention.

 

[iloveangels]

It’s kind of sad, really. I mean, what did they expect might happen after letting young women–starry-eyed teenagers really–enter these congregations by the thousands in the mid-20th century. And then giving them inadequate educations, making them teach 50 & 60 kids at a clip while petitioning for pencils and trying to remain as childlike & unquestioning as possible, while engaged in some giant project to support the Catholic culture in the US. It made the sisters angry, which is not a surprise. And then, they could not leave because where are they going to go and how are they going to live? It made the Catholic children rebellious and ignorant, also not a surprise. Seriously. I mean none of this should be at all shocking. What did they think would happen?

Make no mistake: This is what we’re really looking at, and that’s why the pagan nonsense and the rebellion. It’s sad, but we can’t put up with it. It’s not a good situation all around.

I have pretty much the same objection about high school seminaries for boys. They’re a terrible idea. Yes, I know that if you coop a kid up so he never sees anything else, he’s more likely to get ordained, but is that really a good idea? Really?

 

[iloveangels]

This is true. And in fact, most congregations will not accept women right out of high school anymore. Most of them require some kind of professional training, a Bachelor’s degree in something at least. As vocations become later and later, people tend to come with more education & experience than before.

Correct. But it doesn’t take much intellectual steam to evaluate the likes of Barbara Marx Hubbard and Company. She is this year’s headliner at the LCWR convention.

 

[JReducation]

Laypeople are not naive, uniformed or by definition unintelligent.

That’s not the question on the table. The question you asked was what doe these statements mean? I explained that the authors wrote them for a particular audience. This audience did not include the laity. They never expected that this letter would end up on the Internet. Had they expected that, they would have gone into greater detail. They were writing the letter for a target audience that did not require an explanation. They did not include the laity in their target audience, because this is a canonical issue about a conference of women religious.

Obviously, if the conference is derailed, those who depend on the conference, (the religious sisters) won’t draw the benefit that they should draw from it. They will pass on their impoverished theology. Though, we have to be careful here, because not every sister’s congregation makes extensive use of the LCWR’s resources. There are already some congregations who belong to the LCWR who are expressing disagreement with the LCWR’s position or way of doing things. The groups are at both ends of the spectrum, orthodox and hardline radicals.

In which country and in which century?

The big issue right now in many theologates is whether allowing women to enter the four-year M.Div program and the STB, STL or STD. For example, I studied at Santa Cruce, there are two tracks, one for clerg, brothers and laymen, and another for laywomen and sisters. The same is true at NAC, CUA, Josephinum and other pontifical schools of theology. It has nothing to do with being priests. In my community, only 2/10 become priests, but everyone goes through to the STL. You can’t make solemn vows without it.

The pontifical system does separate women from men.

At this point, I’m going to bail out of this conversation, because I feel that I’m not contributing anything to it, since it is obvious that no matter what I say is going to be the wrong answer.

My brothers need my attention.

God bless!

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Elizabeth502]

Obviously, if the conference is derailed, those who depend on the conference, (the religious sisters) won’t draw the benefit that they should draw from it. They will pass on their impoverished theology.

Agreed!

The groups are at both ends of the spectrum, orthodox and hardline radicals.

I believe that.

The big issue right now in many theologates is whether allowing women to enter the four-year M.Div program and the STB, STL or STD. …It has nothing to do with being priests.

Again, in my area the slight differences in content in the MDiv program for men in formation vs. women (who obviously cannot be in priestly formation) are indeed specifically with regard to priesthood (maleness) or no priesthood (both males and females). Women have been doing MDiv programs (with that slight variation) in these theologates for years, and no change is on the horizon that I’m aware of.

At this point, I’m going to bail out of this conversation, because I feel that I’m not contributing anything to it, since it is obvious that no matter what I say is going to be the wrong answer.

LOL. No “wrong answer.” Perhaps inaccurate for a particular locale which differs from yours, but nothing “wrong.” Also, I’ve appreciated the perspective and corrections you’ve brought with regard to the purpose of The Letter and its limitations. I think that has helped to provide balance and accuracy to lay people reading this forum.

 

[M-Dent]

At this point, I’m going to bail out of this conversation, because I feel that I’m not contributing anything to it, since it is obvious that no matter what I say is going to be the wrong answer.

I know the feeling…

 

[iloveangels]

… I explained that the authors wrote them for a particular audience. This audience did not include the laity. They never expected that this letter would end up on the Internet. …

Okay, so now the logical thing to ask is “How did the document get on the Internet?” If it wasn’t really intended to get on the Net, how did that happen?

The big issue right now in many theologates is whether allowing women to enter the four-year M.Div program and the STB, STL or STD. For example, I studied at Santa Cruce, there are two tracks, one for clerg, brothers and laymen, and another for laywomen and sisters. The same is true at NAC, CUA, Josephinum and other pontifical schools of theology. It has nothing to do with being priests. In my community, only 2/10 become priests, but everyone goes through to the STL. You can’t make solemn vows without it.

The pontifical system does separate women from men.

Well, yes, this may be one consideration. On the other hand, as just one symptom of what’s wrong, does a person really truly need an STL degree to tell that Barbara Marx Hubbard is an inappropriate choice for a conference lead speaker? Seriously.

There are certainly more symptoms but this one is graphic enough and I’d rather stop there.

 

[iloveangels]

At this point, I’m going to bail out of this conversation, because I feel that I’m not contributing anything to it, since it is obvious that no matter what I say is going to be the wrong answer.

My brothers need my attention.

God bless!

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Br. JR, you are contributing positively to the conversation because it’s important to hear all the perspectives. You know a lot and your perspective is valuable and unique in CAF.