Vatican demands reform of American nuns' leadership group [CWN]

  • Thread starter Thread starter Corki
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Doctrinal Assessment of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious findings included the following:

*Serious theological and doctrinal errors in presentations at the conference’s annual assemblies.

*Attempts to justify dissent from Church doctrine.

*“Scant regard for the role of the Magisterium.”

*“Moving beyond the Church” and even beyond Jesus.

*“Certain radical feminist themes incompatible with the Catholic fait.”

*Risk of distorting Church teaching on the divinity of Christ, the Holy Trinity, the Eucharist and the inspiration of Sacred Scripture.

*Suggested dissent from Church teaching on human sexuality.

*Protested the Holy See’s actions on women’s ordination and ministry to homosexual persons.

*Remaining silent on the right to life from conception to natural death (abortion & euthanasia.)

This is the official document and link:
Congregatio Pro Doctrina Fidei
Doctrinal Assessment of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious
Link: usccb.org/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&pageid=55544

I started a thread about the above issue with Catholic Women Religious entitled,
Vatican nun crackdown hits US group for ‘radical feminist’ ideas.

Someone merged my thread with another thread and the title was changed to
Vatican demands reform of American nuns’ leadership group [CWN]

The thread title has changed yet again and is now entitled,
NY Times writer misinforms re: LCWR issue.’

If you look back through this thread, you will find all three titles.

Interesting evolution of thread title. . . .

Peace,
Anna
 
Anna_Scott said:
Interesting evolution of thread title. . . .

Peace,
Anna***

I think individuals have altered the titles within their own posts throughout. You are correct that there have been threads merged, I had one also. But the NY Times one is due to someone altering it via their reply.

See the title of my post above which I typed it back in now just to demonstrate.

Peace,
Click to expand...
 
jwinch2 said:
I think individuals have altered the titles within their own posts throughout. You are correct that there have been threads merged, I had one also. But the NY Times one is due to someone altering it via their reply.

See the title of my post above which I typed it back in now just to demonstrate.

Peace,
Click to expand...
jwinch2,

Actually, I just realized this. I had posted the three titles on another thread, and I just corrected it there.

Thanks so much, 🙂
Anna
 
Dale_M said:
Yanno… I have been avoiding this topic. 😊

Most secular reporters know little about the Catholic Church and their reporting tends to be shallow and often erroneous. They don’t do so out of malice, but out of ignorance and the need to meet a deadline. When I saw the initial headlines such as “Nuns left stunned by Vatican rebuke,” my heart sank. Here we go again.

So I haven’t been following the news. Or even following this thread, until just now. However, the blog GetReligion.org (which dissects poor reporting on religion) recommended an NPR discussion and a PBS discussion.

Here is a link to the PBS discussion, which includes a transcript as well as the video

pbs.org/newshour/bb/religion/jan-june12/vatican_04-19.html

Here is a link to the NPR discussion, which includes a transcript as well as the audio version

npr.org/2012/04/23/151222359/vatican-reprimand-of-u-s-nuns-divides-faithful

I haven’t read them yet. I am passing them along on the advice of GetReligion.org, which tends to have good judgment on these matters.
Click to expand...
Thanks! I viewed the PBS discussion. Unfortunately, the last comment went to a feminist theologian from Fordham, who made a really wacko comment that was not factual, or at least not presented in the way the Church understands things. (She said that Church teaching on “salvation outside of the Church” has changed, which is not really true, but it serves her agenda well).

I won’t be suggesting that anyone go to Fordham!

If anyone wants to know why there is a different heading on my posts, it might be because a thread that I started was merged with this one.
 
opus101 said:
. . . .If anyone wants to know why there is a different heading on my posts, it might be because a thread that I started was merged with this one.
Click to expand...
Oh, now I understand.

I started a thread on the same topic, which was merged into this one, too.

So, then 3 threads were merged? Makes sense to merge them into one discussion.

Anna
 
triumphguy said:
hmm… I see people are taking this as an attack on nuns and sisters they themselves loved and respected, or as an attack on women religious in general.

For instance: Why are they doing this to the women who really helped lay the foundation of the American Catholic Church?

Or: Once more, a group of men with more than a few problems of their own choose to turn their thinking to how to fix women. Seems to me there is a lot of evidence that there a lot of men in the church that need fixing! Heal thyself, Bishops!

With now and again some common sense:* Look you guys, as a young women interested in religious life and someone who has had a privileged view into a handful of women’s religious communities, the action by the Vatican is long overdue.*

I’m sick of all this us vs them mentality in the Church right now: women vs men; religious vs secular; priests vs lay; SSPX or TLM vs OF.

We’ve got a battle on our hands. We need to pull together. It’s time we all got behind the Pope and fought the real fights of our times.
Click to expand...
👍 Great post! We do have a fight on our hands. We do need to stand behind the Pope - united.
 
opus101 said:
Thanks! I viewed the PBS discussion. Unfortunately, the last comment went to a feminist theologian from Fordham, who made a really wacko comment that was not factual, or at least not presented in the way the Church understands things. (She said that Church teaching on “salvation outside of the Church” has changed, which is not really true, but it serves her agenda well).

I won’t be suggesting that anyone go to Fordham!

If anyone wants to know why there is a different heading on my posts, it might be because a thread that I started was merged with this one.
Click to expand...
Warning duly noted. It’s a shame it ended up with a comment like that! 🤷
 
Here’s an example of a community of religious sisters who are very much into social isues and serving the poor WHILE AT THE SAME TIME remaining faithful to Catholic religious life. littlesistersofthepoor.org/

On their website, there is even a letter in support of the Bishops’ stance on the HHS mandate.

Sisters like these need to be publicized so that there is a more balanced picture of religious life.

Running a soup kitchen and being involved with low-income housing does not keep this other community of sisters from being faithful to the Church:cmswr.org/member_communities/DSMP.htm

Working with the poor and the homeless does not keep this community from taying in the heart of the Church:cmswr.org/member_communities/CFR.htm
 
opus101 said:
Here’s an example of a community of religious sisters who are very much into social isues and serving the poor WHILE AT THE SAME TIME remaining faithful to Catholic religious life. littlesistersofthepoor.org/

On their website, there is even a letter in support of the Bishops’ stance on the HHS mandate.

Sisters like these need to be publicized so that there is a more balanced picture of religious life.

Running a soup kitchen and being involved with low-income housing does not keep this other community of sisters from being faithful to the Church:cmswr.org/member_communities/DSMP.htm

Working with the poor and the homeless does not keep this community from taying in the heart of the Church:cmswr.org/member_communities/CFR.htm
Click to expand...
The Vatican is trying to help women religious remain true to the teachings of the Church through the Magisterium. Obviously it can be done. If it isn’t being done the Vatican should take action.

My understanding of ending abortion as a pro-life issue is that all the other rights that every human being should have just by virtue of being a human being mean nothing to a dead baby. It’s that right to life that forms the basis for all other human rights.

If some women religious (or anyone else) don’t understand this they need to be educated - by Church representatives. I would hate to see the problems in Austria start showing up in the U.S. The group needs to understand obedience . If the Vatican tells the people in the group to do something the people in the group need to obey.
 
youtube.com/watch?v=buDXNhKvnV0&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Fr. Robert Barron talks about the investigation 3 years ago when it was first began. Some of his words seem remarkably prescient given where we find ourselves today. In addition, you can see the relationship between how people responded at the time the investigation was announced and since it has been concluded. At the risk of being crude, SSDD. The same old objections from the same old people. Heck, they might have just saved their original text and slapped a new date on it with some slight update to acknowledge that the investigation is now over instead of beginning.
 
Per Dale M: "Kristof, Limbaugh, Olbermann, O’reilly etc. aren’t reporters, and we shouldn’t confuse what they do with news articles or programs… "

Dale, you tipped your hand when you lumped Limbaugh and O’reilly, who like them or not are defenders of the Church’s position on morality and on life in general, with Church position detractors, Kristof and Olberman. Moreover, you will get at least ten times more hard news from Limbaugh and O’reilly, along with their conservative take on it, than you will ever get from the two pro-Socialist and anti-Catholics, Kristof and Olbermann. That is just common knowledge.

So, later, when you passed along NPR and PBS as recommended secular sources of objectivity, it was hardly surprising. In the NPR/PBS links the lineup was, on one side, two secularist hosts, the National Catholic Reporter, NETWORK and a self-proclaimed “feminist theologian” from a Catholic-in-name-only University who supported the LCWR, versus, on the other side, a very nice but comparitively lukewarm spokesperson from the board of Christendom College.

At best, an ignorant but interested audience wouldn’t know what to make of the matter. At worst, it would think the LCWR and network were being picked on.
 
KSU said:
So, later, when you passed along NPR and PBS as recommended secular sources of objectivity, it was hardly surprising. In the NPR/PBS links the lineup was, on one side, two secularist hosts, the National Catholic Reporter, NETWORK and a self-proclaimed “feminist theologian” from a Catholic-in-name-only University who supported the LCWR, versus, on the other side, a very nice but comparitively lukewarm spokesperson from the board of Christendom College.
Click to expand...
When I passed along the recommendation for those two discussions, I had not yet read them. I was simply passing along the recommendations of GetReligion.org, a blog of religion reporters who dissect bad reporting about religion.

Having now read the two discussions, I think the orthodox position was well presented. Donna Bethell, of Christendom College, did an admirable job at putting forward the position of the Catholic Church.

You seem to want to dismiss John Allen as simply the National Catholic Reporter, but persons familiar with his writing know that he does not conform to the the NCR’s well deserved reputation. Allen, in contrast, is known for his impartiality and well informed writing. If you disagree with what he said, please quote what that is.

Nor do I agree with you that the hosts of those two discussions favored the heterodox position. I think the hosts remained neutral throughout the discussions and tried to provide both sides with equal time. If you want to dispute this, please provide some quotes. I have already linked to the transcripts of both discussions

Edit:

For what its worth, Fr. Z. of the popular blog What Does the Prayer Really Say?, and who is not a fan of NPR or the National Catholic Reporter, thought the NPR discussion was good.
wdtprs.com/blog/2012/04/ultra-liberal-npr-manages-decent-interviews-about-the-lcwr-dust-up-donna-bethell-shines/
 
Dale_M said:
When I passed along the recommendation for those two discussions, I had not yet read them. I was simply passing along the recommendations of GetReligion.org, a blog of religion reporters who dissect bad reporting about religion.

Having now read the two discussions, I think the orthodox position was well presented. Donna Bethell, of Christendom College, did an admirable job at putting forward the position of the Catholic Church.

You seem to want to dismiss John Allen as simply the National Catholic Reporter, but persons familiar with his writing know that he does not conform to the the NCR’s well deserved reputation. Allen, in contrast, is known for his impartiality and well informed writing. If you disagree with what he said, please quote what that is.

Nor do I agree with you that the hosts of those two discussions favored the heterodox position. I think the hosts remained neutral throughout the discussions and tried to provide both sides with equal time. If you want to dispute this, please provide some quotes. I have already linked to the transcripts of both discussions

Edit:

For what its worth, Fr. Z. of the popular blog What Does the Prayer Really Say?, and who is not a fan of NPR or the National Catholic Reporter, thought the NPR discussion was good.
wdtprs.com/blog/2012/04/ultra-liberal-npr-manages-decent-interviews-about-the-lcwr-dust-up-donna-bethell-shines/
Click to expand...
According to Fr. Z’s column, NPR stands for National Public Radio, not National Catholic Reporter.
 
zab said:
According to Fr. Z’s column, NPR stands for National Public Radio, not National Catholic Reporter.
Click to expand...
Well, yes, it does indeed. However, Fr. Z regularly refers to the National Catholic Reporter as “the Fishwrap.” And did so in the article I linked to.

He doesn’t hold either in high regard, but has special scorn for the National Catholic Reporter.
 
jwinch2 said:
youtube.com/watch?v=buDXNhKvnV0&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Fr. Robert Barron talks about the investigation 3 years ago when it was first began. Some of his words seem remarkably prescient given where we find ourselves today. In addition, you can see the relationship between how people responded at the time the investigation was announced and since it has been concluded. At the risk of being crude, SSDD. The same old objections from the same old people. Heck, they might have just saved their original text and slapped a new date on it with some slight update to acknowledge that the investigation is now over instead of beginning.
Click to expand...
This is excellent! If you don’t mind, I am going to cross post it to the other thread.
 
KSU said:
Per Dale M: "Kristof, Limbaugh, Olbermann, O’reilly etc. aren’t reporters, and we shouldn’t confuse what they do with news articles or programs… "…

…

So, later, when you passed along NPR and PBS as recommended secular sources of objectivity, it was hardly surprising. In the NPR/PBS links the lineup was, on one side, two secularist hosts, the National Catholic Reporter, NETWORK and a self-proclaimed “feminist theologian” from a Catholic-in-name-only University who supported the LCWR, versus, on the other side, a very nice but comparitively lukewarm]spokesperson from the board of Christendom College…
Click to expand...
Lukewarm ?forums.catholic-questions.org/images/smilies/confused.gif
What would be preferable responses ? I thought her responses were fine.
 
Pnkn said:
Lukewarm ?forums.catholic-questions.org/images/smilies/confused.gif
What would be preferable responses ? I thought her responses were fine.
Click to expand...
I would agree somewhat with what you and Dale M say had Mrs. Bethell informed the largely non-Catholic audience with even one quarter of the information and refutations provided in the interview with Ann Carey (author of Sisters in Crisis) :
ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/sister-in-crisis-interview-the-transcript Thanks, again to jwinch2.

Note carefully, folks, I am not criticizing Mrs.Bethell or her excellent university. I am saying only that she paled into lukewarmness when compared to the bold, enthusiastic arguments (even though composed of the usual spin and nonsense) of the anti-Catholic feminists. To the uninformed audiance, they ate her lunch and made the LCWR/NETWORK seem like victims of the old Vatican bullies.

LCWR/NETWORK—1

Vatican bullies-----0

But, again, I would expect nothing else from NPR and BPS.
 
Does this organization represent all nuns in the U.S. Many of my friends and familiy have referred to articles in the New York Times and other places and refer to anectdotal stories about nuns and how they are more like Jesus than the Pope and bishops. I know many nuns who adhere to church teachings.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top