I think we all know that, Ecoclimber. Probably anyone who wasn’t born yesterday would know that.
But the point is, I was surprised that you (knowing that) would cite
The Guardian as a reliable source in this matter. (Not that there aren’t certain Catholic online publications which similarly distort and sensationalize —
National Catholic Reporter, being an example, and being one not surprisingly cited in the article.)
No, it (the article) was a distortion and an exaggeration.
IMO, yes when you have two sides poles apart and let me say this as a major newspaper, journalists do have to verify their sources unlike blogs and other social media sites.
Whose is the “we”. If you read the comments on the main social media forums such as MSNBC, CNN, FOX , NYT, Washington Post etc. they do not know this. They have been brainwash by the media to believe that all Dem. who support Obama on any one of his policies are socialists or even worse communist, LGBT, anti Christian while the GOP are facists, fundamental Christians,right wing nut jobs. There is no middle ground.
I do think that most aware Catholics (lay and religious) are very concerned about these encounters and the whole process, but part of that concern is actually how the public (and especially the popular media) is going to interpret/misinterpret all of this! Most observers think it best to take and ‘wait and see’ attitude, not to presume outcomes. I.m.o. both the religious communities and the Vatican have legitimate concerns. I do not think that the Vatican perceives itself in a “power struggle” with religious communities, but I am also, obviously, not a Vatican insider!
Huh?
Even your language (I know you’re not trying to be incendiary yourself) which refers to “juxtaposition of parties” and “enormous ramifications” gives the impression that even you perhaps interpret the stuation (hopefully not based on The Guardian article) as one mainly characterized by animosity, belligerence. The article shaped the piece of news as a matter of intransigeance and hostility on both sides, and particularly portrayed “male leaders” as the big bad wolves vs. the “broad-minded” “nuns.” (They could’ve gotten even the latter term correct with the slightest bit of research, but hey, why is it important any longer to have a professional standard for even print journalism?)
Did you read the article? Here are the statements.
Quote: “Pat Farrell knows it will be daunting, but she sees the importance of this meeting for the whole Catholic community,” said her spokeswoman, Sister Annmarie Sanders."The showdown follows the claim by Levada’s department that Farrell’s Leadership Conference of Women Religious, the umbrella organisation for most US orders,
has been promoting “radical feminism” and glossing over the Vatican’s hard line on gay marriage and abortion. Is this not a fact concerning the LCWR?
Is this not a fact? To set the sisters straight, **Levada plans to send an archbishop to rewrite the group’s statute and institute re-education programmes to combat heterodox thinking. **
Are these not exact quotes: "The reaction from Farrell, the group’s president, was swift, **denouncing the Vatican move as causing “pain and scandal”. **“We’re all hurt by this,” she told the National Catholic Reporter.
“Nuns accusing the Vatican of causing scandal is nothing short of incredible,” said US priest Father Jim Martin, who organised a Twitter drive defending the sisters. The Levada report follows an “apostolic visitation” to US orders to check on nuns’ “quality of life”.
Is this not setting up for a confrontation? Is not the article correct in stating that there is open opposition among Catholics to the Vatican demands? Even by PEW and Gallup polls, most Catholics support the position of the LWCR. According to polling research 98% of Catholics practice contraception at one time in their life. 22% of all Catholics attend Mass each week
Code:
** 1965 ****2011**
**Total priests**
**58,632**** 39,466**
**Diocesan priests**
**35,925 26,837**
**Religious priests**
**22,707 12,629**
**Priestly ordinations**
**994 467**
**Graduate-level seminarians**
**8,325 3,608**
**Permanent deacons**
**na 16,921**
**Religious brothers**
**12,271 4,606**
**Religious sisters**
**179,954 55,944**
**Parishes**
**17,782 17,637**
**Without a resident priest pastor
3,249 549**
**Where a bishop has entrusted the pastoral care of the parrish to a deacon, religious sister or brother, or other lay person (Canon 517.2) **
**na 469**
**Catholic population (The Official Catholic Directory) **
**45.6m 65.4m**
**Catholic population (self-identified, survey-based) **
**48.5m 77.7m**
**Catholic elementary schools **
**8,414 5,774***
**Students in Catholic elementary schools **
**2.557m 1.489m***
**Catholic secondary schools **
**1,624 1,206***
**Students in Catholic secondary schools **
**884,181 576,466***
**Mass Attendance
*22% ******
*CARA Catholic Poll (CCP): Percentage of U.S.adult Catholics who
say they attended Mass once a week or more (i.e., those attending
every week)**.
Americans have been quick to back the nuns with protest vigils outside churches and a 50,000-strong petition, while seven groups of US Franciscan friars denounced the Vatican crackdown as “excessive”. “The support has shown the sisters are valued in ways they didn’t even know,” said Sanders.
Quote:** Farrell will report back to the leadership conference assembly in August and has not ruled out severing ties between the group and Rome. “The option is always there,” said Farrell
Severing ties with Rome is to me very confrontational and is a juxtaposition from Rome. Perhaps it is just semantics
Blessings to all,
**
