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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Corki
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
_Abyssinia said:
If the Sisters of the LCWR ‘sever ties’ with Rome, then they stop being Sisters
Click to expand...
In other words, these Sisters can, if they choose, opt out and lose their canonical status as nuns. If they did that, they would be free to act exactly as they please and would have no oversight from the Vatican at all. But, and this is the catch, they would then cease to be Catholic women religious is any public sense; they would merely become private associations of lay women.

It seems it would be up to each individual sister.

There are three levels to look at: The juridical status of the LCWR, the juridical status of the religious communities in membership with the LCWR, and the status of the individual sisters.
 
Michael_Mayo said:
In other words, these Sisters can, if they choose, opt out and lose their canonical status as nuns. If they did that, they would be free to act exactly as they please and would have no oversight from the Vatican at all. But, and this is the catch, they would then cease to be Catholic women religious is any public sense; they would merely become private associations of lay women.

It seems it would be up to each individual sister.

There are three levels to look at: The juridical status of the LCWR, the juridical status of the religious communities in membership with the LCWR, and the status of the individual sisters.
Click to expand...
The LCWR can disband as a canonical organization and regroup as a non-canonical organization that would be less subject to Vatican oversight. Doing so would have no affect on the status of religious communities represented by LCWR or the individual religious.
 
"Today the word ecclesia militans is somewhat out of fashion, but in reality we can understand ever better that it is true, that it bears truth in itself. We see how evil wishes to dominate the world and that it is necessary to enter into battle with evil. We see how it does so in so many ways, bloody, with the different forms of violence, but also masked with goodness and precisely this way destroying the moral foundations of society.

“Saint Augustine said that the whole of history is a struggle between two loves: love of oneself to contempt of God; love of God to contempt of self, in martyrdom.” Benedict XVI, 5-22-12

'…it is necessary to enter into battle with evil…masked with goodness [but]…destroying the moral foundations of society." Enough said, Holy Father.
 
KSU said:
Kathryn Ann, thank you for your reply to my question about how your faith was formed. Good luck with your novitiate. Trust in God–no matter what!

You say you were amazed at the different opinions on Church teaching found on this forum :). To the battle-scarred, hard-core Catholics here, that’s funny, but don’t let it fool you–this forum nevertheless is a God-send, and a person like you will be able to separate the wheat from the chaff. (As we ex-Texans like to say, opinions are like cowboy hats; everybody has one).

You also will find a whole lot more wheat than chaff here, and rarely (never from the professional staff) if ever will you find differences as to doctrine itself.

Pick up a Catholic Dictionary by John A. Hardon, S.J., and rely on this as well: newadvent.org/

If you really want to study the reason for what ails the Church today, go to newadvent.org/cathen/10415a.htm#XIII with very special attention to Pascendi.
Click to expand...
Thanks for this resource, what a great website!
 
You’re welcome, McCall1981. BTW, what I am particularly recommending at the website newadvent.org/ is the Catholic Encyclopedia at the top of the page, although the timely articles are very good.
 
Vatican official warns of ‘dialogue of the deaf’ with LCWR
In the wake of Tuesday’s meeting with representatives of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, the Vatican official responsible for a recent crackdown said he still believes the relationship can work, but also warned of a possible “dialogue of the deaf,” reflected in what he sees as a lack of movement on the Vatican’s concerns.
Click to expand...
Cardinal William Levada, prefect of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, floated the possibility that should the LCWR not accept the reforms outlined in an April 18 assessment, the result could be decertifying it in favor of a new organization for women’s religious leaders in America more faithful to church teaching.
Click to expand...
Levada strongly rejected charges that the move against the LCWR is based on “unsubstantiated accusations” or lacks transparency, both complaints leveled in an LCWR statement issued last week.
Click to expand...
“In reality, this is not a surprise,” he said, insisting that the process began four years ago and that its results are based not on secret accusations but “what happens in their assemblies, what’s on their website, what they do or don’t do.”
Click to expand...
ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/vatican-official-warns-dialogue-deaf-lcwr
 
On the Air: The Vatican and the Nuns by Stephen White
I was on WAMU’s The Diane Rehm Show on NPR this morning, along with Sr. Maureen Fiedler, S.L. (who is also a member of NETWORK) and John Allen (National Catholic Reporter) to discuss the Vatican and the Leadership Conference of Women Religious.
Click to expand...
My guess is that NPR listeners were inclined to favor the LCWR and Fiedler while being somewhat less amenable to the Vatican position and what I had to say. Anyway, you can listen to the full hour, here: thedianerehmshow.org/audio-player?nid=16118
Click to expand...
Feel free to comment.
Click to expand...
catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=31405
 
The Roman Catholic Church in America is under attack from nationally organized dissident sisters; the seven provinces of the Order of Friars Minor in the United States who sympathize with them ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/franciscan-brothers-priests-declare-support-lcwr ; a newly organized national support group of modernist clergy www2.tbo.com/lifestyles/life/2012/jun/14/new-priests-group-hopes-to-preserve-vision-of-vati-ar-415742/ ; and the secular and dissident Catholic media. All of which is great news for the party of death on the religion front.

The great news this month for the party of death, on the political front, is that the USCCB Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development thinks the Republican’s proposed budget fails to meet moral criteria and is unjust and wrong because the proposal is short on taxes and short on spending (except of course on the military, which the committee thinks gets too much money).

Do borderline Catholics need more excuses to vote for the party of abortion, contraception, homosexuality and wealth distribution? For goodness sake, don’t even the purest souls on the planet–Catholic sisters–support those things?

Two days ago, faithful American Catholics, already disgusted and bewildered, have been informed that it’s not just a mere USCCB committee that plans to weigh in on the “broken” economy: catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=14639

The only good news is that 26 bishops voted “no”, and this from the link:

QUOTE "During the discussion leading up to the vote, Bishop Earl Boyea of Lansing criticized the committee’s opposition to the budget plan put forward by Congressman Paul Ryan.

“There have been some concerns raised by lay Catholics, especially some Catholic economists, about what was perceived as a partisan action against Congressman Ryan and the budget he had proposed,” Bishop Boyea said in reference to the USCCB committee’s opposition to the House budget plan. “We need to be articulate only in principles, and let the laity make these applications … It was perceived as partisan, and thus didn’t really further dialogue in our deeply divided country.”

“I’m not sure that we have the humility yet not to stray into areas where we lack competence, and where we need to let the laity take the lead,” he added. “We need to learn far more than we need to teach in this area. We need to listen more than we need to speak. We already have an excellent, fine Compendium [on the Social Doctrine of the Church].” END QUOTE

So here we are; it’s 2012 and the religious/political battle for the Church in America is at hand.
 
Michael_Mayo said:
Budgets are moral documents because they prioritize values.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. A budget could also reflect influence upon lawmakers by a certain industry or constituancy. How much money is allocated to a certain area of government may be a legacy of the past as with many budgets that start with last year’s figures and add (or less likely subtract).

Your statement sounds good on a bumper sticker and I’ve heard it expressed during charity board meetings but it’s not a part of real life. Ask any Congress what they value most and you’ll likely get platitudes about education or children or health. In that case why are many millions of tax dollars going to pay off political supporters with loans and grants for example? Influence peddling overcomes “values” every day in Washington.

IOW what people say they value and how they actually spend their or the taxpayers’ money are barely passing acquaintences.

Lisa
 
LisaA said:
IOW what people say they value and how they actually spend their or the taxpayers’ money are barely passing acquaintences.

Lisa
Click to expand...
That may be true, Lisa.
But it only reveals the lie of what people say they value and what they really value.
 
Michael_Mayo said:
That may be true, Lisa.
But it only reveals the lie of what people say they value and what they really value.
Click to expand...
Maybe saying what people spend their money on indicates their values. I am a believer in actions and results rather than blathering and pontificating. It’s very easy to say you support better education for our children or better healthcare for our seniors. It’s not so easy for those in Washington to vote for what actually works.

Sorry seem to be taking the thread off topic. Assume you referred to the Ryan Budget.

Lisa
 
KSU said:
The Roman Catholic Church in America …
Click to expand...
The bishops need to tend to the basic catechesis of the laity and stay out of politics and economics about which they know next to nothing.
 
LisaA said:
Maybe saying what people spend their money on indicates their values. I am a believer in actions and results rather than blathering and pontificating. It’s very easy to say you support better education for our children or better healthcare for our seniors. It’s not so easy for those in Washington to vote for what actually works.

Sorry seem to be taking the thread off topic. Assume you referred to the Ryan Budget.

Lisa
Click to expand...
Here we go:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=9413101#post9413101
 
KSU said:
The Roman Catholic Church in America is under attack from nationally organized dissident sisters; the seven provinces of the Order of Friars Minor in the United States who sympathize with them ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/franciscan-brothers-priests-declare-support-lcwr ; a newly organized national support group of modernist clergy www2.tbo.com/lifestyles/life/2012/jun/14/new-priests-group-hopes-to-preserve-vision-of-vati-ar-415742/ ; and the secular and dissident Catholic media. All of which is great news for the party of death on the religion front.

The great news this month for the party of death, on the political front, is that the USCCB Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development thinks the Republican’s proposed budget fails to meet moral criteria and is unjust and wrong because the proposal is short on taxes and short on spending (except of course on the military, which the committee thinks gets too much money).

Do borderline Catholics need more excuses to vote for the party of abortion, contraception, homosexuality and wealth distribution? For goodness sake, don’t even the purest souls on the planet–Catholic sisters–support those things?

Two days ago, faithful American Catholics, already disgusted and bewildered, have been informed that it’s not just a mere USCCB committee that plans to weigh in on the “broken” economy: catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=14639

The only good news is that 26 bishops voted “no”, and this from the link:

QUOTE "During the discussion leading up to the vote, Bishop Earl Boyea of Lansing criticized the committee’s opposition to the budget plan put forward by Congressman Paul Ryan.

“There have been some concerns raised by lay Catholics, especially some Catholic economists, about what was perceived as a partisan action against Congressman Ryan and the budget he had proposed,” Bishop Boyea said in reference to the USCCB committee’s opposition to the House budget plan. “We need to be articulate only in principles, and let the laity make these applications … It was perceived as partisan, and thus didn’t really further dialogue in our deeply divided country.”

“I’m not sure that we have the humility yet not to stray into areas where we lack competence, and where we need to let the laity take the lead,” he added. “We need to learn far more than we need to teach in this area. We need to listen more than we need to speak. We already have an excellent, fine Compendium [on the Social Doctrine of the Church].” END QUOTE

So here we are; it’s 2012 and the religious/political battle for the Church in America is at hand./QUOTE

Comparing Abortion to the redistribion of wealth betrays a reactionary position diametrically opposed to the church’s social teaching. How can anyone who thinks that redistribution of money (and therefore health, education food and water) call themselves a Christian. That position is feudal
Click to expand...
 
“Comparing Abortion to the redistribution of wealth betrays a reactionary position diametrically opposed to the church’s social teaching. How can anyone who thinks that redistribution of money (and therefore health, education food and water) call themselves a Christian. That position is feudal.” --Jimmygill88

You are correct, my friend; I don’t usually call myself a “Christian” any more because it can mean anything the LCWR members of the “American church” and common dissidents want it to mean, including Socialism, homosexualism, forced redistribution of wealth for political advantage, and clericalism – a policy of supporting the power and influence of the clergy in political or secular matters.

I now just call myself a Catholic; a practicing member of the Roman Catholic Church and thus a believer in its Social Doctrine which does not support clericalism or forced redistribution of wealth for political purposes. And, yes, even though you intended it as a slur, my belief in that doctrine actually is feudal because it is based in part on the teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologiae II.II.66.2).

If you want to argue the point any further, please take it to an appropriate thread.
 
KSU said:
“Comparing Abortion to the redistribution of wealth betrays a reactionary position diametrically opposed to the church’s social teaching. How can anyone who thinks that redistribution of money (and therefore health, education food and water) call themselves a Christian. That position is feudal.” --Jimmygill88

You are correct, my friend; I don’t usually call myself a “Christian” any more because it can mean anything the LCWR members of the “American church” and common dissidents want it to mean, including Socialism, homosexualism, forced redistribution of wealth for political advantage, and clericalism – a policy of supporting the power and influence of the clergy in political or secular matters.

I now just call myself a Catholic; a practicing member of the Roman Catholic Church and thus a believer in its Social Doctrine which does not support clericalism or forced redistribution of wealth for political purposes. And, yes, even though you intended it as a slur, my belief in that doctrine actually is feudal because it is based in part on the teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologiae II.II.66.2).

If you want to argue the point any further, please take it to an appropriate thread.
Click to expand...
WOW! Hasn’t anyone ever argued with you? I can only gather that you are convinced that only you via Aquinas are correct. The Pope may disagree (he favours Augustine). I would only encourage you if I agreed to re-enter the Dark Ages even figuratively, in debate. Suffice it to say I personally find individuals like you dangerous. You are so sure that your blikered view of my religion is correct that you put people off. Those rantings are so far removed from the current interpretation of Catholisism. I guess we should reintroduce Droit du seigneur, slavery
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top