A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Fr Zuhlsdorf linked to a video to an example of Hubbard’s views:
youtube.com/watch?v=ohQWuZcFxek
Video on the side on youtube also shows she spoke at the Democrat convention in 1984
- Status
youtube.com/watch?v=ohQWuZcFxek
Video on the side on youtube also shows she spoke at the Democrat convention in 1984
E
Ecoclimber
Guest
Erin Saiz Hanna, spokesperson for the Nun Justice Project and executive director of the Women’s Ordination Conference, told NBC News that no matter what the women religious decide in St. Louis, Hanna says she believes a ‘new Catholic Church’ is being formed??
usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/09/13198880-were-with-you-sisters-nuns-amazed-by-outpouring-of-support?lite
So now we are going to have two Catholic Churches? Who is going to be head of the ‘new Catholic Church’, Erin Saiz Hanna?
Someone needs to step in and stop this nonsense. Given the fact that the hedonistic, highly sexualized and narcissistic societal and cultural values in America have now seeped into the various religious communities, it does not displace nor dispense the Magisterium of the Catholic Church from within those communities.
usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/09/13198880-were-with-you-sisters-nuns-amazed-by-outpouring-of-support?lite
So now we are going to have two Catholic Churches? Who is going to be head of the ‘new Catholic Church’, Erin Saiz Hanna?
Someone needs to step in and stop this nonsense. Given the fact that the hedonistic, highly sexualized and narcissistic societal and cultural values in America have now seeped into the various religious communities, it does not displace nor dispense the Magisterium of the Catholic Church from within those communities.
T
Tigg
Guest
So they’re hoping to start a new Catholic church with a petition to the USCCB? Lots of luck with that one!
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Let’s not get carried away here, folks. I read the nbc link that someone posted above. It was highly sensationalistic in its wording. The concept of “a new Catholic Church” was quoted by itself, without context, so there’s no way of knowing if that meant merely the ongoing renewal of the Church of which the Church herself reminds us regularly. (The Holy Spirit ever renewing the Church), or if schism is implied. I seriously doubt the latter.
I also read the Register article which Abyssinia linked. In the Comments section, one commenter criticized the brief summary by Ann Carey as being insufficient (and out of context). That person was obviously there, because she/he heard the address. The references to Teilhard, for example (by Sr. Barbara Hubbard), could be seen as the sisters understanding that they see their work as contributing to the Christological and Christocentric evolution of Church, not some “different” eccelesial body.
Personally, I only wish that they would eliminate stuff such as the draped-scarves ritual described in the Register article, because episodes like that are fodder for misunderstanding and i.m.o. unnecessarily distract from the work of religious. There’s no need to create bizarre rituals, liturgies, or off-beat ‘theologies.’ The sisters are doing the work of the traditional, timeless Gospel. They have been doing so for decades. The vast majority of that work is as genuinely Catholic as one can get. Why call it something else?
When it comes to the Particular Judgment and the General Judgment, they’ll have to be right up there with the Righteous in the Kingdom. They have left everything and have followed Jesus. (Mt 19:21; Mk 10:21; Lk 18:22) (Unless and until they proclaim they are not following Jesus.) If anyone can point to apostasy, that’s a serious matter.
I also read the Register article which Abyssinia linked. In the Comments section, one commenter criticized the brief summary by Ann Carey as being insufficient (and out of context). That person was obviously there, because she/he heard the address. The references to Teilhard, for example (by Sr. Barbara Hubbard), could be seen as the sisters understanding that they see their work as contributing to the Christological and Christocentric evolution of Church, not some “different” eccelesial body.
Personally, I only wish that they would eliminate stuff such as the draped-scarves ritual described in the Register article, because episodes like that are fodder for misunderstanding and i.m.o. unnecessarily distract from the work of religious. There’s no need to create bizarre rituals, liturgies, or off-beat ‘theologies.’ The sisters are doing the work of the traditional, timeless Gospel. They have been doing so for decades. The vast majority of that work is as genuinely Catholic as one can get. Why call it something else?
When it comes to the Particular Judgment and the General Judgment, they’ll have to be right up there with the Righteous in the Kingdom. They have left everything and have followed Jesus. (Mt 19:21; Mk 10:21; Lk 18:22) (Unless and until they proclaim they are not following Jesus.) If anyone can point to apostasy, that’s a serious matter.
I
iloveangels
Guest
If it comes down to competing versions of which kind of “renewal the Church herself reminds us” of, then I’ll take the CDF version. Hands down, no question. Why? Because it’s the one in union with Rome.
Ditto for the interpretation of what the Holy Spirit might be telling anyone. He’s not going to set you, or me, or anyone else up against the Church with a “revised” or “improved” answer that trumps the Church’s answer. It doesn’t work that way.
But it shouldn’t have to come to this if people are willing to work together, honestly and prayerfully, without subterfuge or guile.
I
iloveangels
Guest
This is an interesting comment. If I were in the LCWR, I would definitely be interested in how the three who’ve been chosen to oversee the process understand, and intend to work with, the differences between the CDF and the LCWR, and what could be done to reconcile the two. Just saying.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Cannot disagree with any of that! Hopefully I wasn’t communicating any disagreement with that solid theology
I
iloveangels
Guest
No. The difficulty is caused by a lack of precision in terms that’s occurring all over this topic, not just here.Cannot disagree with any of that! Hopefully I wasn’t communicating any disagreement with that solid theology
a) If the word “dialogue” is taken to mean a discussion that “bargains down” or “significantly alters” the eternal truths of the Church so that they are no longer considered true, then this is not acceptable, and not Catholic.
b) On the other hand, if “dialogue” means a discussion of the practicalities of applying eternal truths to ministry and vocation within the parameters of the eternal truths of the Church, then that’s acceptable, appropriate and very Catholic.
Very, very different interpretations of the same word. This is the misunderstanding that’s occurring.
The CDF has been very specific and forthcoming about the fact that they intend b) when they talk about the word “dialogue.”
See the statement: catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1203149.htm
I’m not sure what the LCWR means to say when they use the word “dialogue.”
M
Michael_Mayo
Guest
I think they will decide to form new organization independent of the church’s control but remain as indivduals within their own congregations and make the CDF come after them one by one on issues of orthodoxy.
J
jwinch2
Guest
I would not at all be surprised to see it happen exactly that way. It will be quite interesting to see the results of the Apostolic Visitation. From everything I have seen, there were many communities which went out of their way to not cooperate with the process of review.
I
iloveangels
Guest
One on one, meaning personally or one on one, meaning congregation by congregation?
Because the results of the investigation into the individual congregations haven’t yet been announced. [Recall that there were 2 separate investigations, one into the LCWR and one into the individual congregations. The LCWR one started earlier than the other one, and concluded before the other one.]
E
Elizium23
Guest
Let’s be extremely clear here: Barbara Marx Hubbard is not a consecrated religious and not even a Catholic. She was “born a Jewish agnostic” says her Wikipedia article, so I don’t know what ecclesial body Hubbard is pushing but I doubt it’s the Catholic Church as we know it.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Sorry for the mere accident (which was all it was).
I typed too hastily and I plead guilty to fallibility.It is not uncommon for the LCWR to have keynote speakers who are not religious, sometimes who are not Catholic, and/or do not represent Catholic moral positions. A recent keynote speaker was Cokie Roberts, a known liberal (and I believe pro-choice) ex-journalist connected with Democratic politics.
I am not sure how they select these keynote speakers. Again, the public face of LCWR would seem to contradict the probaby excellent ministries most of them engage in. It seems unnecessary to “laicize,” as it were, their events, and/or to de-Catholicize them. Image is an important part of communication, and things like opening rituals and keynote speakers are among such projected images.
I have picked up from many communications of theirs over the years that they (certainly some in the leadership) are unconcerned whether the communication they project does or does not raise eyebrows in the Vatican, and it’s my personal opinoin that this is a strategic mistake on their part. Their worthy ministries are likely to be more universally supported in the Church as a whole if they refrain from deliberate or careless controversy.
C
Corki
Guest
You would think they would at least try to ask how these choices look to others. They have a whole boatload of press at these conferences so there will undoubtedly be someone looking to publicize anything controversial.
Bishop Carlson evidently** was **invited to speak - it’s his city.
The diocisan spokesman was very careful to distance the Bishop from the choice of speakers.
J
jwinch2
Guest
We have to remember that there have been many within the communities of women religious in the US who have openly argued against the examination of their life from the get go and have done much to resist the review. The responses we have seen to the LCWR situation and are still seeing, are far from isolated incidents. As I posted very early in this thread, before it was combined with others even, it is well past time the Vatican has gotten involved here and brought this group, and those communities who are either dissident as a whole or who nurture dissidents, to heel. I shudder to think how many of the faithful have been led astray due to the actions of these women.
lifesitenews.com/news/us-catholic-sisters-lash-out-at-vatican-visitation
lifesitenews.com/news/us-catholic-sisters-lash-out-at-vatican-visitation
K
KSU
Guest
You’re very wise to be selective, so I hate to say this Dave, but giving to Catholic Charities is like giving to the CCHD; you never can be entirely sure that your money will be used appropriately. For decades, there has been one scandal after another involving this huge, bureaucratic conglomerate, now composed of over 1,700 groups. Director of Catholic Charities is a position the LCWR targets on its wish list.
P. S. Fifteen years ago the wife and I used to enjoy the restaurants in your quaint little city, and the French restaurant on Lee Hwy.
I
iloveangels
Guest
So…you’re telling me that these speakers aren’t really related to any of their beliefs or any of the work they do. They’re…just…recreational. Is that right?Sorry for the mere accident (which was all it was).
It is not uncommon for the LCWR to have keynote speakers who are not religious, sometimes who are not Catholic, and/or do not represent Catholic moral positions. A recent keynote speaker was Cokie Roberts, a known liberal (and I believe pro-choice) ex-journalist connected with Democratic politics.
I am not sure how they select these keynote speakers. Again, the public face of LCWR would seem to contradict the probaby excellent ministries most of them engage in. It seems unnecessary to “laicize,” as it were, their events, and/or to de-Catholicize them. Image is an important part of communication, and things like opening rituals and keynote speakers are among such projected images.
I have picked up from many communications of theirs over the years that they (certainly some in the leadership) are unconcerned whether the communication they project does or does not raise eyebrows in the Vatican, and it’s my personal opinoin that this is a strategic mistake on their part. Their worthy ministries are likely to be more universally supported in the Church as a whole if they refrain from deliberate or careless controversy.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
“angels,”
I am not making a statement about how/why they choose their keynote speakers. I thought, in fact, that I indicated that I do not know how they choose them, not that I do. It just does seem that a couple of times, on the surface anyway, the relationship to religious life has been obscure. Perhaps the content of the speech by Roberts was indeed pertinent; I don’t know. I never heard it.
Not being an insider, I would have no basis for claiming that the rationale is “recreational,” and I’m certainly sorry if I came across as “knowing” that. I don’t ! (I was responding to another poster’s comment about Hubbard not being a religious; and I was confirming that non-religious have been more than once chose as keynoters, that’s all.) No harm was intended, and again I’m sorry if my post seemed to communicate that.
The subject is this year’s meeting. My (comparative) remarks were in that context.
I
iloveangels
Guest
Sorry, I did not mean to presume anything. It just sounded like you knew and were trying to explain why they do these things. Or perhaps that their work and beliefs are one thing and their choice of speakers seem to be something else, which is really a peculiar thing for an annual convention. That’s all.“angels,”
I am not making a statement about how/why they choose their keynote speakers. I thought, in fact, that I indicated that I do not know how they choose them, not that I do. It just does seem that a couple of times, on the surface anyway, the relationship to religious life has been obscure. Perhaps the content of the speech by Roberts was indeed pertinent; I don’t know. I never heard it.
Not being an insider, I would have no basis for claiming that the rationale is “recreational,” and I’m certainly sorry if I came across as “knowing” that. I don’t ! (I was responding to another poster’s comment about Hubbard not being a religious; and I was confirming that non-religious have been more than once chose as keynoters, that’s all.) No harm was intended, and again I’m sorry if my post seemed to communicate that.
My question is as applicable to this year’s speaker as it has been to any other that’s been brought up, I suppose. I wonder what Miss Hubbard could possibly have to do with their belief system or their work, either one.
- Status