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

[Edward_H]

I think you have it partly right. The leadership of the LCWR generally are highly suspicious of so-called “essential truths” that relate to gender roles and authority in the Church, including the reasoning behind recent papal/CDF teaching on women’s ordination, seeing such reasoning as theologically weak and designed less to elucidate Christian truth and more as a means of maintaining male control of power in the Church. While this thinking certainly had its roots in the 1960s and 1970s, it still current and influential. If you think its influence ended in the 1970s, you aren’t keeping up with current theological writing. If anything, liberation theology, including feminist theory, is mainstream thinking among theologians, although the Vatican has done its best to suppress it within the institutional Church.

As for your comment about depression and joylessness among women religious, your comments do not describe the women religious that I know. Frankly, in my experience, the traditionalist Catholics who are attacking contemporary women religious strike me as the ones who are fearful, angry, and joyless.

I don’t think it’s commonly agreed that the theological basis for the male priesthood is weak. In fact, it’s strong and coherent. What’s at the root of many believers of women’s ordination is a badly formed biblical understanding of priesthood and supernatural fatherhood.

As to joy…you can’t read the National Catholic Reporter and come away more joyful. It’s a real downer of cranks, dissenters, bitter people. Sure there are religious dissenters who put on the happy face…but in my experience it’s a thin veneer.

 

[iloveangels]

That’s one of the things they need to consider. If they decide to go non-Canonical, I would not be shocked to see their invitations dry up to events like this in short order. If the organization no longer has standing in the Church, it gives less political cover to those who wish to use their relationship with the Church for political advantage.

Of course, they will still be religious, but they would be forced to only speak as representatives of their congregation instead of “all” women religious in America. In addition, if they were to go non-Canonical, I would expect many of the more faithful communities who have been trying to work from within for change would cease their membership.

Peace,

I’m not necessarily sure that’s true, Jason. The news media quotes other organizations like those women’s ordinations outfits all the time. I don’t know how this would be different, honestly.

The difficulty for them is that the Holy See is going to connect the dots. If they speak out in favor of a non-canonical LCWR, it’s going to reflect back on their canonically instituted congregation. There are 3 possible things that can happen with that:

a) they can dodge, equivocate and so on to avoid conclusions about the relationship between active engagement in a non-canonical LCWR and being in a canonical congregation. The LCWR and even many individual congregations are not convinced that we are in a new era, yet, and so this will probably be tried. It’s increasingly unlikely to work.

b) they will behave in public because their congregation says to keep it quiet, at least in public to avoid trouble. Not particularly likely for some congregations because they are too committed to speaking out and forging their own way to wherever they think they’re going to just give it up and go silent.

c) they can ALSO go non-canonical. This is an interesting possibility because it won’t necessarily hurt their worth with the news media, and many Catholics simply will not be influenced by it—or even care! In fact, a lot of Catholic laypeople won’t even know the difference. But they will be in a bit of hot water with a few people, and with some of the bishops. Will they lose funding? Not sure. It may re-adjust to different donors, but the amount? Not sure.

 

[iloveangels]

Hi, Jason. I think when most people say “faithful to the Church and the Magisterium” they are not referring to personal moral behavior (sin/virtue) so much as sincerity of intent to regard the Magisterium as the authority. The reverse would be to assume that the individual is the authority who asserts a privilege of regularly evaluating the Magisterium: the individual is the Absolute or primary authority; the Magisterium is the subordinate authority. This is what it seems is the slight majority reality in the laity at present.

So I consider (because I think the church does!) any Catholic who refers first to Church as moral authority, conforming to that intellectually and trying to conform to that practically, is a Catholic “faithful to the Church and the Magisterium.”

To clarify terms, fidelity (assent and intention) is not to be confused with a style of accepted practice. There are various accepted practices in the Roman Church: devotions are not mandated; they are recommended as spiritual aids; Masses --OF/EF, etc. are offered as optional forms of worship. A “traditional” Catholic more often indicates style preferences; a “faithful” Catholic would indicate adherence to belief and a respect for Church authority as the source of the corpus of belief. It would not indicate any attained level of spirituality.

Within traditional Catholicism, there are subsets, such as what is sometimes referred to as “radical traditionalists.” That’s not an epithet by any means; it is merely a term to indicate that these people are fervent in their interpretation of the core traditions and how they choose to practice those. Normally that includes preference for the Latin Mass, and it can mean affiliation with certain clergy & movements in the Church which similarly prioritize traditional practices.

P.S. I consider myself largely traditional, but not radically so. I love both the English and the Latin Mass, but generally for practical reasons and the immediacy of it, attend English Masses. It is, rather, the reverent atmosphere of that Mas that is more important to me than the language in which it is spoken. I have little use for informal, noisy liturgies which are litle more than chats, as if the presence of the Blessed Sacrament is an afterthought. Silence is essential to me as an aspect of any liturgy.

I also consider myself orthodox, but deifnitely a “struggler” like the vast majority of Catholics both traditional and not. That is, I not only struggle against daily sinful tendencies and attractions, I also struggle (internally) with some of the doctrine. However, I do not assume personal authority which exceeds the Magisterium. Therefore, I am by that definition “faithful.”

No, no. Historically, when people spoke of fidelity and faithfulness, they DID absolutely speak of both theological assent and the assent of the body. There is no dualism intended here.

The thing is that most people are not saints, and so their best assent of the mind and body may fall somewhat short in final result, but that doesn’t mean that it’s okay to give less than 100% assent upfront. Faithfulness, aka fidelity is to give your assent of mind and will AND act out your assent with your bodily self, to the best of your ability. THE BEST OF YOUR ABILITY.

The notion that a person can pay lip service, aka give verbal assent and then be willing to aim for less with their body than they committed to–or worse–separate the two as if they were two different things is setting oneself up as an alternate Magisterium of their own. It’s simply re-defining the faith into something else: lip service.

 

[Corki]

c) they can ALSO go non-canonical. This is an interesting possibility because it won’t necessarily hurt their worth with the news media, and many Catholics simply will not be influenced by it—or even care! In fact, a lot of Catholic laypeople won’t even know the difference. But they will be in a bit of hot water with a few people, and with some of the bishops. Will they lose funding? Not sure. It may re-adjust to different donors, but the amount? Not sure.

I wonder about this as well. Of course, if the LCWR goes non-canonical, it doesn’t change anything about the various congregations represented.

 

[iloveangels]

I wonder about this as well. Of course, if the LCWR goes non-canonical, it doesn’t change anything about the various congregations represented.

Correct. Many people aren’t picking up on this. The news media sometimes doesn’t quite get it either. However, it can’t fail to be a huge factor in determining what the parties to this difficulty are thinking and doing.

There were 2 investigations into women’s congregations:

1. LCWR; started first and ended first; we have the results.
2. individual congregations; started later and not yet complete; we don’t yet have the results.

It’s entirely possible that the Holy See is reserving the results of the 2nd investigation in order to get something done about the first. I don’t know this for a fact, but it is entirely possible. It’d be a powerful strategy. The order in which the investigations were done are something the CDF and the LCWR are both aware of, even if most lay Catholics and the press are not.

 

[KSU]

No, no. Historically, when people spoke of fidelity and faithfulness, they DID absolutely speak of both theological assent and the assent of the body. There is no dualism intended here.

The thing is that most people are not saints, and so their best assent of the mind and body may fall somewhat short in final result, but that doesn’t mean that it’s okay to give less than 100% assent upfront. Faithfulness, aka fidelity is to give your assent of mind and will AND act out your assent with your bodily self, to the best of your ability. THE BEST OF YOUR ABILITY.

The notion that a person can pay lip service, aka give verbal assent and then be willing to aim for less with their body than they committed to–or worse–separate the two as if they were two different things is setting oneself up as an alternate Magisterium of their own. It’s simply re-defining the faith into something else: lip service.

OK, I’m not following the dichotomy, if any.

 

[iloveangels]

OK, I’m not following the dichotomy, if any.

Read Elizabeth’s first paragraph.

This is a problem for many Catholics because they believe that assent consists specifically in having the right ideas and attitudes, but curiously does not always extend to how they behave in everyday ways about everyday things.

Assent is intended to be mind, body and soul. There is no split here. To be faithful or exhibit fidelity is to align oneself from top to bottom with the teaching and action of the Church.

Because we are human beings and often our performances–mental, volitional and physical–fail to come up to the standards that we are committed to, that just means that we fail a little bit in fidelity. The answer? Try again, harder this time. And give God some due. He honors our efforts when we commit and then try to hit the mark. He honors them especially when we try and try and try, even if we are not perfect in fidelity and faithfulness.

 

[Elizabeth502]

No, no. Historically, when people spoke of fidelity and faithfulness, they DID absolutely speak of both theological assent and the assent of the body. There is no dualism intended here.

The thing is that most people are not saints, and so their best assent of the mind and body may fall somewhat short in final result, but that doesn’t mean that it’s okay to give less than 100% assent upfront. Faithfulness, aka fidelity is to give your assent of mind and will AND act out your assent with your bodily self, to the best of your ability. THE BEST OF YOUR ABILITY.

The notion that a person can pay lip service, aka give verbal assent and then be willing to aim for less with their body than they committed to–or worse–separate the two as if they were two different things is setting oneself up as an alternate Magisterium of their own. It’s simply re-defining the faith into something else: lip service.

I don’t think you understand the division I was making. I was not making a division between intellect and behavior, so much as intention and behavior, or agreement and behavior. There are three concepts which Catholics not well trained in this seem not to understand, and confuse with each other:

(a) Fidelity to the Church: All that means is sincerity of purpose/action/speech, regarding aligning oneself with official (magisterial) teachings and an effort to live up to those. In itself it does not equal success in that effort. It never has, ever; if it meant success, then only Saints would be, retroactively, “faithful.” It means sincerity of effort, no matter how many failures occur in that effort. It would certainly assume, though, that one does not pay mere lip service to Church teaching (“I believe this way, but I deliberately act differently.”)

This issue of Fidelity comes up most commonly today, less because Catholics are hypocrites (say one thing, do another), but because they say openly that they do not agree with Church teachings, and feel entitled to behave as they (oppositionally) believe. Such Catholics who admit that can be said to be “not faithful to the teachings,” as they have a personal set of doctrines which they effectively are putting higher than the Church.

(b) Attained spirituality: for want of a better phrase, that refers to one’s success in not just following doctrine, but in actively allowing oneself to be guided by the spiritual resources of the Church, such that actual spiritual progress is being made. Try as some do, it is quite difficult to assess objectively how successful one is being in the pilgrim’s journey away from sin, toward virtue, and in union with God and God’s Church on earth.

Many Catholics, including Catholics on this forum (not necessarily you, “angels,” confuse (a) with (b), and deliberately overlap these two as an argument against any fraternal correction whatsoever. (Such as, correction as to dogma and doctrine; supposedly, you see, imperfection in virtue disqualifies a Catholic Christian from dispensing information about the faith, and from advocating for support for that faith tradition.)

(c) Style of Catholic practice. That is separate from belief; it is separate from spirituality. It includes things like interest or disinterest in saying the Rosary, choice of parish and choice of Vatican-approved and diocesan-approved Mass forms/styles. It also includes what kind of emphasis in one’s faith a person might have. It does not include “Cafeteria Catholicism,” but for example, it could include a preference for activism in Church-affiliated social justice causes, or (OTOH) a preference for attending benediction/adoration instead. It would never mean that a person “selects” which magisterial teachings to accept and reject.

 

[jwinch2]

I’m not necessarily sure that’s true, Jason. The news media quotes other organizations like those women’s ordinations outfits all the time. I don’t know how this would be different, honestly.

Yes they do, but no one really takes them seriously, even the news media. Oh, you get a little blurb here and there when they crop their heads up, but you don’t see them getting invited to the White House or to other high profile events the way you do dissident Catholics who are legitimately within the Church. The reason that they get invited to these things, or that the Nuns on a Bus tour raised awareness in the liberal media is because they are, in fact, Catholic. This allows them to confuse the faithful and to provide political cover for CINO politicians and other non-Catholic politicians who wish Catholic support.

In addition, we have to remember that these people do not wish to leave the Church for something else more to their liking. Otherwise, they would simply join the Episcopal Church and be done with it. On the contrary, what they want is to turn the Catholic Church into something else. This is always the way of such people. However, in order to do that, they need at least the veneer of regularity with the Church.

Much of their money has to be coming from the laity in the pews, the bishops, and the Holy See. A great deal, not all but much, will dry up if they go non-canonical. In addition, any donors they pick up because of the noteriety will dry up in short order. Once they are not front page news anymore, things will drop off dramatically.

Finally, I really believe that many congregations will end their membership in LCWR if they go non-canonical. That will go largely unreported in the liberal media, but it will serve as a good counter punch for conservative Catholics against anyone who tries to use the LCWR situation to their advantage politically.

In addition,

 

[iloveangels]

I don’t think you understand the division I was making. I was not making a division between intellect and behavior, so much as intention and behavior, or agreement and behavior. There are three concepts which Catholics not well trained in this seem not to understand, and confuse with each other:

(a) Fidelity to the Church: All that means is sincerity of purpose/action/speech, regarding aligning oneself with official (magisterial) teachings and an effort to live up to those. In itself it does not equal success in that effort. It never has, ever; if it meant success, then only Saints would be, retroactively, “faithful.” It means sincerity of effort, no matter how many failures occur in that effort. It would certainly assume, though, that one does not pay mere lip service to Church teaching (“I believe this way, but I deliberately act differently.”)

This issue of Fidelity comes up most commonly today, less because Catholics are hypocrites (say one thing, do another), but because they say openly that they do not agree with Church teachings, and feel entitled to behave as they (oppositionally) believe. Such Catholics who admit that can be said to be “not faithful to the teachings,” as they have a personal set of doctrines which they effectively are putting higher than the Church.

(b) Attained spirituality: for want of a better phrase, that refers to one’s success in not just following doctrine, but in actively allowing oneself to be guided by the spiritual resources of the Church, such that actual spiritual progress is being made. Try as some do, it is quite difficult to assess objectively how successful one is being in the pilgrim’s journey away from sin, toward virtue, and in union with God and God’s Church on earth.

Many Catholics, including Catholics on this forum (not necessarily you, “angels,” confuse (a) with (b), and deliberately overlap these two as an argument against any fraternal correction whatsoever. (Such as, correction as to dogma and doctrine; supposedly, you see, imperfection in virtue disqualifies a Catholic Christian from dispensing information about the faith, and from advocating for support for that faith tradition.)

(c) Style of Catholic practice. That is separate from belief; it is separate from spirituality. It includes things like interest or disinterest in saying the Rosary, choice of parish and choice of Vatican-approved and diocesan-approved Mass forms/styles. It also includes what kind of emphasis in one’s faith a person might have. It does not include “Cafeteria Catholicism,” but for example, it could include a preference for activism in Church-affiliated social justice causes, or (OTOH) a preference for attending benediction/adoration instead. It would never mean that a person “selects” which magisterial teachings to accept and reject.

I simply don’t agree with you, Elizabeth, that there can be a dualistic split between what one professes and how one behaves. I think this is a huge (& serious!) misunderstanding that some Catholics have. And I think that misunderstanding sometimes, maybe even often, drives behavior among Catholics.

Saints are people who have, through prayer, faith and performance of their duties, attained a high degree of fidelity with the Church and with Christ, so that they become almost a mirror image, to the degree that a human being can be an image, of the Church and of Christ on earth. This is what you’re looking at when you see a St. Francis or a John of the Cross or a Teresa of Avila. It’s possible to become a mirror image of the Church in a number of ways as we’ve seen because God created individual human beings. We’re not meant to be robots, but we’re meant to strive for fidelity.

Fidelity means likeness… You know as in high fidelity when it comes to sound being true to the original.

As for style, anything the Church permits is permissible. It’s just about that simple, unless a person wants to set up their own personal religion. You can like things more or less personally, and that’s fine, you can find them more or less helpful. But if the Church allows, for instance, both the OF and the EF, then so be it, they’re both legit.

 

[iloveangels]

Yes they do, but no one really takes them seriously, even the news media. Oh, you get a little blurb here and there when they crop their heads up, but you don’t see them getting invited to the White House or to other high profile events the way you do dissident Catholics who are legitimately within the Church. The reason that they get invited to these things, or that the Nuns on a Bus tour raised awareness in the liberal media is because they are, in fact, Catholic. This allows them to confuse the faithful and to provide political cover for CINO politicians and other non-Catholic politicians who wish Catholic support.

In addition, we have to remember that these people do not wish to leave the Church for something else more to their liking. Otherwise, they would simply join the Episcopal Church and be done with it. On the contrary, what they want is to turn the Catholic Church into something else. This is always the way of such people. However, in order to do that, they need at least the veneer of regularity with the Church.

Much of their money has to be coming from the laity in the pews, the bishops, and the Holy See. A great deal, not all but much, will dry up if they go non-canonical. In addition, any donors they pick up because of the noteriety will dry up in short order. Once they are not front page news anymore, things will drop off dramatically.

Finally, I really believe that many congregations will end their membership in LCWR if they go non-canonical. That will go largely unreported in the liberal media, but it will serve as a good counter punch for conservative Catholics against anyone who tries to use the LCWR situation to their advantage politically.

In addition,

You’d be surprised how many people take them seriously, Jason. Catholics often carry around a mindset that says that everyone knows what they know because their family members are all Catholic (or ex-Catholic). But it just isn’t so. Greater than 75% of the US isn’t Catholic and never has been Catholic. Anybody labeled as a nun, sister, priest, friar or monk screams to them “Catholic” and they don’t make any of these in or out distinctions that cradle Catholics make. They simply don’t have those mental categories. I know. I used to be a never-Catholic.

Much of their money has, in the past, come from the laity and the bishops’ offices, but no longer. A lot of it comes from US Government funding now. And I’ll tell you what’s scary if you want a scary thought: If they go schismatic, they will be free to take government money in great quantities, under any kind of wacky conditions, and that will make them even more dangerous to us than they are now. The public simply doesn’t know the difference and the government flatly doesn’t care as long as they can manipulate the voters. And this is a tool for that.

Some groups will, I agree, end their relationship with LCWR, if they go non-canonical. Those will be the groups who don’t want to lose their decent standing as canonical congregations with the CDF. However, some of the congregations in the LCWR are already on a collision course and that’s not going to deter them, plain and simple. They have other horizons.

 

[iloveangels]

Elizabeth, if you really look into the classics on spiritual growth and prayer, like the books of St. John of the Cross, Bonaventure, St. Francis de Sales and so on, you’ll find that there’s a non-negotiable bit of information about this. Advances in the spiritual life are ALWAYS, ALWAYS accompanied by growth in the virtues. There is no other way and there is no other visible sign of spiritual growth. And in fact, that is the chief way for a spiritual director to assess what’s happening with a person moving through the spiritual life because people who are growing spiritually develop a genuinely more sensitive sense of virtue which then plays out more genuinely in their lives. People do differ quite a lot, but this is a constant.

It’s what you see when you look at St. Francis, who developed from a callous playboy into a chaste and prayerful saint interested in Gospel poverty and total dependence on God. It’s what you see when you look at St. Teresa of Avila, who developed from a vain and pretty Spanish girl into a powerful and capable spiritual master who understood and practiced great trust, great virtue and great faith, all three in her daily life.

And there is no grand chasm between this kind of fidelity and the kind the Church wants us to have. None. They’re exactly the same thing. The kind of fidelity (faith, knowledge, prayer, works and action all working together) that a saint has is the same kind of fidelity the Church asks of each one of us to develop.

[When I say there is no other sign, the masters of the Christian spiritual life are very explicit about this. Visions and levitation and all that stuff are phenomena. They do not always accompany great holiness and sometimes they are false. When they occur, they don’t necessarily mean anything and they can be occasions for great mistakes. They should be treated with caution.

On a much more mundane level, there’s nothing wrong with a little consolation now and then, of course, because God can use it or not. But getting attached to it and chasing it to the exclusion of other things never ends well. When that happens, people are chasing their own pleasure and satisfaction. That doesn’t lead to God. It’s really no better, and not much different, than collecting trinkets or any other human pre-occupation if it gets out of control.]

 

[Edward_H]

Elizabeth, if you really look into the classics on spiritual growth and prayer, like the books of St. John of the Cross, Bonaventure, St. Francis de Sales and so on, you’ll find that there’s a non-negotiable bit of information about this. Advances in the spiritual life are ALWAYS, ALWAYS accompanied by growth in the virtues. There is no other way and there is no other visible sign of spiritual growth. And in fact, that is the chief way for a spiritual director to assess what’s happening with a person moving through the spiritual life because people who are growing spiritually develop a genuinely more sensitive sense of virtue which then plays out more genuinely in their lives. People do differ quite a lot, but this is a constant.

It’s what you see when you look at St. Francis, who developed from a callous playboy into a chaste and prayerful saint interested in Gospel poverty and total dependence on God. It’s what you see when you look at St. Teresa of Avila, who developed from a vain and pretty Spanish girl into a powerful and capable spiritual master who understood and practiced great trust, great virtue and great faith, all three in her daily life.

And there is no grand chasm between this kind of fidelity and the kind the Church wants us to have. None. They’re exactly the same thing. The kind of fidelity (faith, knowledge, prayer, works and action all working together) that a saint has is the same kind of fidelity the Church asks of each one of us to develop.

[When I say there is no other sign, the masters of the Christian spiritual life are very explicit about this. Visions and levitation and all that stuff are phenomena. They do not always accompany great holiness and sometimes they are false. When they occur, they don’t necessarily mean anything and they can be occasions for great mistakes. They should be treated with caution.

On a much more mundane level, there’s nothing wrong with a little consolation now and then, of course, because God can use it or not. But getting attached to it and chasing it to the exclusion of other things never ends well. When that happens, people are chasing their own pleasure and satisfaction. That doesn’t lead to God. It’s really no better, and not much different, than collecting trinkets or any other human pre-occupation if it gets out of control.]

 

[jwinch2]

You’d be surprised how many people take them seriously, Jason.

No I wouldn’t. When the “women priests” had their little conference last year it garnered a small bit of attention, and that was it. The attention was basically local news sources or those, such as NCR, who are obviously biased.

Catholics often carry around a mindset that says that everyone knows what they know because their family members are all Catholic (or ex-Catholic). But it just isn’t so. Greater than 75% of the US isn’t Catholic and never has been Catholic. Anybody labeled as a nun, sister, priest, friar or monk screams to them “Catholic” and they don’t make any of these in or out distinctions that cradle Catholics make. They simply don’t have those mental categories. I know. I used to be a never-Catholic.

I have been Catholic for less than two years and am fully aware of what non-Catholics do not know. I am the only person in my family who is Catholic. However, the government is not made up of non-Catholics. Biden, Pelosi, Sebelius are all Catholic, at least in name, and are fully aware of the distinctions.

Much of their money has, in the past, come from the laity and the bishops’ offices, but no longer. A lot of it comes from US Government funding now.

They get funding because they are a Catholic groups which serves the purposes of the secular government. If they go non-canonical, they will be just one more social work group, nothing more. And again, the reason that LCWR leadership get invited to the White House, to congress, to campaign events, etc. is because they are Catholic, not because of their views on social justice. Being Catholic gives them a leg up in providing political cover for the agenda that they wish to push.

Some groups will, I agree, end their relationship with LCWR, if they go non-canonical. Those will be the groups who don’t want to lose their decent standing as canonical congregations with the CDF. However, some of the congregations in the LCWR are already on a collision course and that’s not going to deter them, plain and simple. They have other horizons.

I believe that many will and as for the rest, that will likely come out also when the report from the apostolic visitation comes out, hopefully soon.

 

[iloveangels]

However, the government is not made up of non-Catholics. Biden, Pelosi, Sebelius are all Catholic, at least in name, and are fully aware of the distinctions.

Do you not realize that this is why we have this problem in this particular election cycle?

Yes there are Catholics, at least in name as you say, in this administration. They realize that most of the population do not make those distinctions and they are exploiting it. Poor little nun serving the poor by giving them what they really need. Wink, wink. Big bad Catholic Church with all its medieval ideas.

That’s the story-line. Who better to deliver it than a Catholic, at least in name as you say?

 

[jwinch2]

Do you not realize that this is why we have this problem in this election cycle? Yes there are Catholics, at least in name as you say, in this administration. They realize that most of the population do not make those distinctions and they are exploiting it. Poor little nun serving the poor by giving them what they really need. Wink, wink. Big bad Catholic Church with all its medieval ideas. That’s the story-line. Who better to deliver it than a Catholic, at least in name as you say?

That’s exactly my point, so I am not sure what you are disputing. If the LCWR goes non-canonical, they will lose that appearance of legitimacy which the political left will be unable to use their advantage to confuse Catholics into voting for people like the ones I mentioned above.

 

[iloveangels]

That’s exactly my point, so I am not sure what you are disputing. If the LCWR goes non-canonical, they will lose that appearance of legitimacy which the political left will be unable to use their advantage to confuse Catholics into voting for people like the ones I mentioned above.

What about the other approximately half of the country? A good proportion of them sneer when we are mentioned, in case you haven’t noticed. That’s who the current administration is half-talking to. They can’t figure out why we see anything at all wrong with birth control and abortion, and they think we’re being obstructionist, medieval, out of touch…etc etc.

In addition it’s something to tar the Republican party with, since it fits right it with the picture they’re trying to stick them with: retrograde old men, rich, etc etc. It’s all a silly cartoon, but that’s politics.

Christians are hated in some parts of the country, and Catholics are considered by some people to be the weirdest and most retrograde of the lot, save snake-handlers. Sorry to have to be explicit about this to a new Catholic like you, but take it from an old convert, you’re going to see your share of trouble over being Catholic. It goes with the turf. You take the good with the bad and vice versa.

 

[jwinch2]

What about the other approximately half of the country? A good proportion of them sneer when we are mentioned, in case you haven’t noticed.

This conversation has nothing to do with that. It is about the LCWR and the situation they are in, and what will happen based on potential outcomes.

That’s who the current administration is half-talking to. They can’t figure out why we see anything at all wrong with birth control and abortion, and they think we’re being obstructionist, medieval, out of touch…etc etc.

I don’t care. I care about the Catholics who are being misled. The rest of the country is going to believe what they believe. If we can’t get our own house in order, there is nothing we are going to do to change the minds of others.

In addition it’s something to tar the Republican party with, since it fits right it with the picture they’re trying to stick them with: retrograde old men, rich, etc etc. It’s all a silly cartoon, but that’s politics.

I don’t care. Half of the time, the GOP pisses me off just as much as the Dems do. They screwed the pooch when they had the presidency and majorities in congress and we are still paying for their ineptness and arrogance now.

Christians are hated in some parts of the country, and Catholics are considered by some people to be the weirdest and most retrograde of the lot, save snake-handlers. Sorry to have to be explicit about this to a new Catholic like you, but take it from an old convert, you’re going to see your share of trouble over being Catholic. It goes with the turf. You take the good with the bad and vice versa.

I am fully aware of this and have been for a long time. What it has to do with this conversation, I have absolutely no idea.

 

[Edward_H]

Let’s pray for more faith and serenity among the faithful. No worries. God will not leave us. He will draw good out of bad, at his own pace and time.

 

[KSU]

Let’s pray for more faith and serenity among the faithful. No worries. God will not leave us. He will draw good out of bad, at his own pace and time.