The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionMother Millea urges U.S. religious to comply with study
First official recognition of widespread noncompliance to questionnaire request
Jan. 22, 2010
Mother Mary Clare Millea
Mother Mary Clare Millea, superior general of the Apostles of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and charged by the Vatican with directing a three-year study of U.S. women religious congregations, has sent letters to religious leaders asking once again for their full cooperation in filling out questionnaires, which are part of the process.
The questionnaires, sent last year to the heads of some 325 religious communities, were to have been returned by Nov. 20. A substantial number of the religious communities -- some women religious leaders saying the "vast majority" of the communities -- refused to comply with an initial Millea request to fill out all the questions on the questionnaire and instead filled out only some or none. A number of religious communities chose, instead, to return to Millea their order's Vatican approved constitutions.
The decisions by congregation leaders not to comply followed nearly two months last fall of intensive discussions both inside and across religious congregations. They followed consultations with civil and canon lawyers, and come in the wake of what some women religious see as widespread support by laity for their church missions.
Effectively, the acts of noncompliance were mechanisms by U.S. women religious to signal their collective displeasure at what they view as an unnecessary and ill-formed investigation of their religious communities.
Millea's letter, dated Jan. 12 and placed this week on the official apostolic visitation web site , was the first official acknowledgement of the failure of religious communities to fully comply with the Vatican request for information about the religious communities.
In her letter, Millea said she had returned recently from a meeting in Rome with Cardinal Franc Rodé, prefect for the Vatican Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, and the cleric who first initiated the study, formally called an apostolic visitation.
"When I recently met with Cardinal Rodé, he assured me that the Holy Father continues to show his interest in and support of the apostolic visitation," Millea stated. "The cardinal was pleased to hear about the wholehearted and genuine responses of many congregations to the questionnaire. However, I also shared with him my sadness and disappointment that not all congregations have responded to this phase of dialogue with the church in a manner fully supportive of the purpose and goals of the apostolic visitation."
Preview NCR's Family Life Issue
Watch this video from NCR Editor Dennis Coday for highlights from our annual Family Life special section.
You won't find these articles on our website. Subscribe now to receive all the content from each biweekly issue.
"He encouraged me to ask those who have not yet fully complied to prayerfully reconsider their response. I take this opportunity, then, to once again invite all major superiors who have not responded fully to the questionnaire to do so. I make this request in light of the fact that the questionnaire serves as an integral part of the visitation process. It offers you and your sisters a privileged opportunity to present to the apostolic see your congregation's unique charismatic identity, as well as your communal and ministerial expression of religious life. It likewise affords the apostolic see a way to listen to the joys, accomplishments, hopes and concerns of your sisters and to seek, together with you, strategies for enhancing the vitality of your institute."
Millea said she is aware of the "questions and concerns" women religious have concerning the questionnaire and her staff is eager to resolve these issues.
"It would be helpful for us if you would inform the apostolic visitation office if you intend to amend your response to the questionnaire," she wrote
The Vatican initiated the study one year ago, saying its purpose is to determine the quality of life in religious communities, given the decline in vocations in recent decades. From the outset, women religious complained they were never consulted before Vatican officials announced the investigation and there is no transparency in the process. Some called the effort demeaning and intrusive.
"For nearly a year now, we women religious have been engaged in a communal seeking of love in truth, a dialogue with the church," the Millea letter states, reaffirming that the purpose of the study is to "enhance the vitality of our congregations, to affirm our sisters and to encourage new membership."
Millea said that in the Phase 1 of the process she engaged in dialogue with superiors general and listened to their hopes and dreams, convincing her of their "love for and pride in their sisters."
"During Phase 2 of the apostolic visitation, you were asked to complete a questionnaire regarding fundamental aspects of your congregation's identity, present life style and future projections. As I reflect on the fine input submitted by many major superiors in response to the questionnaire, I see that the process is generating much self-evaluation and dialogue between congregational leaders and their sisters. I commend and thank those of you who have shared your stories and hopes, an expression of an authentic search for growth in charity, illumined by the light of truth."
Millea stated that the Phase 3 of the apostolic visitation will begin in April 2010 with on-site visits to "a representative sample of institutes, conducted by teams of religious who will act individually and collectively in the name of the apostolic see." She said visitors were chosen from among religious nominated by superiors general and others "and represent a variety of congregations and areas of expertise."
"Prior to conducting the on-site visits, all potential visitors will participate," she reiterated, "in an orientation workshop during which they will pronounce a public profession of faith and an oath of fidelity to the apostolic see. This profession carries with it a special grace which will strengthen the visitors in their delicate and important task."
The on-site visitors, Millea explained, will engage primarily with the members of leadership teams and a representative group of the sisters. The visitation team members will then formulate a report for her in which they will seek to articulate "the accomplishments, the key strengths and challenges" of each visited community, making appropriate recommendations.
Phase 4 of the visitation process, Millea wrote, will draw from the data gathered in the previous phases and she will prepare for Rode's congregation a summary report of each institute, whether or not an on-site visit has taken place. "Each institute will subsequently receive feedback from the Vatican "for the purpose of promoting its charismatic identity and apostolic vitality in ongoing dialogue with the local and universal church."
Finally, Millea said she was pleased to have received an invitation to the Jan. 14 reception for the opening of the Women & Spirit: Catholic Sisters in America exhibit, at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, DC. Millea attended the event.
[Tom Fox is NCR editor and can be reached at tfox@ncronline.org.]
An index of past NCR coverage of the apostolic visitation of U.S. women religious is at NCRonline.org/apostolicvisitation.
I find this statement to be
I find this statement to be most interesting "in an orientation workshop during which they will pronounce a public profession of faith and an oath of fidelity to the apostolic see", as it refers to an orientation which in itself is term for new employees to be oriented to a new organization. Huh, haven't these religious orders been with the Church since (almost) day one? So why must they now have to attend an "orientation workshop" other than it is one more way for the Church to gain control over women religous (who never have had true power in the Church). Makes me think that the 'good o boy network' is running a little nervous that they are losing grasp of total domination over their people who are simply asking to be 'heard' and 'respected' for the good they have done for centuries and wish to be still do for the future.
Please read the experience of
Please read the experience of the Reverend Father Tissa Balasuriya when first required to sign an extraordinary profession of faith drafted by the Cardinal Ratzinger at the Holy Office. He offered to replace a more orthodox and less extraordinary Credo, and was refused.
Read about it with the primary documents attached to his "Mary, and Human Liberation."
Now this whole process has been sanitized and found acceptable? By whom? And now bears a "special grace??"
Holy Smoke!
"Unholy smoke." Yet smoke
"Unholy smoke." Yet smoke indeed.
Long live Pope Benedict
Long live Pope Benedict XVI!!!!!!! May he be another Leo!!!!!!!!!!!!
"...May he be another
"...May he be another Leo"
Gregory, I could only wish, hope and pray for; Leo, God forbid.
Or a Pope John Paul the First
Or a Pope John Paul the First (so often called the Greater)
Anyway, I don't think he is a Leo.
Isn't he Aries?
Agreed and... Re: "pronounce
Agreed and...
Re: "pronounce a public profession of faith and an oath of fidelity to the apostolic see"
Who would want to swear an oath of fidelity to an organization that is responsible for the child abuse scandal that continues today? Until all of the priests who committed crimes, and all of the bishops who enabled them, have been excommunicated, the women religious should distance themselves from the 'apostolic see' of corruption.
The women religious who have worked selflessly over the years in deference to those in need are the ones who should be honored, not those in fine robes, with assistants and servants, living and working in palatial buildings in Rome.
I only partially agree with
I only partially agree with your statements, regarding how women religious should "distance themselves from the 'apostolic see' of corruption." The Vatican under the auspices of the CDF, the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, was the department which issued Crimen Sollicitationes, the document which was the world-wide blueprint for handling and mishandling complaints of those abuse by members of the clergy, including priests, monks and nuns. Crimen's main objective was to silence the victims/survivors by making sure that SCANDAL wouldn't be brought upon the Church. Up until the announcement of his Papacy, Cardinal Ratzinger was the Prelate and the man in-charge of the CDF, and also responsible for reviewing all cases of clergy Pedophilia, including charges of physical, mental, emotional and sexual abuse by Nuns!
Unfortunately, many orders of nuns, worldwide, have been perpetrators of abuse in orphanages and institutions such as the Magdalene Laundries in Ireland, New Zealand and Australia, as well as abusers in schools for indigenous or First-Nation students in the United States and Canada. Nuns have not remained unscathed by proven accusations of physical, mental and sexual abuse. I realize that not every order of Nuns carries the guilt equal to the Sisters of Mercy in Ireland and New Zealand. Thank God! But, I do think that all orders of nuns should seek out those sisters, who have been perpetrators of abuse in the past, and they should be drummed out of their orders and defrocked, just as Priest Pedophiles, who were discovered in similar situations. Maybe a visitation by the Vatican might be the corrective tool which is necessary to remove Nuns, who have perpetrated abuse, from their convents and religious orders. Realistically, that will probably never happen, because the Vatican is the last institution on earth, which would deliberately expose a SCANDAL of their own making!
"Up until the announcement of
"Up until the announcement of his Papacy, Cardinal Ratzinger was the Prelate and the man in-charge of the CDF, and also responsible for reviewing all cases of clergy Pedophilia, including charges of physical, mental, emotional and sexual abuse by Nuns!"
Your ignorance is blinding. Cardinal Ratzinger dealt with DOCTRINAL issues. He was the head of the Congregation for the DOCTRINE of the Faith. To assert that his job involved reviewing cases of clergy pedophilia, let alone ALL cases of clergy pedophilia, is laughable.
Johnny, It's your ignorance
Johnny,
It's your ignorance of documented facts that is laughable.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/apr/24/children.childprotection
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23369148-pope-led-cover-up-of...
http://www.saunderslawyers.com/practice-areas/physical-and-sexual-abuse/...
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_...
http://www.intratext.com/IXT/LAT0447/_P1.HTM
http://anticristiano.altervista.org/popup.php?a=2&q=20070526181510
p.s. I hope the DOMER in your handle doesn't mean you went to MY alma mater, Notre Dame!
Mr. Domer, begging your
Mr. Domer, begging your pardon, it is YOUR ignorance that is blinding:
Cardinal Ratzinger became pope in 2005. In April 2001, when he was still prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, that congregation (often abbreviated as CDF) issued under his signature (and with the approval of Pope John Paul II) Sacramentorum Sanctitatis Tutela (in English, Safeguarding the Sanctity of the Sacraments.) That document -- which you can easily call up on the Vatican Web site -- established the CDF (instead of the Roman Rota, the usual Vatican court of appeals through which clerical sexual abuse of minors cases had been going until then) as the church's central court of legal recourse for all cases involving allegations of clerical sexual abuse of minors.
For the last four years in his office as prefect of the CDF, Cardinal Ratzinger was in fact the church's chief appellate judge (always of course acting in the name of the pope) regarding the disposition of all cases of clergy sexual abuse of minors throughout the world. The congregation he formerly headed continues to hold that authority today.
When you ridicule someone as ignorant, you should really be careful to make sure that you are not the ignorant party -- which in this case you are.
Each case of abuse is
Each case of abuse is different and in every case individual sinners are involved Jesus dealt with individuals. Yes the Church has been too slow and too trusting in this matter but so too were secular institutions. Little was known or understood about the depth of evil that was involved in the case of phedophilia so the Church was not alone in believing the word of individuals who porfessed their regret and were transferred to other places. It happened in secular institutes also.
Certainly every one must learn from this horror that has wounded its victims, their families and the Church but abandoning loyalty to the Magisterium is not one of those ways nor having a knee jerk reaction to appease the secular media,
The wisest course of action would be for the Church to revisit every case. I suspect in the hysterical atmosphere that is now prevailing we have totally innocent religious who have been accused and abandoned by the hierarchy and everyone else. The pendulum has swung to the other extreme. Now we have guilty until proven innocent.
I suggest every reader of this site visit These Stone Walls to see one case of profound injustice that seems to have been perpetuated.
Re: "Who would want to swear
Re: "Who would want to swear an oath of fidelity to an organization that is responsible for the child abuse scandal that continues today?"
How about the people the BELONG to that organization? What a foolish comment lol. What are you doing here anyways?
Oh and by the way, if want want the 'women religious' to 'distance' themselves from the Apostolic See are you recommending they just exit the Church? Because that's the only way to 'distance' yourself! All Catholics are in communion with Rome. If they aren't, they obviously aren't Catholic!
They, like much of the Church
They, like much of the Church in America, need to re-'orient' themselves. The talk, at the LCWR conference, of moving beyond Christ was certainly an indication that they lost that essential orientation toward the True Light. Of course there have been many other indicators that some orders and individual leaders are not 'with the Church' (to use your very adequate phrase), and have not been for some time.
From a strictly political standpoint, they blew their best opportunity to be heard, which would have been to coordinate their answers on the surveys and stand united. Instead when the Vatican sets up an apparatus for them to make their voices heard, they stop talking, at least to the Vatican, and murmur amongst themselves and to other groups (*cough* NCR *cough*). This only assured that they are going to be dealing with a less friendly reception, as they chose the passive-aggressive route, instead of presenting a united front.
That, of course, compounded with some sisters from within these orders being prevented from participating (see: Sisters Silenced), hints that perhaps the visitation was justified?
Re: "The talk, at the LCWR
Re: "The talk, at the LCWR conference, of moving beyond Christ": I would suggest that you READ the actual text of the talk that was given that day - very few commentators seem to have bothered to so. The talk in no way states that American Sisters have moved beyond Christ, not does it advocate that they do so.
The speaker gave a very thoughtful, honest and realistic analysis of a number of categories into which, in her opinion, today's Sisters fall. Only ONE of those categories happened to be of people who share the opinion that they have moved "beyond Christ" and beyond the Church. The speaker was only acknolwedging the fact that some number of Sisters (or former Sisters) fell into that category, and she basically said "well, they're gone".
The speaker gave an equally dispassionate and useful analysis of the characteristics of each of the other categories she perceived. She did NOT say "We American Sisters have moved, or should move, beyond Christ". What she did say was much closer to "Some Sisters are of the opinion that they have moved beyond Christ in their spiritual search and feel they must follow a path away from the Church". Again, please READ the actual transcript.
Seconding the good advice for
Seconding the good advice for people to read the LCWR paper and to do so carefully. I agree with Gan Aihm that it has been widely misunderstood by "soundbite" and reductive reporting and commenting that followed. The single statement that has so inflamed so many is, in my view, both less significant and more meaningful when read in context of the entire 24 or 25 page paper. Jean Brookbank
I suggest that if some
I suggest that if some sisters have moved beyond Christ then they should in good conscience leave the Church.
Leave it to those of us who are still working at finding Christ in every moment and every person in every day.
We will not have lost anything if we loose these sisters.
The oath is the Nicene Creed
The oath is the Nicene Creed and then a statement that is basically word for work from Lumen Gentium. So, which do the sisters object to--the Creed or Vatican II--or both?
I would have thought they
I would have thought they were objecting, not to the Nicene Creed or Lumen Gentium, but to the medieval / feudal practice of being required to swear an oath of loyalty - they are American nuns living in the 21st century, not vassals.
The three characteristics
The three characteristics that define religious life are poverty, chastity, and OBEDIENCE TO LAWFUL SUPERIORS. You are only a religious if you make vows swearing to those three things. So yeah, even a 21st century American nun engages or has engaged in this practice of swearing obedience, whether they follow that vow or not. It's a bit silly and unhelpful to characterize it as medieval or feudal.
Swearing an oath of loyalty to the Nicene Creed/things in Lumen Gentium is nothing more than reaffirming your Baptismal commitment.
Please get the facts
Please get the facts straight, so as not to be confused with your opinions. The oaths are not for the sisters to take, but the members of the visitation teams. Such oaths were done away with after VII and then reinstated by John Paul II in his push to return to earlier church practices and consolidate papal authority and power. It is also what slants the visitation in many minds, that the oath is as much to Rome as it is anything, so it places an immediate bias in the study of US ministerial women religious. And, once again, the vow of obedience is NOT to the heirarchy or the Pope: it is to the the rule of the order/community, to the superiors and other members of the order/community, and to the Gospels. So stop characterizing this matter as sisters being disloyal to their vows: it is, indeed, "bearing false witness against thy neighbor."
Vows are made to GOD, not
Vows are made to GOD, not to "the rule of the order/community, to the superiors and other members of the order/community, and to the Gospels".
They are made to GOD.
The vows are made ACCORDING to various rules and constitutions, and they are made in the PRESENCE of a bishop or his appointed surrogate and of the religious superiors and often of the other members of the community and often of invited guests, but the vows are made TO God.
Look at the formula of vows used by any religious order. Here's the Jesuit formula: http://www.jesuits.ca/Join_us/vow_day.php
Look at the definition of vow in the Catholic Encyclopedia: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15511a.htm
There seems to be a LOT of confusion about religious vows. Some think they're made to the pope. You think they're made to a rule or to a superior or to other members of the order. Not true. Vows are made to GOD alone.
Thank you. The same holds
Thank you. The same holds true for priests. They make a promise of obedience to their bishop/abbott and the bishop/abbot made a promise of obedience to the Pope. However, JPII changed that and went back to a mid-evil day demanding that every new pastor make that promise to him and his successors. Now they are demanding the same of women religous.
Johnny Domer on Jan. 25,
Johnny Domer on Jan. 25, 2010.
You stated:
"The three characteristics that define religious life are poverty, chastity, and OBEDIENCE TO LAWFUL SUPERIORS. You are only a religious if you make vows swearing to those three things. So yeah, even a 21st century American nun engages or has engaged in this practice of swearing obedience, whether they follow that vow or not. It's a bit silly and unhelpful to characterize it as medieval or feudal.
Swearing an oath of loyalty to the Nicene Creed/things in Lumen Gentium is nothing more than reaffirming your Baptismal commitment."
-------------------------------------------
It is quite obvious from what you wrote, that you have never attended a Profession of Vows for a Religious man/woman in your life! You make it sound like the religious stands with one hand on the bible and the other raised in the air---like a public official being sworn it.
There is absolutely no mention of swearing obedience to LAWFUL AUTHORITY (lawful authority would also include civil authority---and this is not part of the Profession of Vows). It hasn't been part of the vows of any member of the hierarchy, clergy or religious since the Middle Ages. In fact, the word "Swear" is never used in a Profession of Vows.
The Profession of Vows are made to God---not to the Church.
"I, (religious names herself) "vow to Almighty God, poverty, chastity, and obedience."
The Religious (woman) then "chooses" 'Jesus as her Spouse and Lord'. The Blessed Virgin Mary is often mentioned in Congregations that are considered "Marian". "I choose the Blessed Virgin Mary as my Mother, and Example,"
The religious then mentions the saint whose Rule of Life the Order/Congregation follows....Benedict (Saint---not the Pope)or Dominic or Francis, or Vincint, etc). And this is usually prefaced with the words "I choose our Holy Father.... (not Pope---Dominic, or Francis, or Benedict or, Vincent etc.,)...as my model of consecrated life."
"I choose this order/congregation as my family." For the Religious---the Order, Congregation, becomes their family (although religious never forget their natural families).
"And I place my vows into the hands of(Mother [n]/Sister [n])Superior General/President/Minister General of this order/congregation."
A vow is a part of a religious woman's(and religious man's)covenant with God, and God's covenant with the religious. It is much deeper than a contract or the elements of a 'Swearing In Ceremony' (like the President's or the Governor's).
Johnny, I would suggest that you sit in for a few Professions of Vows of Religious before you come out stating what you THINK occurs at these professions.
They are still "Slaves of
They are still "Slaves of Christ" and owe Him a subject's obedience. Oaths of loyalty are not a "mediaeval practice", they are timeless.
"They are 'Slaves of
"They are 'Slaves of Christ'..."
O, really?
There's a gospel passage where Jesus tells his listeners that his burden is light, unlike the burdens put on the people by the religious authorities of his day.
Seriously, have you examined your underlying assumptions that suggest the intrusion of narcissism and/or sado-masochism into your religious beliefs?
Do you mean that Catholic
Do you mean that Catholic nuns must stand up for something by taking an oath? How medival. It isn't a vassal that takes an oath to support what is true and good, it is a leader.
Why does this Creed, which
Why does this Creed, which officially is called the Nicene-Constantine Creed, drop any belief in the Communion of Saints?
They're the best friends to have, living or gone on, in this People of God!
"Medieval/feudal practice??
"Medieval/feudal practice?? Consecrated religious are sworn to obedience. If that is a problem for them, they ought not to have gone into consecrated life, and perhaps they need to leave it.
When I began teaching at a Catholic school, I took the Oath of Fidelity. I was happy and proud to do so.
Jesus tells us to let us just
Jesus tells us to let us just say yes or no and leave it at that, that we are very proud to predict how tomorrow will be, and that we cannot swear by anything, not even a hair on our head, for we are powerless, and oaths are offensive and arrogant.
Our Lord was simply referring
Our Lord was simply referring to "say what you mean and mean what you say"
very probably the result of having to deal with well educated, but very blind,
obfuscators and phlegmatics who tried to argue points contrary to truth. To try to justify a Nun not taking a loyalty oath to His official representative on this earth , is but one more example of the frustration that he faced.
The explicit teaching and
The explicit teaching and preaching of Jesus Christ commands us to take no oath, yet you see the opposite?
Good luck with all of that, dude . . .
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco)
They already made one... it
They already made one... it was their vow of obedience which many of them seem to have conveniently forgotten. It is about their fidelity to Christ, His Gospel and the Church that He founded. God is not a democracy, and neither is His Church. They made their vows TO GOD.
Regards maryclare :-)
I gather then you have
I gather then you have equally strong objections to oaths of allegiance in the military forces or the swearing in ceremonies and oaths sworn by Supreme Court Justices or marriage vows?
Because it tilts the entire
Because it tilts the entire process in total favor of the Vatican. Pay close attention to how the Oath is being used here....and the potential (maybe a guaranty?)to be a predetermined outcome. The entire process of this visitation/inquisition is so poorly done, it cannot help but breed devisivness and conflict. You keep casting this in terms of loyalty/disloyalty, which is exactly one of the underlying problems with it. I suggest you stop using such either/or thinking and examine with some objectivity, if you are able, the total picture here. If we are serious about looking for the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we need to look further, because it doesn't seem to be happening so far.
"I suggest you stop using
"I suggest you stop using such either/or thinking..."
But *that* is precisely the problem: Psycholgist Wayne Dyer wrote a number of years ago that authoritarian personalities *do* use dichotomous thinking: good/bad/, right/wrong, either/or, etc. and *do* gravitate toward persons in positions of power and authority.
This kind of either/or thinking strikes me as quite dysfunctional.
These people look to "the Magisterium" for all their answers and refuse to accept that not all teaching is infallible. Indeed, their preference/approach in such matters flies in the face of canons 749.3 and 750.1 that acknowledge the role of the laity in protecting the integrity of official church doctrine.
Dr. Dyer's book is THE SKY'S THE LIMIT, which has two very informative chapters on the "authoritarian personality."
Strongly recommend.
Joseph there is a vast
Joseph there is a vast difference between a person being in a position of authority and the concept of an authoritarian personality.
A person can be in authority but not have an authoritarian personality and can carry out their role as leader with wisdom and humility. I believe Pope John 23rd was one such person.
The authority of the Magisterium is not the same thing as the authority of one person or persons but the authority granted by Christ who promised His Church would be protected from teaching falsehood.
We have had immoral, amoral popes in the past, we have has wolves in sheep's clothing in our midst as Jesus warned we would but we know that Christ's Truth will never be changed not because of our fidelity or brilliance but because Jesus does not break His promises.
This whole maelstrom reminds me of the storm that came out of nowhere on the sea of Gallilee leaving the apostles terrified.If we keep our eyes on Christ and pray fervently for one another the peace that Jesus brings to every heart will prevail.
I agree that we should not
I agree that we should not confuse an authority figure with the authoritarian personality. They are not per se the same.
Where we might or might not disagree (although you didn't mention his name) is our "take" on JPII. I think this pope --- unlike Good Pope John --- did exhibit authoritarian behaviors and did not discourage authoritarian thinking on the part of his "flock," at least those who gravitated toward his position of power and cult of personality. He did not take well to challenges to his views on various matters. Through his CDF, he nearly destroyed --- and perhaps in other cases did destroy --- the lives and reputations of theologians who offered new insights into God and man's relationship with God. For JPII, it was his way or the highway for those in formal service to the institutional church.
In his book, psychologist Wayne Dyer notes that the authoritarian personality is nothing without those who take all his orders and never question his "thinking." They favor blind submission to authority as well as concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people. Indeed, they gravitate toward power figures. Critical thinking is inimical to authoritarianism. As Dyer noted, "It takes two to tango, and it takes many links to make an authoritarian chain." We've certainly seen this phenomenon in the Church of Rome --- not just in medieval but in recent times as well.
JPII and B16's behaviors notwithstanding, we at least have the recognition in the 1983 Code of Canon Law of the valuable role of the faithful in protecting the church from doctrinal --- including dogmatic --- error under the ongoing guidance of the Holy Spirit. Specifically, I am referring to pertinent provisions of canons 212, 749, and 750. The church may not be a democracy (as some self-styled "traditionalists" like to remind us), but it certainly recognizes the reality and legitimacy of the "sense of the faithful" as a bona fide check on unorthodox teaching.
And you know what this oath
And you know what this oath is how? Since what you state is something we say at least on Sundays, and on other feast days during the week, why is it necessary to repeat it.
How do I know what this oath
How do I know what this oath is? Easy--it is available. I have taken it several times as that is what is required before ordination and installation of any church office.
Anonymous on Jan. 26, 2010.
Anonymous on Jan. 26, 2010.
You stated:
"How do I know what this oath is? Easy--it is available. I have taken it several times as that is what is required before ordination and installation of any church office."
--------------------------
If you are ordained---you are clergy---that is part of your ordination. The Sisters ARE NOT members of CLERGY! And profession of vows in not about an installation into a church office.
Why are these "sisters" so
Why are these "sisters" so afraid to answer questions from the Vatican? Are these sisters not a part of the Roman Catholic Church, and subject to obedience, a little bit of transparency? Where is their obedience, their humility? Why would answering questions even be an issue? Is it not the responsibility of the Vatican to inquire how these orders are run, what is being taught and practiced by these orders of sisters, and all Holy Orders? If the IRS inquired anything of a US citizen, we would have to comply. That's the law. Are there not laws, and vows, governing who represents the Roman Catholic Church, and shouldn't the Vatican inquire what these "representatives" are promoting? Yes. It is called "due diligence." It is the responsibility of the Vatican to know as much as it is able about all Holy Orders representing it. The Vatican must be proactive, not just reactive! Remember the pedofile scandals involving a small minority (1%) of "priests?" Remember how the media blasted the Church for "covering it up," not investigating? The Vatican must be proactive, not only reactive, after the facts! The leaders of the Holy Orders who do not want to respond to the Vatican show no humility, only pride. Isn't pride what brought down 1/3 of the angels? Pray about it!
SusanH on Jan. 24, 2010. You
SusanH on Jan. 24, 2010.
You stated:
"Why are these "sisters" so afraid to answer questions from the Vatican? Are these sisters not a part of the Roman Catholic Church, and subject to obedience, a little bit of transparency? Where is their obedience, their humility? Why would answering questions even be an issue? Is it not the responsibility of the Vatican to inquire how these orders are run, what is being taught and practiced by these orders of sisters, and all Holy Orders? If the IRS inquired anything of a US citizen, we would have to comply. That's the law. Are there not laws, and vows, governing who represents the Roman Catholic Church, and shouldn't the Vatican inquire what these "representatives" are promoting? Yes. It is called "due diligence." It is the responsibility of the Vatican to know as much as it is able about all Holy Orders representing it. The Vatican must be proactive, not just reactive! Remember the pedofile scandals involving a small minority (1%) of "priests?" Remember how the media blasted the Church for "covering it up," not investigating? The Vatican must be proactive, not only reactive, after the facts! The leaders of the Holy Orders who do not want to respond to the Vatican show no humility, only pride. Isn't pride what brought down 1/3 of the angels? Pray about it!"
--------------------------------------------------
SusanH, let me ask you---does the Vatican have the right to tell you where you should live? Where to educate your children? What clothes to wear?
Well, the Sisters are laity, just as you are. Only they are categorized as "Consecrated" and yes, they do take Vows. But by no means are religious congregations local "field offices" for the Vatican. They are NOT, NOT, NOT clergy. They do not take vows of obedience to the Vatican, or to the local Bishop. Their vows are made to their Superior Generals/President/Minister General (whatever term is used to designate the highest authority in the order/congregation. And that highest authority, is elected by all the professed religious (those in temporary vows as well as finally professed members).
The Vatican did not call the religious communities into being. It does not financially support the members (actually the religious send money to support the Vatican), and no bishop has called the religious orders into being either.
When you refer to "Holy Orders" to what are you referring? Holy Orders is the name of a sacrament of the Church currently for males only, who are ordained to the priesthood. This has nothing to do with Women Religious.
Susan H is correct. True they
Susan H is correct. True they are not clergy but they are "religious" and they represent the Church to a greater extent than the average lay person. They also enjoy the benefits that come with being relgious. If they don't comply, boot them out and let them fend for themselves. Not all religous orders send money to the Vatican and some bishops have called religious orders into being. You must study the constitutions of each order before making blanket statements. P.S. I thought you had founded your own church by now.
Susan, to what benefits do
Susan, to what benefits do you refer????? Let's see if I can think of these "great" benefits or perks you think come from being a religious:
They have to provide for their own elderly sisters;
They provide their own health insurance;
Some have even had convents sold out fopm under them when the parish priest (more likely the Bishop) decided that they no longer wanted the responsibility of parish schools;
The congregations are responsible for the maintenance and support of all transportation vehicles;
The religious congregations foot the education bills for their members;
Did I miss any "benefit" that you were thinking of specifically??
Before you open your mouth in criticism of women religious, please do a little research. You will find that since the time of their founding, religious have been the "slave labor" of the institutional church. Their salaries were turned back into schools and hospitals so they could educate and take care of those who were less fortunate. The institutional church, to my knowledge, never came to ask the congregations of women how they were managing to take care of their elderly or sick, especially in the light of the fact that the salaries were so low. Why the interest now??? Could it be the bishops and priest are trying to divert attention from themselves and their sexual abuse scandal??? Focus, people FOCUS! Let the MALE church clean up its act before it tries to clean up, what they perceives, as a problem for women religious.
Amen to every comment in
Amen to every comment in "anonymous's reply to Susan". It is appalling how some choose to comment based on misinformation/things they have "heard". Most comments in this blog are indeed "bearing false witness" by perpetrating misinformation. Also, the misuse of the word "nun" vs. "sister" is further evidence of ignorance.
I was raised from Kindergarten through grade 12 by a host of SISTERS from a variety of orders. Today a close relative is closely examining life in an order. Without those Sisters my faith life would be hollow and bland. THEY taught me how to live and move and have my being in the LORD. I have been going to Sunday Mass since birth. Only one priest has stood out for teaching me anything from the pulpit about living my faith. No parish priest ever came to my classrooms to visit, let alone show me by loving words and actions, how to live in the Light of Christ. But I can tell you that every single Sister did, maybe some better than others, and every single Sister who touched my life brought me a miracle by loving me, pushing me, calling me to be better today than I was yesterday, teaching me all manner of prayers, and showing me by her example how beautiful it is to live that way, and how to truly serve in the spirit of Christ. It seems incredibly inquisitorial that today the "good-hearted" people who are going to observe communities have to take a pledge of allegiance which is both redundant (public profession of faith) and coercive "oath of fidelty to the apostolic see": "Prior to conducting the on-site visits, all potential visitors will participate," she reiterated, "in an orientation workshop during which they will pronounce a public profession of faith and an oath of fidelity to the apostolic see. This profession carries with it a special grace which will strengthen the visitors in their delicate and important task."
Anon Jan 30 "But I can tell
Anon Jan 30
"But I can tell you that every single Sister did, maybe some better than others, and every single Sister who touched my life brought me a miracle by loving me, pushing me, calling me to be better today than I was yesterday, teaching me all manner of prayers, and showing me by her example how beautiful it is to live that way, and how to truly serve in the spirit of Christ."
____________
Beautifully stated anon. Your experience of the good Sisters are the same as my own. I will never forget them and we must all defend them. They truly strive to bring us the salvatiion and hope of love and life in abudance in this world and in the next.
Milbo 1: "They represent the
Milbo 1: "They represent the Church TO A GREATER EXTENT than the average lay person?"
Whatttttt????? Who told you????? - lay person
Milbo 1 on Jan. 25, 2010. You
Milbo 1 on Jan. 25, 2010.
You stated:
"Susan H is correct. True they are not clergy but they are "religious" and they represent the Church to a greater extent than the average lay person. They also enjoy the benefits that come with being relgious. If they don't comply, boot them out and let them fend for themselves. Not all religous orders send money to the Vatican and some bishops have called religious orders into being. You must study the constitutions of each order before making blanket statements. P.S. I thought you had founded your own church by now."
----------------------------------------
"Religious are not clergy, but they are religious and represent the Church to a greater extent than the average lay person and they enjoy the benefits that come with being a religious." Really?
Until you can examine the financial books of all Religious Orders/Congregations to see how their expenses are used---you cannot make that statement that all Religious do not send money to the Vatican. Ever hear of Peter's Pence? All religious communities give to the Vatican, Milbo 1. And I have much more access to religious constitutions than you do---and in case you don't know it, religious write journals for other religious in which constitutions, religious life, spirituality are discussed and shared with other religious. Religious write spiritual books, give conferences and retreats for other religious. And unlike many clergy---religious women SHARE, DISCUSS their spiritual lives with each other.
You can make all the comments that you want---but you are a married layman---and an outsider to religious life. Your observations of women religious are prejudiced. You have some concept in your mind as to what the "ideal relgious" is supposed to be. And anyone who doesn't fit---well as you stated the Church should "boot them out".
Do you believe that this is how Christ would deal with these women? You haven't walked even one day in their shoes.
You don't know their experiences. You don't know their backgrounds. You don't know what they have faced in their ministries. And you don't know the abuse many of them suffered in their ministries. Religious women are not in religious communities to live up to your expectations, Milbo 1---they are there to live up to Jesus' expectations---in this time in history---not a time of long ago, or even 20 years ago---TODAY's world.
And you, sadly, are like a broken record---you get one idea in your mind and your brain just sticks in that one spot and the idea is played over, and over, and over.
LittleBear, you don't know
LittleBear, you don't know what I know. Stop your haughtiness. Yes, I am a married layman, but I am in a position to know many things about the Church--more than the most laymen and I would say most priests and religious. I have represented major dioceses as legal counsel. I was right. You are a religious. If not, then you don't know about religious communities. My dear, for your information, the Missionaries of Charity do not give to the Vatican. Get your facts straight and be kind--it is what Jesus requires of us.
Milly, do you represent those
Milly, do you represent those major dioceses when they are sued for the abuse scandals by their obedient clergy or when they are sued by the US Labor Dept. for discriminatory hiring and firing practices, or for refusing to provide workers comprehensive health care and just wages?
just wondering, just asking, ok?
I mean you're the one who is "in a position to know many things about the Church--more than the most laymen and I would say most priests and religious!"
Do you know God is Love?
Love thy enemy!
DO lawyers love?
Hey,
just asking!
Milbo1 I am not a nun however
Milbo1 I am not a nun however it is plain to see that what ever you know it is deeply unobjective. Your posts are always haughty biased towards a theology that tries to hide deeply ingrained prejudice against women by using Jesus as its cover. Jesus would have nothing to do with an organization that practices ecclesiastical apartheid, and protects its power by being hateful towards women-religious.
Milbo 1 (not verified) on
Milbo 1 (not verified) on Jan. 27, 2010.
You stated:
"LittleBear, you don't know what I know. Stop your haughtiness. Yes, I am a married layman, but I am in a position to know many things about the Church--more than the most laymen and I would say most priests and religious. I have represented major dioceses as legal counsel. I was right. You are a religious. If not, then you don't know about religious communities. My dear, for your information, the Missionaries of Charity do not give to the Vatican. Get your facts straight and be kind--it is what Jesus requires of us."
------------------------------------
You represent Dioceses in a legal capacity. By no stretch of the imagination, does that make you an expert on religous life---anymore than I can claim to be an expert in civil ligation.
In your white/dark (dualistic thinking)I could list for you all the congregations/orders that do support the Vatican (financially or in services rendered), but because I missed the Missionaries of Charity---that makes what I say false?
If anyone is being haughty here, it is you. But you are too blind to see.
I would love to have you in a
I would love to have you in a debate or on a witness stand. Gradually, you admit the errors of your statements. No one doubted that some orders may send some money to the Vatican. The Missionaries of Charity is only one order that does not send any contributions. You need to think befoe you write.
Milbo 1 writes on Feb 1 "I
Milbo 1 writes on Feb 1
"I would love to have you in a debate or on a witness stand."
...............
LB would beat Milbo 1 in a debate hands down. Unless of course Milbo 1 did a secret backroom deal with the judges and/or lawyers on the opposing team to throw the debate/trial.
Additionally, since lawsuits against the church are causing quite a drain on chancery finances across the country perhaps lawyers could be on witness stands and/or investigated.
Milbo 1 on Feb. 01, 2010. You
Milbo 1 on Feb. 01, 2010.
You stated:
"I would love to have you in a debate or on a witness stand. Gradually, you admit the errors of your statements. No one doubted that some orders may send some money to the Vatican. The Missionaries of Charity is only one order that does not send any contributions. You need to think befoe you write."
----------------------------------
In an earlier period of my life, I trained debaters. Some of my former students are now attorneys and justices.
I state once again, the you are a dualistic thinker. In your mind, if one little part of a statement is not perfectly accurate (as you see it)---than everything is incorrect.
Perhaps, you should check on all the congregations that DO send contributions to the Vatican.
And again, you are not in the position to criticize religious orders/congregations. You have not been part of their initial formation (novitiate), nor were/are you present on monthly reflections days, on retreat days, and during chapters. You do not know their charisms, nor the wishes of their founders/foundresses. Your attitude belongs back in the days of high-button shoes and horse-drawn buggies.
Oh, FYI, I've been on the witnesses stand a number of times already in my life. Usually for the plaintiff---sometimes for the defense.
I'm a lay married man and I
I'm a lay married man and I don't belong to Milbo's medieval kingdom.
Milbo, Religious are
Milbo,
Religious are considered 'laity' and no one has a 'greater extent' of responsibility to "represent the Church" ...by virtue of our Baptism, ALL OF US are called to HOLINESS. The benefits of being (belonging to a) religious (group) is no greater than those of the average lay person you speak about.
"Diocesan" religious orders - though not many exist - are the only groups that respond to their bishop - or who take a vow of obedience to the local bishop, just as diocesan priests and deacons do. As a member of a religious community, my vow of obedience I took is obedience to the Gospel.
And, yes, every religious order DOES send money to the Vatican - some more than others.
Secondly (to others in this commentary area), regarding the "compliance" asked by Mother Milia, our constitutions answer every single question in the investigation. As every religious order, these are submitted to the Vatican, so any question they have is already answered. If they but took the time to read our constitutions, they would know what our apostolic ministries entail - which is living the gospel! Therefore, if any religious congregation opted to submit their copy of the constitutions, I applaud them. I wish our congregation had been as wise. In responding to the questions (yes, we have nothing to hide), we should have just pulled out our constitutions to save us time.
If any unwarranted
If any unwarranted investigation takes precious time away from one's duties one should log every minute and hour spent and send a bill, certified and regular, to the investigator with cc's to the head office.
Little Bear, Nunns
Little Bear, Nunns disenting from a taking a loyalty oath are a prime example of why everyday Catholics are balking at general Diocesan giving and instead starting to press for more accountability in their the way their donations are spent. The average rank and file Catholic may not still perceive Nuns as wearing Habits ensconced in schools or Churches all day, but they certainly do still expect them to be faithful to God and to his representative Church on earth, which includes to Holy Father. Assessing the blogs above, one genuinely gets the impression that the Vatican waited far to long before its intervention. To question taking an oath
Of loyalty would shock and even scandalize most Catholics who assume that if you devote your life to Jesus it would be an honor rather than a burden to do so. The hard cold facts are that most orders are existing on the fruits of labor from both men and women 50 or more years ago. I wonder how many of those people would have scrimped
Saved , labored, and donated to such orders if they were told that one day their Nuns had problems with taking an oath or even instruction from the Holy Father?
Joseph on Jan. 28, 2010. You
Joseph on Jan. 28, 2010.
You stated:
"Little Bear, Nunns disenting from a taking a loyalty oath are a prime example of why everyday Catholics are balking at general Diocesan giving and instead starting to press for more accountability in their the way their donations are spent. The average rank and file Catholic may not still perceive Nuns as wearing Habits ensconced in schools or Churches all day, but they certainly do still expect them to be faithful to God and to his representative Church on earth, which includes to Holy Father. Assessing the blogs above, one genuinely gets the impression that the Vatican waited far to long before its intervention. To question taking an oath
Of loyalty would shock and even scandalize most Catholics who assume that if you devote your life to Jesus it would be an honor rather than a burden to do so. The hard cold facts are that most orders are existing on the fruits of labor from both men and women 50 or more years ago. I wonder how many of those people would have scrimped
Saved , labored, and donated to such orders if they were told that one day their Nuns had problems with taking an oath or even instruction from the Holy Father?"
------------------------------------------
Baloney, Joseph! People don't want to give money to Diocesan fund-raising because they believe that their Diocesan monies are going to pay off the Diocesan expenses arising from sexual abuses coming from the priests. Dioceses going Bankrupt aren't going because the Sisters are refusing to obey this ridiculous investigation. It is because the Dioceses don't have the money to pay the victims just compensation.
Dear Susan H.: For one thing,
Dear Susan H.:
For one thing, you must study your terms, such as obedience,vows,Orders,etc.
Know what you are talking about! Sisters do not owe obedience to any human person. We take our VOWS TO GOD, in the presence of our superiors. We are vowed to Jesus Christ. We are not vowed in obedience to the Church!This is a mistaken notion some Catholics have. The priests, on the other hand, owe their obedince to their bishop and on up to the rest of the hierarchy!
As has been eloquently said by scholars on the religious life; we are LEADING A PROPHETIC LIFE AND WORKING WITH and NOT FOR the Church! It frees us up to truly follow the promptings of the Holy Spirit without interference by politics in the Church and the eternal competition of male vs female and POWER!
Pray for your own intellectual enlightenment to get the terms straight!
"Raindrop" seems to think
"Raindrop" seems to think that her religious congregation is a separate church, as if her religious congregation could have started without the official approbation of the Catholic Church through her official representatives. Is her religious congregation of diocesan rank or pontifical? If pontifical, then the Holy See always has powers of oversight. If diocesan, then the bishop has powers of visitation. Which church does she think she is a member of? Perhaps not the Catholic Church, which is fine if only these people are honest enough to declare it and leave the Church. They want to have their cake and eat it too. Many of these congregations are dying, but they cling to their myopic view that they are larger than the Church. They are in effective schism from the Church and should be honest enough to admit it so. Their attitudes to the Church are in marked contrast to the attitudes of those great women saints who founded religious communities, people like Teresa de Avila, etc. Shame, shame, shame!!!
Anonymous on Jan. 25,
Anonymous on Jan. 25, 2010.
You stated:
'"Raindrop" seems to think that her religious congregation is a separate church, as if her religious congregation could have started without the official approbation of the Catholic Church through her official representatives. Is her religious congregation of diocesan rank or pontifical? If pontifical, then the Holy See always has powers of oversight. If diocesan, then the bishop has powers of visitation. Which church does she think she is a member of? Perhaps not the Catholic Church, which is fine if only these people are honest enough to declare it and leave the Church. They want to have their cake and eat it too. Many of these congregations are dying, but they cling to their myopic view that they are larger than the Church. They are in effective schism from the Church and should be honest enough to admit it so. Their attitudes to the Church are in marked contrast to the attitudes of those great women saints who founded religious communities, people like Teresa de Avila, etc. Shame, shame, shame!!!'
-----------------------
Oh, my, my, my! And you believe that the Catholic Church is larger than God (who 'births' each and evey religious order/congregation into being)? In your mind, the Magisterium owns a box, called the Deposit of Faith--(and somewhere in it God is tucked away nicely, and the Magisterium has this box on its lap.
It is God who called each founder of religious to give new life to the Church. When the Roman Empire was in a state of colapse---with the 'barbarians' rushing in, the official Church had more than its hands full. God called Benedict and his twin sister, Scholastica---to found a religious order---and that order more than did its share to SAVE Western Spirituality and Civilization. The Church did not call Benedict, first, God did----the Church needed the Benedictines.
Or what about Dominic or Francis of Assisi? God appeared to Francis and told him "Go, rebuild my Church!" God did not appear to Pope Innocent III---but to a little layman---Francis---to repair the Church. The spiritual sons of Dominic and Francis became the great teachers and thinkers of their time---Albert the Great, Bonaventure, Thomas Aquinas, Anthony of Padua, and others who built the great universities of Europe----God called them----the Church needed them!
Every time the Church was on the verge of collapse, God called forth men and women as religious founders and re-founders. The Church often persecuted them. Catherine of Sienna (imagine her arrogance---telling the Popes to leave comfortable France and go back to Rome), Clair of Assisi (she insisted on writing her own rule of life---and not have the Vatican do it. What a disobedient woman she was!), How about Joan of Arc? What was that woman thinking of---saying that Voices were telling her to put on a man's clothing and fight for France? She was both excommunicated and burnt at the stake. What about St. Julie Billard and Mary McKillop (to be canonized)---both were considered "disobedient and Mary was excommunicated). Shame, shame, shame.
Jesus would say to you, Anonymous, 'Shame, "you hypocrite! First take the plank out of your own eye. Then you will be able to see the speck of dusout of the eye (of Raindrop).
Religious orders were called into being by GOD, because the CHURCH needed them. Not the other way around.
Today, we live in different times, with different needs. Many ex-religious and laity, too, are learning to do what the official Church has not been able to do for centuries and centuries---and that is 'harmonize---work with other churches, other faiths to achieve the unity that Jesus prayed for at the Last Supper. That unity will not come about with a stance of judgmentalism and fundamentalism that you seem to espouse. It hasn't brought about anything but division and rancor over all of these centuries.
Little Bear, Your posts are
Little Bear, Your posts are a prime example of why everyday Catholics are balking at general Diocesan giving and instead starting to press for more accountability in their the way their donations are spent. The average rank and file Catholic may not still perceive Nuns as wearing Habits ensconced in schools or Churches all day, but they certainly do still expect them to be faithful to God and to his representative Church on earth, which includes to Holy Father. Assessing the blogs above, one genuinely gets the impression that the Vatican waited far to long before its intervention. To question taking an oath
Of loyalty would shock and even scandalize most Catholics who assume that if you devote your life to Jesus it would be an honor rather than a burden to do so. The hard cold facts are that most orders are existing on the fruits of labor from both men and women 50 or more years ago. I wonder how many of those people would have scrimped
Saved , labored, and donated to such orders if they were told that one day their Nuns had problems with taking an oath or even instruction from the Holy Father?
Joseph on Jan. 27, 2010.
Joseph on Jan. 27, 2010.
You stated:
"Little Bear, Your posts are a prime example of why everyday Catholics are balking at general Diocesan giving and instead starting to press for more accountability in their the way their donations are spent. The average rank and file Catholic may not still perceive Nuns as wearing Habits ensconced in schools or Churches all day, but they certainly do still expect them to be faithful to God and to his representative Church on earth, which includes to Holy Father. Assessing the blogs above, one genuinely gets the impression that the Vatican waited far to long before its intervention. To question taking an oath
Of loyalty would shock and even scandalize most Catholics who assume that if you devote your life to Jesus it would be an honor rather than a burden to do so. The hard cold facts are that most orders are existing on the fruits of labor from both men and women 50 or more years ago. I wonder how many of those people would have scrimped
Saved , labored, and donated to such orders if they were told that one day their Nuns had problems with taking an oath or even instruction from the Holy Father?"
--------------------------------------------
Joseph, you are just speaking for yourself! Admit it! Everyday Catholics, today, have much larger problems to worry about, such as (no jobs, loss of homes, can't pay bills, etc.). And there are enough Catholics who don't particularly care for the way that their bishops handled the sexual abuse
issue (and are still handling it). When faced with the blatant criminality
of the actions of many of the hierarchy or in looking at the Sisters who refuse to put up with the power-posturing of the Vatican----the majority of Catholics stand by the Sisters.
Again, as a poster carefully stated it above----the people who are taking oaths---are those who are CONDUCTING this investigation---not every single Sister in America---they aren't being asked to do so.
Secondly, if you can get your biased, angry mind focused for awhile----you could find out that the Sisters also scrimped and scraped as well. And they are still doing it. They are working among the Hispanics, among the poor of the Appalachian region, among the poor of the inner city, in prisons, etc.
Different times require different approaches. We are not living in the world of your youth----and the Sisters aren't the cutsey, naive people that often appear in Catholic lore and jokes. They took seriously the mandate of Vatican II, to up-date themselves, to go back to their roots (desires of their founders/founderesses), to reach out to the needs of today's people---especially the poor----this they have done.
Dear Raindrop, Your e-mail to
Dear Raindrop, Your e-mail to Susan H. HOGWASH!!!!!
The nuns take their oaths to
The nuns take their oaths to their orders'constitutions approved by the Vatican. Why is the investigation going on--a few conservative nuns objected to the way some orders were carrying out their missions. These nuns werer longing for Pre-VCII days--the world has changed--we are governed by VC II--why go back? Maybe because they do not want to think for themselves--it is easier to be told what to do, when to do it and how to do it! Why are not the priests being examined the saem way? Could it be they want to control the sisters and take their money to help pay for the sex scandals!!!
Yes, I am sure you are so
Yes, I am sure you are so fully loyal in every way and never, never do you disobey the Pope or his minions. You are a JOKE. How dare you tell anyone about obedience. I can't believe you actually think you are an innocent! God help you and those like you who actually think you will get to heaven by just obeying the Pope! You are one of those "tragic" Catholics who prevent the Church from growing by clinging to such medieval nonsense. May God forgive you.
Most of these responses are
Most of these responses are full of distain for the authority of the Church, angry at men, no humility and against authority. These "religious" cannot be a light for anyone until they see the "Light". They seem to not want to let go of their power. This is so unlike Christ. They need a boot camp and if that is not effective, booted out!