The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionWomen religious not complying with Vatican study
"There's been almost universal resistance. We are saying 'enough!' "
Nov. 24, 2009
© Elenaray | Dreamstime.com
The vast majority of U.S. women religious are not complying with a Vatican request to answer questions in a document of inquiry that is part of a three-year study of the congregations. Leaders of congregations, instead, are leaving questions unanswered or sending in letters or copies of their communities' constitutions.
"There's been almost universal resistance," said one women religious familiar with the responses compiled by the congregation leaders. "We are saying 'enough!' In my 40 years in religious life I have never seen such unanimity."
The deadline for the questionnaires to be filled out and returned to the Vatican-appointed apostolic visitator, superior general of the Apostles of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, Mother Mary Clare Millea, was Nov. 20. On that day, according to an informed source, congregation leaders across the nation sent Millea letters and, in many cases, only partial answers to the questionnaire. Many women, instead of filling out the forms, replied by sending in copies of their Vatican -approved orders' religious constitutions. A religious order's constitution states its rationale, purpose and mission.
The Vatican initiated the study in January, saying its purpose is to determine the quality of life in religious communities, given the decline in vocations in recent decades. From the outset, the women have complained they were never consulted before Vatican officials announced the investigation and there is no transparency in the process. Some have called the effort demeaning and intrusive.
The decisions by congregation leaders not to comply follow nearly two months of intensive discussions both inside and across religious congregations. They follow 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.
With about half of the responses from the nation's 59,000 women religious accounted for, only about one percent answered, as directed, most or all of the questions contained in the study's working paper, officially called an Instrumentum Laboris, according to one informed source.
By contrast, according to the source, congregations representing, by far, the greater majority of women religious decided not to comply and answered only a few, or none, of the questions. Many of the 340 U.S. apostolic congregation heads instead sent letters to Millea stating that what they were sending was what the Vatican was looking for.
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.
"Cover letters [to Millea] have been respectful and kind," one woman, familiar with the responses, told NCR. "Many of the letters have essentially said that what we have to say about ourselves has already been said in our religious constitutions."
The Vatican questionnaire is divided into three parts. Part A attempts to collect quantifiable information about such things as membership, numbers, living arrangements, health, and retirement conditions. Part B and Part C (bottom of Part B) aim to gather detailed information about community governance practices, vocation efforts, spiritual and liturgical practices, ministry and finances.
Earlier in the month, apparently after many complaints from women religious, the Vatican withdrew several questions from Part C, involving the individual ages of the women, assets belonging to the congregations, and recent financial statements.
NCR contacted more than a dozen women religious familiar with the responses. Almost no one would allow her name to be used, citing fear of reprisal against their congregations and the desire to have the apostolic visitator receive their letters before word of the actions became public.
While declining to be identified, one woman said: "What I can say quite clearly is that every leader that I know is trying to answer the survey with integrity. How that integrity works out in each case is up to the wisdom of each leader and her council."
"This was a grassroots response," said another woman religious. "It was not organized. It came out of a widespread sense that the Vatican action was an unjust affront to women religious."
Explaining the attitude in her community, St. Joseph Sr. Margaret Gregg said, "I feel the response was a thoughtful, respectful response to a very puzzling situation. The purpose of this investigation is unclear to me, given the level of the questions. I have always been proud of our community and the many women who serve God's people. The first sentence of our letter [to Millea] says it all, 'As apostolic women religious, we are faithful to the call of the Gospel and to our respective charisms.' "
The Vatican study is being carried out by the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life. The action was initiated by the congregation's prefect, Cardinal Franc Rodé, who received authority for it from Pope Benedict late last year. It is being conducted under the direction of Millea, a Connecticut native, who heads the Apostles of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, an international religious institute headquartered in Rome.
Phase one of the Vatican study involved interviews Millea had with congregation heads. Millea, a number of women religious leaders have said, has always been professional and cordial in carrying out her work as apostolic visitator. Phase two of the study involves the answering of the questionnaires. Phase three of the study calls for individual on site visits by teams of religious, appointed by Millea, to yet to be announced congregations. These are set to begin next spring.
Phase four calls for Millea to comb the information and make recommendations to the Vatican for further action.
The Vatican has placed the cost of the study at $1.1 million and has asked U.S. bishops to help raise the money.
Several women religious said that, in discerning their responses to the questionnaire which they felt were intrusive, there emerged a new sense of identity and resolve. One said that for years women religious have focused on the needs of others. This time they had to focus on themselves.
She said women religious have been virtually unanimous in spirit that they have been living out their missions, as directed by the gospels and by the Second Vatican Council, which called upon religious communities to go out in the world to work among the poor and to build more just and peaceful structures.
She explained that in the process church prelates lost the control over women religious congregations they once had. She said many women religious believe the investigation is part of an effort to regain that control.
"Vatican II took us out of the ghettos and into ecology, feminism and justice in the world," she said. "The Vatican still has a difficult time accepting that."
Some of the women interviewed by NCR cite an irony involved in the investigation. One said that it is "unlikely the Vatican wanted us to come out of this being more confident of our identity as self-defining religious agents, but that is exactly what has happened."
Another said: "At first, many women were asking, 'How do we respond? Then we were asking, 'How do we respond faithfully in keeping with our identity?' And soon we were asking, 'What is that identity?' "
Still another said that at first when confronted with the questionnaire, many women religious congregation heads felt isolated. But after discussions within their communities and after regional meetings with other women religious and after consultations with their canon lawyers, they overcame the initial sense of isolation and grew in common resolve.
Several women said canon lawyers told the women they were not required to answer all the questions. Religious, unlike bishops, priests and deacons, who make up the clergy, are not officially part of the church's hierarchical structure. According to this reasoning, women religious are responsible to their congregation leadership and to their constitutions.
NCR contacted several canon lawyers consulted by women religious communities. These canon lawyers declined to be interviewed for this story.
All along, said one woman religious, the challenge has been to respond to the Vatican in a way that breaks a cycle of violence. She said that the women religious communities have attempted to respond by using a language "devoid of the violence" they found in the Vatican questionnaire and within the wider study. She characterized the congregation responses as "creative and affirming," and part of an effort to set a positive example in "nonviolent resistance."
"On the one hand we didn't want to roll over and play dead," she said. "So the question was, "How do you step outside a violent framework and do something new?' That was the challenge that emerged." One congregation, she said, cited a U.S. bishops' statement concerning domestic abuse in its response letter to Millea. "The point is, there have to be more than two choices: Take the abuse and offer it up, or kill the abuser."
Women religious, she said, are asking if there is a "Ghandian or Martin Luther King way" to deal with violence they felt is being done to them.
At issue, according to several women religious, is the role women religious are to play in the world today. As much as any other element in the church, women religious claim Vatican II's documents as a call go out in the world, loved and blessed by God, and to serve within it.
During the pontificates of Pope John Paul II and Benedict the XVI the hierarchy, many church observers say, has pulled back from these directives, seeing the world as a more hostile environment. They view the church as a bastion of light and love within this world and want the women religious to work more directly from within church structures.
For example, Rodé told NCR senior correspondent John Allen last month that he believes that Vatican II, while designed to generate a moderate reform, instead triggered "the greatest crisis in church history."
"In the 16th century, during the Reformation, many religious left the church and many convents were closed, but it was geographically limited, more or less to Northern Europe," he said. "In the French Revolution, there was another catastrophe, but it was limited to France. The crisis after the Second Vatican Council, however, was the first truly global crisis."
"We've paid a very steep price due to a secularized, worldly mentality," he said.
Tom Fox is NCR editor. His e-mail address is tfox@ncronline.org.
An index page of NCR stories about the Vatican investigation of U.S. women religious is here: NCRonline.org/apostolicvisitation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editor’s note: As we prepared this article for posting, we looked for a photo of U.S. women religious to illustrate it. In the Catholic News Service photo files we found an image from an anniversary celebration for the Daughters of Charity, which we ran with the article. Subsequently we heard from a number of Daughters of Charity who insist they do not want to be associated in any way with the women religious who are not complying with the request of the Vatican appointed Apostolic Visitator to fill out a questionnaire as part of the study. We apologize to the Daughters of Charity for any misunderstandings that might have occurred as a result of our choice of the photo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does Rome realize that Jesus
Does Rome realize that Jesus never founded a "church" and that God made the world...and it was good!!
No, he did not but I must
No, he did not but I must first go back to what I have said previously and that is that this "investigation," "inquisition," whatever, of the communities of active women religious in the United States is more smoke and mirrors aimed at deflecting attention from the largest problem that exists in the worldwide institutional Roman Catholic Church.
There has been the release in Ireland of the Ferns Report, the Ryan Report and now the partial release of the Dublin Report is expected on Thursday. In the U.S. the Diocese of Bridgeport, Connecticut still has not released to the public the records, files, depositions etc., that have been ordered by the Supreme Court of the United States. Cardinal Roger Mohony and the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, California has yet to release their files, records and the like and it has been years since that court order was handed down.
The Philadelphia Grand Jury Report on the Archdiocese of Philadelphia was released in 2005 and there has been no real accountability and certainly no transparency in Philly. There are still churchmen in positions of leadership who were enablers of predatory priests' actions and thus complicit in the commission of horrific crimes against children - over years.
The Diocese of Wilmington, Delaware filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on the eve of going to trial on the DeLuca 8, so named for the Rev. Francis DeLuca, a serial predator against whom there are four named plaintiffs and four John Doe plaintiffs. I have met and listened to the stories of lives ruined from both categories. And yet, the Catholic Diocese of Wilmington, Delaware wants to continue paying salaries, health, housing, etc., for all "defrocked" or "removed from ministry" individuals including DeLuca, whose first transfer and every subsequent transfer was because of allegations of sexual abuse.
What ever happened to the Accountability and Transparency that was promised by the bishops in 2002?
No, there is no question in many peoples' minds that those called leaders are blowing more smoke when they have yet to act with justice in regard to the thousands of individuals who were known to have been sexually abused as children by clergy.
Many bishops, most bishops, even choose not to obey Canon Law as it relates to sexual abuse by clerics. If that doesn't send some kind of a signal to the Holy See I don't know what will.
One thing is certain, however, and that is that this problem, this ongoing problem of sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic Church whether in the United States, Canada, Australia, Ireland or wherever - along with the reports submitted to the Vatican between 1994 and 1998 on the sexual exploitation of women religious in Africa by African priests - will not go away.
Individuals and the People of God have been betrayed by the hierarchy. While they have been offered token apologies, the hierarchy has yet to own up to the accountability and transparency that was promised in 2002. In their radical dishonesty they have betrayed the fundamental values that have given life to the Church. Too much damage has been done by a cancer that is systemic and it needs to be rooted out and cut away. A dismantling of the church's governmental structures is in order.
As Fr. Tom Doyle has said elsewhere:
"Catholics have a profound obligation in charity and justice to the countless victims of all forms of abuse. They have an obligation to believers of all kinds everywhere. They must ceaselessly do all that can be done to free the Christian/Catholic community from the toxic control of the clericalized institutional structure so that once more the Church will be identified not with an anachronistic and self-serving monarchy but with the Body of Christ."
It must start from the ground up with the people. Visit the American Catholic Council at --
http://americancatholiccouncil.org/
Sister Maureen Paul Turlish
Victims' Advocate
New Castle, Delaware
maureenpaulturlish@yahoo.com
So....why isn't the Vatican
So....why isn't the Vatican investigating why these US bishops have failed thus far to "to own up to the accountability and transparency that was promised in 2002"? Oh...wait...
Dad told you to answer some
Dad told you to answer some questions about where you were last night. You refuse to reply and and say your brother was smoking pot. What does that have to do with your behavior? Set an example if you're so much more mature and holy!
If you were doing nothing wrong, then stand upright and proclaim that, lay out everything. If you did do wrong, admit it and suggest ways to avoid the near occasion of sin in the future. Stop trying to distract from your own behavior by pointing fingers at others. That may work for a time here, but you will soon stand before your judge and this questionnaire will be answered.
On point!
On point!
Bull! But, hey, I've got an
Bull!
But, hey, I've got an orange bridge to sell you, and it's on the West Coast.
The Lord has credibility.
Your bishops do not.
I like your example, but let
I like your example, but let me make it more realistic:
Dad wants to know what you did last night. What you were doing was keeping the house from burning down when your older brother was smoking a joint, hanging out with friends who were already banned from the house for bad behavior and suspected criminal activity (and several havecareless starting a fire in the bathroom trashcan.
Dad has a history of believing your brother over you, and giving him a slap on the wrist for his actions. Dad also gives him a bigger allowance, while you have to work for your own cash. Oh - but your dad demands a cut of anything you earn.
And despite banning your brother's ne'er-do-well friends from the house, half the time Dad winks and nods and lets the kids in through the back door. Dad's a little inconsistent and moody that way.
What you were doing was talking w/ friends, babysitting some kids in a bad part of town, and spending money on long-term things for your future. Nothing bad, but Dad might object to some of your reading material, and ask where his cut of the babysitting money is. And you know your brother is going to keep getting away with his bad behavior while Dad worries in a really patronizing manner what you were wearing when you went out last night.
So what do you do? You shut down. You answer respectfully but on your terms. And you go about your business as best you can.
There - fixed that for you.
But the problem is giving the
But the problem is giving the title of "Dad" in the first place!
According to this very
According to this very article, the women religious are making a sincere effort to "stand upright and....lay out everything." It is not the sisters who are bringing in the hierarchy's lack of credibility from the abuse revelations. They (the religious communities) are trying to remain polite and respectful in their replies. If the visitants have questions about specific actions and positions among American women in religious communities, they need to be more direct and open about what they think is so wrong.
Catholic women are educated these days. They know how to stand up to innuendo.
Strange, isn't it, how
Strange, isn't it, how prominent and visible your brother's faults become when you yourself are under examination.
If the sisters are so in favor of housecleaning of priests and bishops (male) in the dioceses, why do they object to the housecleaning of their own (female) houses? Is "the enemy" always male?
Women religious have been promoting lesbianism, homosexual culture, general hatred of men, pagan goddess worship, and they have been openly and actively engaged in anti-Christian activities. They have been promoting abortion and birth control politically and privately and actively supporting political candidates who favor abolition of freedom of conscience protection for medical personnel.
In a knee-jerk accusation of "violence", they paint themselves as victims. Women (I cannot call you "sisters"), look in the mirror and see your own "smoke"!
The observations made about
The observations made about "women religious" (when did the word "nun" become unpolitically correct?) pointing the finger at corrupt bishops & priests is well-made. So, "others" in the Church are corrupt. Does that mean that nuns are without sin and in compliance with Vatican? The peculiar "logic" of that escapes me.
Why is filling out a questionnaire so objectionable? Do American nuns feel/believe they answer to no one? Are they their own "gods"? How thoroughly narcissistic.
Should we laymen/women feel similarly? Why should we conform to rules and standards. Why should we listen to what the nuns teach and say?
The word Nun only applies
The word Nun only applies under cannon law to some groups that stay locked in convents for prayer, offically most of the other "women religious" groups are sisters not nuns. In America the term "nun" came to mean both groups.
Many groups of sisters are disappearing do to lack of members, because they no longer have strong faith.
"Many groups of sisters are
"Many groups of sisters are disappearing do to lack of members, because they no longer have strong faith."
You are irresponsible in your charge and way wrong about the faith of these LCWR women-religious. Hordes of secular people catholics and non catholics, not Sisters, are up in arms about the investigation because the Sisters are the only true believers left.
Our Catholic faith is under seige because of the Hierarchy of the RCC enacts policies that have nothing to do with faith and everything to do with big business. What they do not account for is the reaction of the Holy Spirit that conceited Patriarchs think does not exist or that they control. They don't. These arrogant fellows are harvesting their own bad seed. Do not attribute their unfaith to anyone else but them.
There are some big
There are some big differences between nuns and religious sisters, traditionally. Think monastic for nuns, active for sisters and you will be on track with tradition. The current mixing of terms is just the sloppiness of these times.
Racism and sexism are, among
Racism and sexism are, among other forms of bigotry, institutionalized violence. The RC Patriarchy's investigation is tantamount to intimidation, harrasment, and pure sexism. This practice is known as institutional violence.
Why do you hate Christ and
Why do you hate Christ and his church? Did some man do violence to you that has overwhelmed your whole word-view. Your radical feminist viewpoint is lise a disease. Christ speaks of love for all, men and women, rich and poor, those who agree with you and those who do not. This poison that courses through your veins and soul is like a cancer that will eat you alive. I pray for your peace.
Hatred of hate is an aspect
Hatred of hate is an aspect of Love. It is a work of mercy for those, and in this case women, who are innocent victims. Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ said to love and we do but, we do NOT love their hate. We do not admire the history of institutionalized violence executed by a radical masculinst catholic patriarchy. Its record of disdain for women is anything but sacred or holy. There are many women leaders who have much more to give to the church than being properly subservient to men in marriage or being rendered powerless before the church. This aspect church is being universaly debunked as it should be. This is done with great love for Christ and His Church the People of God.
Anonymous on Nov. 30,
Anonymous on Nov. 30, 2009.
You stated:
"Strange, isn't it, how prominent and visible your brother's faults become when you yourself are under examination.
If the sisters are so in favor of housecleaning of priests and bishops (male) in the dioceses, why do they object to the housecleaning of their own (female) houses? Is "the enemy" always male?
Women religious have been promoting lesbianism, homosexual culture, general hatred of men, pagan goddess worship, and they have been openly and actively engaged in anti-Christian activities. They have been promoting abortion and birth control politically and privately and actively supporting political candidates who favor abolition of freedom of conscience protection for medical personnel.
In a knee-jerk accusation of "violence", they paint themselves as victims. Women (I cannot call you "sisters"), look in the mirror and see your own "smoke"!"
-------------------------------------------------
OK, Anonymous---how about citing your sources? Women religious have been:
1)Promoting Lesbianism---Who's doing it and prove that they promote it!
2)Promoting homosexual culture---Who and prove it! Are you forgetting that
Gays/Lesbians are also people for whom Jesus died? Or do you see them as
a sub-human species?
3)General hatred of men---Who's doing it and prove that they are doing it!
4)Pagan goddess worship---Who's doing it and prove it!
5)Anti-Christian activities---Who's doing it and prove that it is anti-
Christian. The only anti-Christian attitude that I've seen in your comment,
is that of your own.
6)How many children have you carried in your womb and given birth to?
I suggest, Sir, that you look into your mirror and see the angry creature looking back at you with hatred in his eyes. You may accuse, but you do not have all the facts. Your accusations are full of holes.
Cite the sources of your evidence!
Why? If it is none of "dad's"
Why? If it is none of "dad's" bunsiness then he shouldn't ask; if the answer is right in front of him and he asks he has undisclosed motivation and has a moral responsibility to disclose; if he has no business asking, I don't have to answer. However, being a dutiful son I would tell dad that the answer, the honest answer is right in front of him.
Sister, I could not agree
Sister, I could not agree with you more. The abuse of children by those who claim to act in persona christi is indeed a cancer, and an egregiously evil one at that. It must be excised. The bishops who are responsible, whether dead or alive, must be named and removed from office. If they are dead, they should be stripped of their status and reputation posthumously. If alive, they should be removed from office. The only way to restore the moral authority of bishops the world over is for them to take responsibility and be held accountable for their cover up. And yes, this investigation of sisters is nothing more than a diversionary tactic on the part of moral cowards. That is also the reason that the bishops who met in Baltimore spent so much time on a pastoral on marriage and family. Their homophobic actions in that letter belie their true intent--diversion.
Maureen, the victims you
Maureen, the victims you claim to advocate for are still waiting for these women to 'fess up! It is about time the stop playing the victim in everything and admit to their roles as victimizers!
Sr. Maureen, I agree with you
Sr. Maureen, I agree with you 150 percent! You're on to something. I presume you have read some of what Hans Kung, Len Swidler and others have written on the roles of bishops, priests, and people in the government of the church.
Keep up the good work.
Amen, Sister Maureen. And
Amen, Sister Maureen. And the latest trick in our diocese is the setting up of some kind of special fund, for the newest $40 million dollar fundraising campaign, that will be immune to any lawsuits, according to the lawyers. Therefore, they can eat their cake and have it, too. The $40 million ought to go for victims' healing, but it's actually going to go toward more brainwashed uber-conservative seminarians and renovating the cathedral.
I agree that we need to break the whole structure down and start all over. With women full and equal throughout the process.
Needless to say, I am not holding my breath or counting my chickens.
Nancy, Your suggestion has
Nancy,
Your suggestion has not worked for the Anglicans, Lutherans Methodists and other Protestant Churches. Been there and done that and they even allow openly gay clergy to become bishops and get married. I am waithing for poligamy to once again get the full backing of all Christian churches around the world.
Like you, I am not holding my breath or counting my chickens.
"Your suggestion has not
"Your suggestion has not worked..."
Yes, it is working --- in the here and now, no less!
The laity are getting wise to the crap emanating from the bowels of the Vatican and local chanceries.
Parishes are closing, merging, etc. because the bishops are not getting the money they once got from a duped laity who weren't aware of all the episcopal coverups, lies, deceit, threats toward abuse victims and their advocates, etc.
The Catholic Church is much more than just the Church of Rome.
The institutional church is crumbling, and all the papal and episcopal lackeys in the world cannot put ol' Humpty Dumpty back together again!!!
But keep on a' daydreamin' if it makes you feel any better......
"Been there and done that and
"Been there and done that and they even allow openly gay clergy to become bishops and get married"
Oh the horror of it all... the sky has fallen down on our heads. NOT.
Some of the best persons of faith have been LGBT. Why? Because they have to put up with everyone else's projections and yet still remain graceful.
And BTW, polygamy is not synonymous with nor a logical consequence of faithful and monogamous same-gender relationships.
Dear Sister Maureen, Small
Dear Sister Maureen,
Small prayer groups that welcome all are certainly the way to go to bring the People of God together and give them a place to express spirituality. The two tier system was certainly not founded by Christ. Our system has deteriorated into a manipulative system that has very little to do with a Christ like organization. It is time for all of the People of God especially those that are seekers of truth to understand that authoritarianism is not the way to go. We do not need higher Institutes of a legalistic catechesis, we should foster people who love and serve the Jesus in all people. The Episcopacy has utterly failed the People of God.
The female religious with their discerning courage are showing us some leadership. I hope that the free Catholic press and the heads of major Catholic Universities will take this Que on how to proceed. It is time for Catholics and Christians to mature into more Christ like activity and to eschew the fears of a failing clerical system. The current leadership is inept and the structure for it is not biblical and no longer succeeding. This leadership (lack of real leadership) feels so defensive that it is attacking what has been some of the best people and organizations in the Church as a result of an authoritarian mind set that is rife with the corruption of hiding and promoting its own members that have made the church an unsafe place for our children; an organization that has for years has not been able to get its own financial corruption in order (It was a vigorously heathy JP I who said he would "clean up the Vatican Bank” and one month later was found mysteriously dead without a postmortem examination); an organization that has attacked its best theologians; an organization that refuses to understand the competency of medical and scientific knowledge; an organization of leadership so corrupt that it refuses to listen to the whispers of the Holy Spirit in the present world; an organization rife with misogynism, and homophobia; simply speaking a leadership that fails to promote the love of Christ. The episcopacy and many of the male clerics are promoting utter failure in the RCC. Thank you sisters for your courage not to cooperate with this corrupt Episcopacy. Now it is time for male religious, and the rest of the People of God to follow your example.
Peace and understanding,
R. Dennis Porch, MD
Dear R. Dennis Porch, MD,
Dear R. Dennis Porch, MD,
I agree. There is no question that the entire hierarchical system of government has to be revamped. There is no accountability to the People of God and certainly no transparency. Credibility in church leadership will continue to dissipate across all areas, religious and secular, until or unless there is some direction in that area given by the Holy See. There is already a grass roots movement in the U.S. with the American Catholic Conference - http://americancatholiccouncil.org/ - and I'm sure there are like movements abroad.
I found your comments on Pope John Paul I and the Vatican bank timely too, and they recalled to me the fact that the Holy See made a settlement of around 400 million dollars in that bank scandal in the 1980s while admitting no guilt at all. If the Holy See can do that there is no question that they can settle, by loan or outright gift, any and all judgments made by courts in the United States or elsewhere regarding the culpability of bishops and other officials in the church's continuing sexual abuse problems whether about children, young men, women or vulnerable adults, including women religious here and abroad.
And finally, there needs to be an investigation of the entire hierarchical system, with special attention to the bishops, who have never been held accountable for their conspiracy in the worst plague affecting the Roman Catholic Church in centuries.
To be sure, this is not something that can be done by the hierarchy. I think the People of God, women, men and including especially those theologians, church historians and scripture scholars among the women religious would be able to implement this.
Now what shall this investigation be called?
Sister Maureen Paul Turlish
New Castle, Delaware
maureenpaulturlish@yahoo.com
Dear Sister Maureen, I think
Dear Sister Maureen,
I think it should take the form of a great council of the People of God not one called or controlled by the Bishops but one in which they could be given the opportunity to decline the invitation. It should be planned by the women religious and all theologians interested in cleaning up this nightmare of inept and foolish and sometimes criminal leadership. Since it must be done on the cheap, perhaps it could be done through the electronic media. I think there could be a rout to credential the participants. I have attended medical meetings this way already. The agenda would be preset to find a better way to select leadership that could be open and would see themselves as servants of the people not their masters. The people of God then must insist on a new form of leadership as all of the mess would be documented for the reason for changing. In my mind this new form of leadership must be term limited just as are the leaders in the religious orders.
Of course there will be vociferous load mouths screaming that we are not fully Catholic but they are already doing that now.
Other steps that could and should be taken first are for the Presidents of the Better Catholic Universities to follow the leadership of the sisters and refuse to participate in the licenser of theologians and allow all speakers that reflect the ability of those in the Universities to honestly search for truth. Honest and sincere mens religious organizations could refuse to cooperate with this leadership that has truly proven itself to be illegitimate and authoritarian. The rest of us can continue to inform our friends about the facts and refuse to give any resources that are controlled by this leadership that has made itself entirely illegitimate.
By the way the Catholic conference site is wonderful and this group could play a big part in the change.
Peace and understanding,
R. Dennis Porch, MD
And no mention of the LCWR
And no mention of the LCWR refusing to meet with those who were abused by women religious?!?!?!? Why does that not surprise me? If we are going to discuss this issue, being a little more comprehensive would make your argument more convincing.
You are making a false claim
You are making a false claim that "LCWR refusing to meet with those who were abused by women religious?"
The Sisters are not being investigated because of any sexual abuse or to meet with any abused. Why does it not surprise me that your lack of understanding the true facts confuses the entire discussion and issue at hand into a false accusation and false claim?!!!
Anonymous Catholic - I think
Anonymous Catholic -
I think you misunderstand this person. Completely independent of the Visitation, dozens of American Catholic sisters have been accused of pedophilia. This poster is asking that Sister Maureen, a invaluable
advocate for abuse survivors, consistently speak on behalf of all
survivors of abuse in the Catholic Church; that she consistently
acknowledge that American priests, brothers AND sisters have abused
children placed in their care.
The fact that the numbers of sisters who are perpetrators appears to be significantly less than the numbers of priests who are perpetrators DOES NOT MATTER. What matters is that there are people who have been abused and each
and every one of them needs to be acknowledged.
Sister Maureen and other victim advocates certainly know better than to decline to discuss a certain victim population simply because that population may be smaller than another. As a professional community/sexual assault advocates dogmatically refused to acknowledge male domestic violence/sexual assault victims because they were fewer. I will never forget sitting in a presentation on DV in my graduate program, listening to the presenter - a
DV/sexual assault advocate - refuse repeatedly to engage with a male student who was asking that she extend her presentation to address male victims. He tried for an hour during which she repeatedly declared that, because most victims were women, she would not discuss that tiny fraction of victims that were men; in essence, that the bad guys were men and the victims were women, period. Finally, this man - a deep-voiced gentle giant, a former L'Arche community member, a Catholic Worker, an extraordinary victim advocate, a kind social worker - stood up in tears, identified himself as a victim, left the room and never returned to that classroom, in which a roomful of women sat back and allowed a victim advocate to refuse to acknowledge all victims, even the male ones, "because their are fewer of them". Most advocates have moved beyond that destructive stance, thank goodness.
But that destructive failure to acknowledge a group of victims, Anon Catholic, is exactly what is happening every time Sister Maureen - an advocate I deeply respect and value - and others speak and write about the victims of Catholic clergy without acknowledging in the very same breath the victims of Catholic sisters. It happens every single time Sr Maureen mentions the issue of abuse in the Catholic Church and doesn't include the victims of sisters:
In short, a victim's existence and importance is denied simply because her/his abuser was a sister rather than a priest.
Does the gender of the abuser make the victim any less a victim?
Sister Maureen, in posting about the sex abuse scandal in the context of the Visitation, has introduced the idea of a connection the two issues. She has done so in response to many NCR articles. I recall one occasion when she acknowledged the victims of abuse by sisters and LCWR's refusal to meet with them. The poster is simply asking that Sr Maureen acknowledge ALL the victims of that scandal every time she writes about the issue.
It is a completely valid and angry, though not hostile, request. It is a healthy request.
Jean Brookbank, a discerning woman and a social worker
Although I'm not familiar
Although I'm not familiar with particulars outside the Louisville archdiocese, it is well known locally that some members of the Sisters of Charity of Nazareth did, in fact, abuse children entrusted to their care at a former orphanage many years ago. (In addition, the chaplain, well respected for his work at Catholic Charities, was later found to have impregnated one of the girls at the orphanage. Unfortunately, he died before this matter came to light.)
Our women's religious communities must speak with a unified voice in asking forgiveness for those occasions when a few "rotten apples" in their midst abused children and others in their care.
What's good for the gander is good for the goose!
I agree, Ms. Brookbank, your request is a healthy one. (And I'm a progressive Catholic who strongly supports Vatican II's call for ecclesial renewal.)
What a beautiful unity
What a beautiful unity Vatican II has brought to our Church. Little to no respect to the See of Peter, you never know what kind of mass your going to walk into when you pass through the doors of a "Catholic Church" these days. Can't tell the religious from the laity most of time, can't even tell most laity have any sense of humility or reverence for what they are participating in by their actions and attire. My question to the women religious would be the same that I asked during a vocations meeting in my diocese which is where are we seeing the most growth in religious communities. What are they doing and copy it. The problem is the most active seminaries like the most populated religious orders are going back to traditional Catholicism wearing habits and clericals. The wearing of habits and clericals are an outward sign of ones vocation and it also is a reminder to the one wearing the traditional garments of their vows. You will know them by their fruits. Those orders that are not bearing fruit will close. In 20 yrs. most of the dissidents will have passed and their works will be judged by the Lord and their orders will either have born fruit or be cut off and burned. I believe the Holy Father is simply offering his hand out to the religous communities as he has offered it to the Anglican Church, the Russian Orthodox, the SSPX and many others seeking to be in full communion with the Holy See. For He stands at the door and knocks it is up to the individual to open the door and let Him in.
Richard J, blaming Vatican II
Richard J, blaming Vatican II for disunity is an interesting concept and one you seem to value as the truth. The SSPX are fine examples of unity aren't they? Your entire comment is not about "unity" but division and divisiveness.
FYI: The SSPX has not been seeking unity or full communion with the entire Catholic Church, just to those groups that are bigots, such as gay bashers and women bashers. They seem to have found a political ally with Benedict and what better way to show his appreciation to those who uphold the same prejudiced values than for him to "simply offering his hand out" to the bashers in common.
You can choose to open the door to gay bashers and women haters if you want. As for me, the door is slammed shut against them and these "dissidents" against Jesus Christ and His teachings "will be judged by the Lord!"
Dear Richard J, Noted
Dear Richard J,
Noted sociologists of religion James Davidson and the late Dean Hoge have concluded --- based on longitudinal studies over the years --- that while the JPII clergy are moving in one (autocratic) direction, the laity --- young and old --- are moving in a different (democratic) direction. These researchers have concluded that down the road, we can expect to see the greatest "expectation gap" between these two populations. The laity are not going to kowtow to priests and hierarchs infatuated with the perks, privileges, and prerogatives of the pre-Vatican II church.
But keep on dreamin' if that'll make you feel better........
Sister, Your response is the
Sister,
Your response is the actual red herring. Rather than address the issue at hand, you choose to deflect and point in a different direction. This too is shameful. Also shameful is your lack of loyalty and fidelity.
"Thou art Peter, and upon
"Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church? Sorry, but Jesus did found a Church. He may not have founded it with all its current structures explicitly in place, but found it he did. Christ and his Church are inseparable. As Hans Urs von Balthasar put it, the Church is elongetur Christi, the "prolongation of Christ" in time and history.
As for God making the world and seeing that it was good: This is true, but has it got to due with the price of tea in China?
But Jesus did not say to
But Jesus did not say to found a Pharisaic Church built up in the same way as the Scribes and Pharisees!!!!
How is our Church
How is our Church "pharisaic"??
"Sorry, but Jesus did found a
"Sorry, but Jesus did found a Church."
Then let me clarify the other blogger's intent: Jesus did NOT found the institutional Church --- either "with" or without "all its current structures explicitly [or otherwise] in place."
Jesus delivered a message and asked his disciples to proclaim it far and wide. Institutional structures including a papacy were historical developments. Indeed, there was no ordained ministry for at least a hundred, and perhaps close to two hundred, years! Jesus and his disciples knew only the Jewish priesthood and the Jewish faith.
It's well past time to overhaul the Barque of Peter and affix its proper name assigned it by Vatican II: The Body of Christ.
Jesus' "church" is the "body
Jesus' "church" is the "body of Christ" - an enlightened humanity of compassionate outflow and healing in the world, not another social imperialist authoritarian power structure.
Very interesting
Very interesting re-interpretation of what the word "church" meant when Jesus declared to be building it in the gospel of St. Matthew. However, that does not account for how St. Paul seems to understand the Church of the living God, household of faith, foundation of truth, where bishops, presbyters and deacons have their roles and certain criteria to qualify.
There's no doubt that the Church has failed in countless times throughout the ages. But impeccability was never a gift to either the old covenant leaders (kings, prophets, priests, judges) nor the new (bishops, presbyters, deacons). We don't follow these leaders because they are perfect. Otherwise, Christ's words "he who hears you hears me", "what you loose on earth is loosed in Heaven .. bind on earth is bound in Heaven" -- they would be meaningless. St. Paul seems to have accepted that he actually had authority in several of his writing. What family can survive without leadership? But in order to effect his promise that the gates of hell should not overcome his Church, Christ promises his Holy Spirit, and gives his keys of public office to Peter, with the unique power to loose and to bind on earth as in Heaven. Not because Peter is perfect, but because Heaven is greater and will not allow him to teach error.
Mr. Tan, the episkopoi,
Mr. Tan, the episkopoi, presbyteroi, and diaconoi of the primitive church, i.e., those Christian communities closest to Jesus and his disciples in time and place, were not ordained to ministry. The episkopoi and presbyteroi (same functions, different titles depending on local community usage) demonstrated leadership talent that, in turn, was the basis for their liturgical presidency at the communal eucharist. The only "qualification requirement" was the demonstrated ability to lead a community striving to serve the Lord and his people day in and day out. Leadership was acknowledged in one way or another.
Such is not the case today. Local church leaders, whether at the diocesan or parish level, are imposed on the particular community, which has no "say" in the process. Episcopal selection is based on limited input provided in a secretive way through the papal nuncio to the pope. Likewise, the people have no voice in selection of their parish pastors. The entire process is top-down.
Although, as you've noted, the bishop of Rome has the power to bind and loose (as reflected in Matthew 16:18-19), so, too, the People of God have this same power (as shown in Matthew 18:18).
I think we must be careful in asserting that God will not allow the pope to teach error. Actions speak louder than words. If one concedes that a pope teaches not just with words but also by acts, we know that popes are just as capable of sinning --- a manifestation of teaching (scandal, if you will) --- as is anybody else. Indeed, popes are fallible human beings just like the rest of us.
Whether God "allows" or "does not allow" a pope to teach error --- is ultimately immaterial, irrelevant. God does not sanction evil, but God gives each pope free will, and history is replete with examples of popes who did not live up to their sacred mandate.
Jesus condemned not just the teachings of the religious leaders of his day and place. He also condemned their behaviors.
We live in different times today. Catholics by and large are much better educated and informed on various matters. In fact, the laity often know more about church and religion and spirituality than their ordained ministers. Given recent revelations of clerical sex abuse and episcopal coverups of same (not to mention JPII refusing to intervene in the Maciel wrongdoing), we need to remember that the Holy Spirit works among all the faithful, not just among the ordained. Let's not forget Vatican II's teaching about the "sense of the faithful."
Joseph Jaglowicz: Superb
Joseph Jaglowicz: Superb response. Faith-filled, fair-minded, and scholarly!
Since the Gospels were
Since the Gospels were written so many years AFTER Jesus' death, I would highly doubt Jesus used the word "Church", especially since he was and remained an observant Jew! Many "words" were attributed to Jesus...attribution doesn't necessarily mean that the intent to say such words or that the actual words were spoken by anyone but the Gospel writers...they became "accepted" by the community, but that doesn't mean such actual words were ever spoken.
If you aren't basing your
If you aren't basing your christian faith on the gospels, then what are you basing it on?
No, Jesus did not found a
No, Jesus did not found a church.
Those who did saw fit to ascribe to him the words you quote. They were "dubious, later" additions to the gospels by those seeking to buttress the authority they had seized from the original followers of Jesus.
http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS257&q=thou+...
If the nuns don't believe
If the nuns don't believe that He founded a Church, they may as well leave their convents and organize a secular foundation. Then the Vatican won't need to regulate them. Then, they can be oppressed by the other real evils: competition and taxes, like the rest of us. They have a choice and they need to make it: are they religious or secular? It looks like they want to be secular: so let the Vatican close them down so they will be want they want to be. Otherwise they can obey the church overseers (bishops), just don't do the sins, which they do.
Anonymous on Nov. 27,
Anonymous on Nov. 27, 2009.
You stated:
"If the nuns don't believe that He founded a Church, they may as well leave their convents and organize a secular foundation. Then the Vatican won't need to regulate them. Then, they can be oppressed by the other real evils: competition and taxes, like the rest of us. They have a choice and they need to make it: are they religious or secular? It looks like they want to be secular: so let the Vatican close them down so they will be want they want to be. Otherwise they can obey the church overseers (bishops), just don't do the sins, which they do."
------------------------------------------
Then how did the Apostles, disciples, respond to God? There was NO Church when Jesus called them. A vocation is a call from God and a response to it.
The Vatican did not support the religious when they began their ministry in America, and neither did the Bishop(s). Let me cite for you a typical letter
received by major religious superiors in the 1800's (my sources come from the archives of Sisters in New York State---but are typical of what Sisters knew as true from every state of the Union).
Reverend Mother Superior:
We beg you to send Sisters to take care of {one or more of the following kinds of needy persons}:orphans, uneducated, pick poor, abandoned infants, girls working as domestics who are being seduced by their employers, youngsters needing to learn a trade, elderly folks, homeless, families at risk, immigrants who can speak the language, people hungry for food and knowledge, Catholics who need to be counted and catechized.
Please come yourself if you can, Mother, or at least send us your best workers---the strongest, the brightest, the most fearless. We need you desperately.
Respectfully yours,
Bishop-----
Also part of the story line, though rarely found written down in the letters, are facts and obsesrvations like these: 'never mind that the house won't be ready for you. You'll probably have to count on the hospitality of the laity (or another community) until you find your own. We can't promise you money--you'll have to raise most of it yourself. You may end up as martyrs to cholera, dysentery, influenza, tuberculosis, and violence and to the poverty of the poor you came to serve. You may find that the demands of your work make it hard, even impossible, to live your Rule, your way of living and praying that you cherish so deeply.'1
--------------------------------------
1)The Dominican Sisters of Blauvelt, New York a rural area in the 1880's could not keep the rule of enclosure because their work with orphans required frequent trips to the New York City courts.
2)In Thomas Spalding, "The Premier See: A History of the Archdiocese of Baltimore, 1789-1994" (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989), notes that Bishop John Carroll {Bishop of first American Archdiocese}, did not want to foster a lot of strictly Catholic institutions, but rather "wished the local church to blend imperceptibly into the social fabric" (p. 62). The needs of the growing immigrant Catholic population would soon dictate otherwise.
The Sisters in America have never been just like their counterparts in Europe, because the needs in America were different, and the need to quickly adapt to a new and growing country---also brought about many changes in religious lifestyle.
The decade of the 1960-1970, brought about an earthshaking change to America's social, legal, moral and yes, religious fabric. For religious women the question became, what does all of this have to do with the mystery of daying and rising with Christ, the mystery of transformation, that is the core of being Christian believers? In the entire history of our community in America, how does this show in our beginnings, struggles, growth, and letting go---how has Christ's life in us been made manifest?
To answer your question, Anonymous---the Sisters have seen and lived with the 'real evils' of life---they have not been spared. Your question about them being either secular or religious is rather to be stated that religious women are to be, as Joan Chittister OSB stated "a searing presence, a paradigm of search, a mark of human soul, and a catalyst to conscience in the society in which it emerged."
Sorry Catholic Theologian,
Sorry Catholic Theologian, but there are other theologians, who have determined that statement 'thou art Peter...' does not jive with the rest of the Gospel. The disciples all thought that the kingdom would appear as Xt stated during their lifetime...and there are many Biblical verses to support it. Even Paul thought the kingdom was innocent, but in his later years modified such thought. Now you tell me, that since the kingdom was to appear in that generation what was the need for a church...none. Thusly, the statement is a later addition. The oldest copy of any gospel that is in position dates several hundred years later than the original. Many copying errors and other additions as well. The last 12 verses of Mark were not present in the oldest version. So, to simply rely on a quote from a Bible is folly not fact.
Could you provide the sources
Could you provide the sources for this argument?
thanks and happy thanksgiving day and I will pray for you during the Eucharist...or is this also an addition?
Anonymous Catholic Theologian
Anonymous Catholic Theologian on Nov. 24, 2009.
You stated:
"Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church? Sorry, but Jesus did found a Church. He may not have founded it with all its current structures explicitly in place, but found it he did. Christ and his Church are inseparable. As Hans Urs von Balthasar put it, the Church is elongetur Christi, the "prolongation of Christ" in time and history.
As for God making the world and seeing that it was good: This is true, but has it got to due with the price of tea in China?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------
God and the Church are not ONE and the SAME! Nor should we believe for one instant that the historical and current set-up of the "official Church" is one that God really approves.
It is from the writings of Pseudo-Dionysius ("The Celestial Hierarchy") who was a pretender (Church authorities thought that he was the REAL Dionysius the Areopagite---a convert of St. Paul), that we get many of our mis-conceptions of the hierarchy and understandings of heaven.
History and decrees of Popes, bishops, etc., have given us the absolutist monarchy that we have today. And it is no more holy for all of that than all all the tea in China. :)
Pardon me, Anonymous Catholic
Pardon me, Anonymous Catholic Theologian! Jesus DID found a Church? But Vatican documents clearly state that Jesus lived and died as a FAITHFUL Jew ... so why and how on earth did he FOUND a Church when there was no such thing as Christianity, much less a Catholic Church at the time when he lived and died. Perhaps your theology needs to be udated somewhat! Perhaps you should look into how the Church gradually evolved - in the decades and centuries following Jesus' life and death - through some of his followers and their teachings.
When I think on the question
When I think on the question of whether or not Jesus intended to found a church I find myself asking these questions. Was Jesus (and his apostles) not born, and raised as a Jew? Did he not die as a Jew? Did he give up his own Jewish tradition in favour of an institutional substitute bearing his name? To suggest that he told Peter to build a church complete with a hierarchical structure and all its trappings profoundly contradicts Jesus’ temptation in the desert where he rejected such earthly kingdoms of the world. More importantly, Jesus came to save ALL and is unlikely to have demanded that membership to a particular religion was necessary to experience his promise of salvation or live out a life based on his kingdom values.
The word ‘church’ is not found in the original Greek version of the Bible. The original Greek term Ekklesia meant assembly or community and is much more compatible with Jesus’ intent to establish God’s Kingdom here on earth. A kingdom based on compassion, understanding, equality, etc., as illustrated through his many parables which many of his disciples did not understand. For me Jesus came to teach us a way to live communally in peace and harmony, to bring healing and forgiveness. This is the rock or solid foundation upon we too must build community with one another.
What then is the meaning of
What then is the meaning of Jesus declaration to Simon "You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my CHURCH?" Just wondering.
Find your best scripture
Find your best scripture scholar and see what (s)he says. Since this passage was written many decades after this scene, it is highly questionable that Jesus used the word 'church'; after all, he was of the Hebrew faith.
"The Church" Are all those
"The Church" Are all those who know their sins are for given and seek daily to life a live honouring to their Their Lord and Saviour.
The church local are those gather to gether "Where two or three gather together in My Name Christ said there am I" Again these are those sharing in the knowledge of sin forgiven,and New life in Christ
We all look for the Day of His returning.,When Christ will gather all those who are His
It seems that you don't even
It seems that you don't even believe in the infallibility of Scripture. What, if you are Christian, is your faith based upon?
"What then is the
"What then is the meaning...?"
If history and biblical exegesis offer us anything, Jesus knew only the Jewish faith and priesthood.
Jesus and "Church"?
Like mixing oil and water.
To all those responding by
To all those responding by quoting some part of the gospels where the english word is "church," I say go back to the original texts and, unless the majority of scripture scholars of modern day are pulling one over on us, the word used in original texts is better translated by the phrase "kingdom of God" and does not connote or imply any type of institutional structure that the Vatican would have you believe. It's all a power and control game for the boys in dresses in Rome.
Jesus then made corrections
Jesus then made corrections in the direction Peter was leading the church, assuming Peter was leading the Church, since James was the head of the Jerusalem Church. Jesus knocked Paul off his horse and Paul began the law free Church. The Church that really spread Jesus's message.
Peter may have been the 'rock' but Paul was the Spirit and the Pauline church prevailed--until Constantine.
Indeed, Jesus did found a
Indeed, Jesus did found a church. However, it is not founded on "petros" (Peter), but "petra," the profession of faith Peter made..."thou art the Christ et al." Peter is a small rock...the profession of faith in Christ is a boulder.
All this detail aside, I am concerned for the women religious who are standing up to the old boys' network of Rome. I hope they are not persecuted for standing up for themselves.
Peace and happy Thanksgiving to you all,
Rome's Stepchild
Some conservative Catholics
Some conservative Catholics are off their rocker and have used threatening tactics in the past to supress those who were charged with implementing Vatican II. They have gotten away with this in the past. Things have changed in this country. Strains of conservative catholic fanatics that are full of hate may need to come under lawful scrutiny.
Everyone in the US is entitled to their opinion. Everyone is entitled to live in quiet enjoyment, safety, and security no matter their opinion or style of life be it secular or religious. The Vatican owns no one in this country.
No one is entitled to threaten anyone overtly or covertly. No one is entitled to slander or break the law in any way. We as Christians should have zero tolerance for such behavior. We must not be silent. If necessary we must shout from the highest mountain, call the proper authorities, and root out people who threatan others with reprisal.
Un-American practices in the name of religion should have no protection in this country. The money train that suports them should be derailed and the network of tracks pulled up..
"not founded on petros but
"not founded on petros but petra" -- what then was the significance of the Gospels and St. Paul in his letters referring to Peter as Cephas? In fact, what was the point in calling him Peter in the first place?
The word "church" is
The word "church" is translated from the Greek ekklesia, meaning "called-out" or "assembly." Christ would not have envisaged the hierarchical, complex organisation we call Church today, with all its trappings, riches, rules and regulations.
Well, at last THAT is
Well, at last THAT is settled, and confirms my suspicions. There can be NO church, then, if Jesus didn't found one.
Combined with the sisters' rejection of the authority of the Vatican over them, and the fact that they have lived for years as they choose and work for goals they define themselves, we can state they clearly are not part of the church which does not exist.
That, after all, is exactly as it appers to me and I am grateful for the clarity we have all achieved.
As for you folks who hang out at NCR, one must ask (or you must ask yourselves) why you remain as Catholics since you object to the Faith as promulgated by the Holy See. Personally, I wouldn't remain long in a "church" that didn't exist, unless, of course, my true purpose is to have my own way within a structure that continues to exist but not as a church founded by Jesus.
This is obvious, wouldn't you agree? So, the lot of you who, when challenged by Catholics to leave for the Protestant world to which you most comfortably belong, insist this is your church, too, and you won't be "run off" by those who don't get it about the true mission of this (not) church.
Under our new understanding, then, you may all leave and join the Episcopalians with whom you have so much in common. Oh, wait. Are THEY a church also, or not (also)?
I'd offer a blessing for your safe journey, but this is not a church and you won't have to travel very far (if at all).
Phil - I think I love you.
Phil - I think I love you.
I keep making this point here
I keep making this point here and as yet have never seen an answer. I really am not trying to run any one off. I have no real concern if these posters are sitting next to me in Church or not. "Peace be with you"; I mean it.
BUT, it's the irrationality of it all, that gets me. If you believe Jesus lived and died a believing Jew. That he founded no church. That the Papacy is an oppressive self-serving human invention. That Jesus intended no ordained ministry. That we know about Jesus, only what the biblical scholars tell us he said, and what he meant, that the Scriptures are not the inspired Word of God. Or that they are, but only as understood by some academics. How can you call yourself Catholic??? Christian, maybe. Christianity includes Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, the Lakewood Church, Holiness Baptists, Unification Church Members, Quakers, Orthodox, non-denominationals, etc. etc. etc. But Catholic, whatever do you mean by calling yourself THAT? It's just a question not an attack.
A future pope wrote many
A future pope wrote many years ago, "[F]acts, as history teaches, carry more weight than pure doctrine" (Joseph Ratzinger, HIGHLIGHTS OF VATICAN II, Paulist Press/Deus Books, 1966, p. 16).
Theologian Bernard Lonergan (quoted by Robert Egan in a COMMONWEAL article on women's ordination) wrote, "The meaning of Vatican II was the acknowledgement of history."
We ignore ecclesial history and biblical exegesis at our institutional peril. History can help us retrieve our primitive roots. Biblical research helps us better understand the Lord's message delivered to our ancestors in the faith. Both disciplines can better help us understand what "church" is all about (or should be about).
Are you opposed to intellectual inquiry's contribution to discovering and understanding historical fact?