Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Women religious not complying with Vatican study
"There's been almost universal resistance. We are saying 'enough!' "
Nov. 24, 2009
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.
"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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------




We have ample historical
We have ample historical reason to believe the church does not want academics and intellectuals committed to the pursuit of biblical and religious truth to uncover it. Church leaders want us to believe their story and make us stick to it. The cover-up with regard to the pursuit of truth may be the biggest ongoing cover-up of all. It is an act of tradition that should be replaced by an Act of Contrition!!
You're still ignoring a
You're still ignoring a simple question.
I understand that you believe that the gospel of Jesus, was somehow lost along the way, and that it may be retrieved by biblical exegesis, and the original Christianity restored. But Roman Catholics believe that the Living Church, through the ministry of Christ's Vicar is guided by the Holy Spirit, in preserving and in fact developing the Holy Tradition, and interpreting the Scripture. Now, I have no problem with what you believe, my best friend is a died-in-the-wool Southern Baptist. But the question remains: why stay in the Catholic Church? Christianity is filled with groups who believe they have recovered, or are trying to recover the lost true Gospel Message of Jesus, some are liberal and new, some are as old as the Reformation. But Catholics belive that the true gospel was never lost, but kept by the Church of Rome, and that the Holy Spirit guides the Church, and its Holy Father, today as throughout its history. If not: then the Gospel was truly lost, and if so it seems to me it was never divinely revealed in the first place, and if not divinely revealed, it doesn't interest me any more than the teachings of the Buddha, Lao Tsu, or the Koran. But for you good luck in your quest, but it would be better served if you realized it has already led you away form the Roman Catholic Church.
"But Roman Catholics believe
"But Roman Catholics believe that the Living Church..."
The Church of Rome is a dying church. Then again, death generates new life. Life is change, and the Holy Spirit is the Source of life in the church. The birthing process can be a messy one, but the Holy Chick will most assuredly emerge from its holy egg!
"But Catholics believe that the true gospel was never lost, but kept by the Church of Rome, and that the Holy Spirit guides the Church, and its Holy Father, today as throughout its history."
As a Catholic, I do not deny the Gospel or believe that it was ever "lost." As a Catholic, I believe that WE ARE THE CHURCH, all of us, not just the ordained. I believe that the Holy Spirit informs ALL of us, not just the pope or his functionaries. I believe in doctrinal development, not in some static (read: dead) compilation of teaching and belief. Like Joseph Ratzinger more than four decades ago, I believe that in the final analysis, historical fact trumps religious belief (theology, after all, is faith seeking understanding, and one source of understanding is church history).
I remain Catholic in faith if not by formal membership. Unlike some folks, I do not at all equate the institutional church with our Catholic faith. The former should inform the latter, but when Rome and its episcopal lackeys issue pronouncements and commit acts that are at variance with the gospel message, I must embrace my Catholic faith, not a dysfunctional and dying organization that ill serves all members of the Body of Christ.
"I remain Catholic ... not by
"I remain Catholic ... not by formal membership."
Thank you, that clarifies it. That's all I meant. The use of 'catholic', by Anglicans, Lutherans, etc. is pointlessly(imho)confusing, but I deliberately used the terms Church of Rome, Roman Catholic to allow for that.
You'd be surprised to know many of us still believe in the Church of Rome, founded on Peter and believe that the gates of hell will now prevail against it. But I have exactly no missionary zeal, the Holy Spirit alone will determine how the future of Christainity plays out. It seems likely that in our increasingly secular age there will be fewer of us Papists, but all the more so fewer liberal Protestants (I also suspect secularization will catch up with the Evangelicals with time). Anyway it's all in God's hands.
Good luck with whatever you're seeking.
I say again; Peace be with you.
Oh, and thanks for answering.
Dear T.B.: Maybe noone is
Dear T.B.: Maybe noone is answering because the question is either irrelevant or unanswerable. The problem for me is not whether Jesus instituted a church or not but the product which men over the years have made of it. I'm no theologian or whatever but here is my take on it.
Jesus came with a mission and a message. His mission was accomplished with his death and resurrection, I guess - He made possible an efficacious relationship between the created and the creator. His message integrates the best of what it means to be human to human and in society and incorporates that into his mission, the relationship with the creator. Amen
Except that mankind evidently needs institution, needs guidance, needs organization, and organization requires rules and administration. Man needs to hold hands with others in shared values and to "celebrate" in "theatre", rite, ritual, ceremony, dance, and acknowledgement, hence "church" as in community, society.
The "screw-up" is that these men, this evolution into and continuum of men has virtually separated the celebration from the mission and substituted a patriarchic dominated hierarchical structure for the message in community. "Dogma" was created to coerce us into denying the twofold separation.
So, "church" would have happened, to my mind, it is the kind of church that has failed. I think Jesus would have understood the need but didn't intend that result. To return to the post topic relevance, I really think that the religious women are on the right track to return to mission/message in community.
I think I've said what I
I think I've said what I needed to in reply to Mr. Jaglowicz, but I remain confused by his comments and yours. Maybe if I put it this way: there is a Pope, there are people like myself who believe his claims, and they constitute a Church. So leave the Pope to run the Church of his followers. Then there are those who believe in a Popeless Church. Wouldn't it just be better, and more peaceful (witness the posts here) to go our separate ways. If maybe the Voice of the Faithful and Call to Action could merge and start a new Schismatic Church, or these decedent religious orders (male ones included to be sure) abrogate their ties to the Roman Church (or pretence of such) and do so. Anyway there is a poster here somewhere who longs for an American Catholic Church; well I've heard of several (in fact one is named American Catholic Church, if I'm not mistaken). I don't see anything I've said as hurtful, and it surely isn't meant so. It just seems obviously conducive to the happiness and spiritual welfare of all. Then we can stop beating each other up.
Okay enough.
Peace, Tom
Mr. Steinacker, if you have
Mr. Steinacker, if you have concluded that there can be no church since Jesus did not found one, you have missed the reasoning behind the comments of your fellow bloggers.
We have simply given historical and other information to demonstrate that Jesus and his disciples were Jewish in faith.
No one is denying the existence today of church. What we are criticizing (in this and other threads) is all the crap coming out of Rome and elsewhere that would suggest Jesus somehow approves or endorses ecclesial pomp and ceremony, bigoted teaching, a stratified membership (the ordained vs. the rest of us folks), etc.
Contrary to your assertion, we are not objecting to the Catholic faith. Rather, we do not confuse (as you apparently do) church with faith. They are different realities.
Given the rest of your illogical comments, I'd suggest you take (or retake) a course in basic logic.
Then you might be better able to follow what is being written by your fellow bloggers.
(On the other hand, could it just be that you are upset with our liberal/progressive criticism of a sinful and dysfunctional institution???)
I bet Jesus is surprised to
I bet Jesus is surprised to hear from you, who were obviously there alongside Peter, that he had not founded a church. After all, saying he would build his Church on the rock that is Peter obviously means that he is not founding a church.
I guess this one little
I guess this one little phrase, written down 50 years after Jesus' time, after being passed around by word of mouth from one person to another, clearly defines what the church is. Case closed! Let's have no more discussion, since it is defined for all time.
I agree with you Anonymous.
I agree with you Anonymous. AS Fr. Benedict Groeschel, CFR always and you were there? I will always take the teachings of Church Magisterium before anyone who has trouble wth authoriy.
"[F]acts, as history teaches,
"[F]acts, as history teaches, carry more weight than pure doctrine" (Joseph Ratzinger, HIGHLIGHTS OF VATICAN II, Paulist Press/Deus Books, 1966, p. 16).
There is no inherent conflict between historical fact and ecclesial doctrine unless the official teachers try to use their authority to deny the facts of church history.
Do you agree with the future pope that historical fact trumps church doctrine?
Thank you to these sisters
Thank you to these sisters who have modelled a way to break the violence--the cycle of abuse/victimization that has crippled institutions damaged by their own power and well-meanng ignorance. I would have made the Vatican an enemy--and forgot to love them, as I am taught. I would have fought fire with fire-- and burned up the landscape. These women have followed Jesus into a place where they love their neighbors--and themselves/ where they respect themselves and their calling as much as the ones who would try to do them harm.
I want to thank all these women for giving activists like me a truly Christ-centered model of responding to invasion and impropriety with love, integrity, and firmness. How amazing that what could have undermined and harmed has been transformed into a re-examination and potent expression of devotion to God, community, and charism. Thank you all for following the Holy Spirit--if I am ever in a situation like this I pray I can follow your example!
Ruah
Where's the violence. I don't
Where's the violence. I don't think Cardinal Rode is using guns or fire. Or beating people. So, if there's a cycle of violence, somebody needs to step up their game.
Jamie R on Nov. 26,
Jamie R on Nov. 26, 2009.
You stated:
"Where's the violence. I don't think Cardinal Rode is using guns or fire. Or beating people. So, if there's a cycle of violence, somebody needs to step up their game."
----------------------------------------
I guess that in your mind, intimidation, duress, psychological pressure, insidious threats---are not forms of abuse. Consult a civil attorney and ask her/him to define "abuse" for you.
Contact a dictionary and ask
Contact a dictionary and ask it define violence for you. I wasn't talking about abuse. I was talking about violence. Moreover, it cheapens actual abuse when you equate everything with abuse. Yes, there is such a thing as psychological / emotional abuse, but it typically carries with it the threat of physical abuse (e.g., when directed against children, wives, and political prisoners).
My definition of violence is
My definition of violence is broader than yours. Knowing it's impact on one's life, which can, indeed, be devasting, I do consider emotional/psychological abuse as "violence". Violence, like abuse is about degress and I just can't seem to understand the reasons put forth to seperate the two. Peace and prayers to you.
I'm not denying that such a
I'm not denying that such a thing as psychological / emotional abuse or violence exists. However, I think we should reserve it for very serious things that very seriously harm the object of such abuse. The trauma that an emotionally abusive spouse can inflict, for instance, would count as this sort of violence.
I do not understand how a survey can constitute this sort of violence. These may be some intimidation or pressure being applied, but it is nothing compared to the sort of pressure an abusive husband applies, for instance. Being asked questions to figure out why people aren't wanting to follow your way of life isn't violence, for the same reason a doctor's check-up isn't violence, or being asked by a cop why you were speeding. It isn't like what Indians or African-Americans or Jews faced under British colonization, segregation, and the Holocaust, respectively. It isn't like what the Guarani indians faced under the Spanish crown in the 18th c., or what Argentinians faced under Pinochet. And it's pretentious and arrogant to pretend otherwise. It's like Rep. Pete Hoekstra twittering "Iranian twitter activity similar to what we did in House last year when Republicans were shut down in the House." The sisters didn't resist any violence or abuse. They didn't fill out a survey. I'm not impressed with their courage.
Jamie R on Dec. 02,
Jamie R on Dec. 02, 2009.
You stated:
"I'm not denying that such a thing as psychological / emotional abuse or violence exists. However, I think we should reserve it for very serious things that very seriously harm the object of such abuse. The trauma that an emotionally abusive spouse can inflict, for instance, would count as this sort of violence...."
-----------------------------------------------
Then, Jamie, you really don't know the Roman Catholic Church, do you? It can, did, and could do all of this and more. Or maybe, you just really don't know Church History. Do you know that Oscar Romero was disciplined by JPII--because he was "getting too involved with the poor" and not listening to the "leaders of the nation"? To this day, the Opus Dei bishops and the wealthy worship in the cathederal upstairs, while the poor huddle in the basement around the tomb of Oscar Romero. There are many people feeling the ire of the Vatican or their bishops for following their consciences and not complying to everything asked. Just speak to those victims of abuse who were told by their bishops to keep silent.
The Sisters are well aware of the retributions that can be visited upon them for not complying.
Are you suggesting that JPII
Are you suggesting that JPII was involved in Archbishop Romero's assassination? Seriously? Then you're a crazed conspiracy theorist, who no doubt also believes that 9/11 was an inside job and that vaccines cause autism.
I know the Church could apply this sort of violence in the exercise of the cure of souls. However, the Church simply isn't in any danger of doing this now. To begin with, the execution of heretics was never undertaken strictly by the Church; the inquisitors tried the heretics, and the roughly 1-10% that could't be reconciled were handed over or "relaxed" to the secular government. Not that this excuses the Church's participation in such violence, but it is worth bearing in mind that in order for their to be such violence, there had to be a trial and cooperation from the temporal princes. Even if the Church wished to carry out such an inquisition now, she couldn't, especially not here. What do you think would happen when those sisters who are heretics are handed over to the secular branch? The secular branch would be very confused as to why anyone would think they'd do something to heretics. The conditions necessary for old-style Church violence simply don't exist. Even if Cardinal Rode and Sister Millea were so inclined, they lack the necessary power to visit retributions upon them.
How many seminaries were shut down after the visitation to seminaries? How many seminarians did the Vatican have assassinated, which is apparently something you think the Vatican does? I believe the answers are none and none. Are the sisters even more heterodox than the seminaries? I doubt it. They have nothing to worry about. Worst case scenario, the Congregation for Religious Life sends them letters asking them to make certain changes. They are hardly facing down the inquisition. One should not be inspired by their nonviolent resistance against a survey.
What retributions - from the Vatican, not the local ordinary - do you think the sisters are in danger of having visited upon them?
Jamie R on Dec. 03, 2009.
Jamie R on Dec. 03, 2009.
You stated:
Are you suggesting that JPII was involved in Archbishop Romero's assassination? Seriously? Then you're a crazed conspiracy theorist, who no doubt also believes that 9/11 was an inside job and that vaccines cause autism.......
---------------------------------------
1) I never stated the JP II had anything to do with Archbishop Romero's assassination. But, JP II appointed the non-pastoral Opus Dei Bishops who support/supported the wealthy minority who rule the Latin/South American
nations. It was the ruling class who were afraid of Romero, and his complete association with the poor. It was they who hired assassins to kill Romero. And we know that those who did, not doubt, went to Mass and received Holy Communion the following Sunday. This is no conspiracy theory---it has been documented---that Romero, trying to follow Christ's injunction of servant-leader---was a thorn in the side of both other bishops and the ruling party.
Your concept of the Inquisition is interesting. In Europe, there was no separation of Church and State. For a time period---the state tried to 'run the papacy'. But with the accession of Pope Innocent III (1198-1216), the Christian world received a Pope who inspired Christians by his sancity and was also a strong political ruler. Heads of state could be excommunicated by
the Pope. King John of England (of Robin Hood fame) was excommunicated by the Pope by appointing his own man as the Bishop of Canterbury. In addition to King John, this Pope also excommunicated Emperor Otto IV of Germany, and King Phillip II of France. No Inquisition, just a simple decree from the Pope.
No Inquisitions occured without the Church's permission. After all---if one was placed in a court of Inquisition---it was for supposed violations of theology, supposed violations of dogma, or for associating with those who were excommunicated (whether a person knew that someone was excommunicated or not). The secular powers were NOT TRAINED in Theology---Franciscans and Dominicans were---and they conducted the trials (whether the state brought a person in or not---the clergy were the judges---who questioned the accused).
What does this have to do today? The Church does not operate the way that it did in the Middle Ages or the early Renaissance---but there are very subtile ways to achieve the same effect. Are you totally unaware of the many people who have been: 1) silenced by the Church ? 2) Religious leaders who have been removed from their positions by Church authorities (does Pedro Arrupe's name ring a bell?) 3) and oh, there's the smearing of a person's good name and reputation in an attempt to 'remove someone who's not viewed as 'orthodox' in each and every viewpoint that the 'powers that be' wish.
Let me explain this last point more clearly. A certain priest (religious order) was/is a well known teacher, writer of theology. He espoused a conservative theology---but for certain reasons---felt that theologians are not being 'treated with respect, justice, etc. in the current church.' Also, he had experiences of being placed under the scrutiny of university officials who were more conservative than even he was. He permitted his theology students to utilize his computer just outside of his office to find outlines, missed lessons, etc. He goes away for a little 2 week vacation, and comes home to discover that he's been stripped of his priestly functions, position, etc---because pictures of nude males was discovered on his computer. He states that he never subscribed to, nor, looked at that website.
Many people believe him (why would you permit students to use your computer and have that on?). But he has still been stripped of his functions. Anonymous notes have been distributed around the university---warning friends of his, loyal students of his---to keep their noses out of this business. His case is in the Vatican's hands now.
And I could tell you a number of other stories about the dirty business (all secretive, quiet, hidden) that goes on behind the dark velvet curtains of the Church. Take your rose colored glasses off, Jamie!
Abuse is violence and
Abuse is violence and violence is abuse.
GO GIRLS!!! Ruah is on the
GO GIRLS!!! Ruah is on the money and Jamie (who follows) is clueless on the issue of violence. Abusing priests and Bishops used no guns or weapons and did unbelievable voilence against children, damage to the People of God and destroyed the credibility of a teaching Church thourg they still think they can "rule" by edict.
Well, yes, child abuse is
Well, yes, child abuse is violence. Asking nuns to fill out a survey isn't. There's a line between violence and a survey. When you pay for something with a credit card and you're asked for your zip code, do you non-violently resist the clerk? No, because a question isn't violence. If the clerk threatened to shoot you or molest you, that would be violence.
In sum, not everything is violence. Moreover, by equating refusing to fill out a survey with non-violent resistance, you're making actual non-violent resistance look cheap. If there's no threat of actual violence, there's no non-violent resistance. Swiss Guard death squads aren't going to start assassinating nuns, and even if Dominicans started relaxing nuns to the secular branch, the secular branch wouldn't do anything to them. There is no violence. Facing down dogs, firehoses, and guns is not like facing down a survey.
What do these lovely women of
What do these lovely women of faith have to fear? If they are doing everything according to Christ and the teachings of Christ -- I'm sure they would want to world to know -- and that Christ may be praised. These women religious should stop playing games. Transparency applies to religious women as much as it applies to American Bishops. Why is one group castigated for lack of transparency and another group is praised. Pax! I.R.N.
Yes, when the underdog stands
Yes, when the underdog stands up to the bully-yes, praise them and praise them well.
Jesus didn't "founded" a
Jesus didn't "founded" a church? "upon this rock I will build my church". I thought he did...
"Thou art Peter and upon this
"Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build My church" (Matt. 16: 18) -That sounds like the founding of the church to me.
a. What do you mean by
a. What do you mean by "church"?
b. Founded by whom?
"Does Rome realize that Jesus
"Does Rome realize that Jesus never founded a "church" and that God made the world...and it was good!!"
Rome, my dear, realizes the Jesus found The Church, and that God made it, and the world, good.
Yes, Jesus did found a
Yes, Jesus did found a church; read your Scriptures and history!...and what does all this prattle have to do with the article at hand?
"...read your scriptures and
"...read your scriptures and history!"
We have, and you're wrong.
Have you ever read the
Have you ever read the Scriptures?
If Jesus "never founded a
If Jesus "never founded a church," exactly which part of Matthew 16:18 did Jesus not mention church "And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church (ecclesia in the Greek), and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it."?
I sometimes wonder how Jesus
I sometimes wonder how Jesus could have founded a church, or an assembly, or a community, or any association that He expected to grow,without envisioning an organizational apparatus that would grow with it; it would be impossible for us otherwise. That doesn't mean that what has evolved coudn't be better organizationally, but, please, don't suggest that we humans can avoid structure...think of your own religious communities. Please, think also of the issues which many of us have regarding our relationship with organizational "authority" of any kind, whether it's with Mother Superior, the Pope, or God Himself. Retep06
No one is denying the reality
No one is denying the reality or benefits of "church", must less disputing the need for "organizational apparatus."
We are criticizing, inter alia, Rome's refusal over the years to support "renewal," i.e., to make new again, to restore to an original condition. Indeed, one historian has noted that nearly 75 percent of 'renewal' language from the 21 general/ecumenical councils will be found in the documents of Vatican II alone!
In response to Rachel: You
In response to Rachel: You are quite in error. The Lord Jesus Christ did indeed come to establish a church. In fact, "The Church". You really must read the books of the New Testament. Start with the gospel according to St. Matthew, chapter 16, verse 18. I assure you that the story of the creation and life of His Church is fully outlined and quite readily available to all. Happy reading.
You might try reading the
You might try reading the Epistles to find out how the early church worked. What we think of as "church" isn't at all similar to the early churches. Paul wrote before the gospels were written...also, um, edited...
Don't overlook Matthew
Don't overlook Matthew 18:18.
The gospel reference to "church" is apparently an interpolation, i.e., a phrase inserted later into the original scriptural text.
Fact is Jesus and his disciples knew only the Jewish faith and priesthood.
"[F]acts, as history teaches, carry more weight than pure doctrine" (Joseph Ratzinger, HIGHLIGHTS OF VATICAN II, Paulist Press/Deus Books, 1966, p. 16).
Let's not ignore the historical part of Tradition.
Jesus never founded a
Jesus never founded a church??? Then where did we get the Bible, which you quote, as we presently have it? It came from the Church. Such statements demonstrate a depth of ignorance I have come to expect from dissidents. Yes, God created the world and pronounced it good. But read further and you'll discover how men and women defaced and continue to deface the beauty of creation just as a twisted and malformed interpretation of the Second Vatican Council has but all destroyed the vast majority of religious congregations in this country.
Pietro Giuseppe on Nov. 30,
Pietro Giuseppe on Nov. 30, 2009.
You stated:
"Jesus never founded a church??? Then where did we get the Bible, which you quote, as we presently have it? It came from the Church. Such statements demonstrate a depth of ignorance I have come to expect from dissidents. Yes, God created the world and pronounced it good. But read further and you'll discover how men and women defaced and continue to deface the beauty of creation just as a twisted and malformed interpretation of the Second Vatican Council has but all destroyed the vast majority of religious congregations in this country."
--------------------------------------------------
1) We received the Old Testament from the Jewish Community which assembled biblical scholars to write the Old Testament in Alexandria, Egypt--at least 3 centuries before the birth of Christ. The name "Septuagint" is a Latin name for the number of Jewish biblical translators who translated the scrolls from Hebrew to Greek.
2) Jesus did not speak Greek (he knew it and Latin as well), but he spoke in Aramaic to his followers and to the people. The name given to Peter was "kepha" in Aramaic. It is highly doubtful that Jesus used the term "ekklesia" (which was a term used in the epistles---written in Greek---to
name the group that Jesus was forming). Jesus also stated that because of Peter's faith (that Jesus is the Messiah)and that Peter's faith and words came from nobody "but my Father, who is in heaven," Jesus states that "the gates of Sheol (death)" will not have power over this group. The term "hell" was a later translation and it is misleading. It was Peter's faith, inspired by God, which became the ROCK.
However, Peter's leadership is affirmed in other places in the scriptures. He is given the Greek name of "Kephas" as found in John 1:43, in the Epistles
1 Cor. 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:5; Gal. 1:18; 2:9,11,14; and Paul only uses the name "Petros" once in Gal. 2:7,8. It is clear that Peter is the rock upon which the 'ekklesia' rests. But in what sense he is the foundation, is NOT clear.
There is nobody, but John Paul II, who gave a twisted and malformed version of Vatican II. He believed that God had selected him and his ideas and therefore he could reframe Vatican II in his own style. And so, in his "Sources of Renewal: The Implementation of Vatican II, 1979" he does just that---he gives what the council said and then gives his interpretation of what that means. He consulted nobody---he believed that since he was the Pope, God speaks through him. He forgot that the Holy Spirit speaks through the simplest of people---the 'sensus fidelium' of the 'little ones' of Christ's flock. If you believe in the appearances of Mary and Jesus to the saints---neither Jesus or Mary ever appeared to a pope, cardinal, bishop---rarely a priest. Most of the time, the appearances were to the laity(that includes religious women like Margaret Mary, Catherine, and Faustina).
The Religious communities were commissioned from the mid 1960's to just before John Paul II's ascent to the papacy to "up-date" their religious communities and re-write their constitutions. The hierarchy and Vatican dicasteries (reformed in John Paul II's concepts of Vatican II, and now in Benedict's) are enforcing THEIR concepts of Vatican II.
The truth is that no one person (Pope(s)) or a small group of hierarchy has the right to sweep away the work of a major council in which over 2,500 arch/bishops and cardinals participated. A council's authority trumps the authority of a pope!
Your post was interesting. It
Your post was interesting. It shows a great knowledge of scripture and the history of the Church. So surley you recognize the last sentence as teh conciliarist heresy associated with the Anti-council of Pisa and condemned by the Councils Lateran V & Vatican I, and certainly at odds with the teachings, with respect to the papacy, of Vatican II.
T. B. on Dec. 03, 2009. You
T. B. on Dec. 03, 2009.
You Stated:
"Your post was interesting. It shows a great knowledge of scripture and the history of the Church. So surley you recognize the last sentence as teh conciliarist heresy associated with the Anti-council of Pisa and condemned by the Councils Lateran V & Vatican I, and certainly at odds with the teachings, with respect to the papacy, of Vatican II."
-----------------------------------------
In Religious orders, for centuries and centuries, the work of a General Chapter (comprised of religious who were voted to attend the Chapter as representatives of the each and every religious in final profession of vows).
The General Chapter ALWAYS held greater weight than the pronouncements of the Superior General. Most of the Superior Generals had enough sense and vercity to not violate the pronouncements of General Chapters.
I could go into much detail about the time period that you are referring to, 1409-1414. It was a time of much political intrigue to it. It finally ended with the election of Pope Martin V, which left many questions to how he was elected. This could be a whole essay of one particular time period of the church and one particular council---that is sometimes called an "anti-council'.
The interesting aspect of Vatican II was that the delegates of Vatican II worked directly with Pope John XXIII's advisers in preparing the agenda. In other Councils, Popes often presented the concepts and the Bishops/Cardinals merely rubber-stamped the Pope's agenda. By the way, Angelo Roncalli took the name which was exactly the same as the Pope John XXIII of your Council of Pisa fame. Perhaps the twentieth century Pope John XXIII may have admired some (just some) of the qualities of the earlier Pope. Maybe.
Vatican II moved afway from the static conception of the church that had dominated Catholic thught for fifteen centuries. No longer was the Church to be thought of as and "it," but as an "us." The Church is a community. It is the "people of God." As John Paul II was to write later, "The Church is ourselves" {Karol Wojtyla, "Sources of Renewal: The Implementation of Vatican
II" {New York: Harper and Row, page 35). John Paul II writes:
"We the Church are not an institution of men at the top of a pyramid with eveybody else at the bottom. Rather, we the Church are a communion of lay and ordained, male and female." At any rate, Vatican II was unlike any council preceeding it.
"A council's authority trumps
"A council's authority trumps the authority of a pope."
Joseph Ratzinger seems to suggest as much in his HIGHLIGHTS OF VATICAN II, published in 1966, regarding the new reality of national episcopal conferences.
Of course, we know the de facto contempt held by JPII and now B16 for such conferences. In addition, reactionary, self-styled 'orthodox' Catholics would just as soon see such conferences disappear since they remain a (weak) potential counterweight to autocratic exercise of papal authority.
We need to dig out tradition's overgrowth to rediscover our ecclesial roots. The dysfunction in the Church of Rome today is ample proof of this much needed undertaking.
With all Charity....Rachel
With all Charity....Rachel needs to read a little scripture and get a clue.
Rachel, have you read the
Rachel, have you read the bible lately? From the Gospel of Matthew: "Upon this rock I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH".
I'm sorry Rachel, but have
I'm sorry Rachel, but have you mortgaged your mind, or are you just that malformed as a Catholic? Christ never founded a church?
"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." -Matthew 16:18
"And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican." -Matthew 18:17
"Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood." -Acts 20:28
The world was good, just up till that moment it was perverted by sin. If it was so great, what need is there for redemption? What need is there to "make all things new" (Rev 21:5)?
If you really believe this,
If you really believe this, then you are in serious error. The Church has taught, for nearly 2000 years, that Jesus did, indeed, intend to found His Church and He did, indeed, found it. It is a dogma of the faith, one of those teachings that is absolutely true, that Christ founded the Church, that He intended to do so, that He intended to name Simon Peter as His Vicar on Earth and that the Roman Catholic Church is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church that Christ founded. This is a fundamental truth of the Faith and those who do not accept this truth are in serious and fundamental error.
The photo you are now using
The photo you are now using is also lie! How dare you use a photo of a woman religious in a habit alongside a story about sisters who are disobedient to Rome! You are supposed to be journalist with integrity? Woman who are part of communities who wear this outward sign of consecration take their vocations seriously and would NEVER be disobedient to Christ and His Church. Ever. The photo you should have used is that of woman in jeans dancing around some rock maze!
Robert: Your talk against
Robert: Your talk against Sisters, never contradicting fellow slanderers of LCWR women-religious, quite reveals your bias in favor of the oppresive status-quo. Men who love absolutist patriarchal power by ganging up against the LCWR are motivated by narcism not Jesus. Their exclusionary "my-way-or-the-hiway" jurisdiction is self-absorbed. Your disdain for Christ the egalitarian preacher who walked this earth is clear. However, the hope that love will one day be the standard lives forever. Herod, Pilate, and pharisees, along with people like you could not kill Him then and they will not succeed now. The People of God will forge a new heaven and a new earth. Justice will replace unfair priviledge, love will cast out hate, and equality will drive sexist oppression from the face of the earth.
I pray the peace of Christ will bless you always.
Well said! What bothers me
Well said! What bothers me most about Catholics is their lack of knowledge about the history of their church. What's more irritating is their lack of desire to learn anything beyond their eigth grade catechism or to actually study what came out of Vatican II.
Get curious and start questioning what your church leaders have taught. Learn about the early apostolate to which the Roman church belonged and over which Rome exercised no authority. There was no myth of infalibility. The churches had Apostolic Succession because they belonged to the Apostolate.
Eventually, Rome left the Apostolate.
Jesus never spoke of starting a Catholic church. Peter was never the Bishop of Rome nor did he evangelize Rome, he only died there. The men of Rome have made some tall claims in order to garner power for themselves. They are not the church, only a tiny part of the whole church, but they have placed themselves above all others. The People of God are the Church and catholics do not have exclusive rights to the title. Stop being so pompous.
Of course it is much easier to remain in the dark; learning something just might require that one has to change or learn more. Many catholics are leaving this church simply because they can't, in conscience, remain associated with an institution with a dark age mentality. They desire to return to the Christianity that existed before men decided to organize it.
To return to the message of Jesus to love God above all things and your neighbor as yourself.
I love men. I have two sons and two sons-in-law who are wonderful. They have been taught that allegiance is to God and not to hierarchical men. They know that the Church is beyond the temple and it is the Holy Spirit to whom they must turn for inspiration. I am also a questioning catholic because I care enough about my church to hold accountable those who would rule by deceit.
I support the sisters in their quest for the truth, especially in Women's
theology. Jesus didn't exclude women, the patriarchy did. Shame on them!
Hang in there, Sisters! Maybe
Hang in there, Sisters! Maybe you can just tell them your feet hurt.
What are the dissident women
What are the dissident women religious trying to hide? Dragging their feet and obstructing makes them look even more guilty. The same people who are cheering the women religious for being obstructionist would throw temper tantrums if the clergy obstructed disclosing information about homosexual abusing priests. Oh, wait. That's right. They did throw temper tantrums about that. So why the inconsistency?
Oh, but Prop 8, the women
Oh, but Prop 8, the women religious have nothing to hide and are saying to the abusive hierarchy a simple No Thank You to Your Abuse and they have answered with the Justice and Peace of Jesus Christ.
This was never an investigation of sexual abuse by Sisters. And for your information, the Church hierarchy has been abusing children and has been obstructing justice and those who want to end such abuse are rightfully dissident against such abuse.
To be dissident against an abusive and tyrannical system is courageous and very Catholic too.
Because the women religious
Because the women religious have done nothing to deserve investigation. Far and wide they are hailed for their ministry, for their commitment to social justice. If they feel the need for a modicum of social justice themselves, I am prepared to support them.
Well, actually some women
Well, actually some women religious have been promoting Reiki and "post-Christian" spirituality. Some women religious have been escorting women into abortion clinics with the full consent of their leaders.
These actions are certainly deserving of investigation.
Oh yes, I'd start an
Oh yes, I'd start an investigation of all the religious sisters of the U.S. because of of the huge influence of Reiki and "post-Christian" spirituality...give me a break. What is the Church afraid of? Energy work?
What an insult to be compared
What an insult to be compared to Abusing priests who by the way are probably not homosexual. somebody better get their facts straight.
Guilty? Of what are the
Guilty? Of what are the sisters being accused? The reaction of the majority of people about the clergy sexual abuse was hardly a temper tantrum, but it was totally justified anger and sadness. I am mystified how serious person could tie these two issues.
Hi Prop 8 was Gr8; It sounds
Hi Prop 8 was Gr8; It sounds like you disagree with the "people who are cheering..." and who throw "temper tanrums". You are certainly entitled to that opinion. However, it also seems that you are comparing the women religious (who are so far not under indictment) with certain clergy who have been documented as having sexually abused the faithful. Is that a comparison you intended to make?
Yes, Prop 8 was Gr8 can make
Yes, Prop 8 was Gr8 can make such a comparison since both are NOT living their Catholic faiths, of which obedience (am I allowed to say that word?) to Christ teachings through the Church is a basic tenet. Unfortunately the women religious who remain faithful are obedient to their obstinate superiors who are telling them not to fill out these surveys. Remember, that's why this visitation is taking place--it was requested by those being oppressed! Now the radical leadership wants to talk about anything else except the planks in their own eyes. How about that scandal of a nun escorting a woman into an abortion clinic?
Jesus knew He would be long in coming again, and so left us the rock, Peter, upon which to build his community. St. Paul certainly went to St. Peter and submitted to his authority. Of course this leadership would grow and change over a few thousand years, and yet it remains obedient to Christ. Without a visible head we get thousands of different "Christian" faiths, so where is the unity in that? That alone demonstrates the fruit of Christians outside the Catholic Church. Just look at the comments here to see the divisiveness!
Um, maybe because te female
Um, maybe because te female religious have not been abusing altar boys?
Sadly there have been cases
Sadly there have been cases in the news of nuns abusing kids, just much fewer of them. That is either because they occur less often, or america's double standards mean they are reported less often.
They only look guilty to the
They only look guilty to the few Catholics who don't like women who are both seen and heard. They look humble and strong to most of us, and they are indeed those who nurtured and educated us, nursed us when we were sick, prayed for us always, and act courageously and steadfastly in their works of justice and mercy.
For all you know, in the instances where individuals or orders covered up their misdeeds and abuse, it was the male hierarchy who ordered them to shut their mouths and cover it up. Obedience is not in itself any virtue at all.
So, since you obviously would call any reasoned discussion by anyone not over-the-edge like yourself a temper tantrum: there is my 'temper tantrum du jour. Enjoy. And Happy Thanksgiving.
Personally AnnieO, I think we
Personally AnnieO, I think we progressives are following in the foot prints of Cardinal Ottaviani, just on the other side of the theological equation. Cardinal "O" was as big an 'in the Church dissenter' as the twentieth century ever produced. He had a much bigger impact on the direction of the Post Vatican II church than the SSPX ever thought of having.
The only trouble is we don't have access to the same fascist money sources Big "O" did.
Ah, interesting. As often
Ah, interesting. As often happens, I'll have to do a bit of reading to catch up to your thinking. I don't even remember who Ottaviani is/was. I WOULD like some big money sources at this point in my life, however (although the fascist sources would still quickly nullify that desire). Or, you could make it even easier, and explain him and his impact more to me? :)
Dear "Prop 8 was Gr8": You
Dear "Prop 8 was Gr8": You and your ilk are akin to worms who thrive in the moist dark mud and cannot apprehend how your railing in the light betrays your real essence. "What are the dissident women religious trying to hide? Dragging their feet and obstructing makes them look even more guilty" you write as if you and your kind bathe in the warm sanctuary of Christ love. What hypocricy. To identify clerical sexual abusers with homosexuality is dumb at least and swathed in bigotry. To compare the legitimate response of these women religious with the church hierarchy's denial, obfuscation and perpetuation of the sexual abuse of children and youth reveals your inner core.
I suspect that the hierarchs who pursue these policies of exclusion, repression and inquisitorial style of Catholicism are now wondering what they have spawned. The more you and your ilk betray your style of "catholicism" the more they must fear what they will be left with.
WELL DONE Women religious! I
WELL DONE Women religious! I have great respect for the women religious who have been my teachers and mentors and now......I am simply in awe! Way to live out the Gospel!
Well done? In 50 years the
Well done? In 50 years the great majority of these communities will exist in archives and libraries only ... Well done? The only thing that is well done is modelling the way to extinction ... What a sad story. Even in their dying moments they still fight the wrong enemy. This is a total sell-out of the great witness and work of the many great women in the history of the US Church.
Don't give in sisters. Abuse
Don't give in sisters. Abuse of power can only succeed if you give in to the oppressors. Continue to imitate Jesus and remain silent.
Well done. David
It is so sad that the
It is so sad that the remaining sisters, most aging, don't want to be bothered with the reform of the reform even if it means that they would see an increase in vocations and a resurrection of their community life and institutions. Individual sisters are doing great social work, but so do individual Catholics. I think there needs to be a reason to join a community that goes beyond what one can do anyway. Habits aren't that bad and if you don't want to wear one, just be a good lay Catholic and do your own thing. Unfortunately, that's the conclusion that many religious orders have determined for themselves, but keeping the religious name.