Not only are they unequal, but the Catholyc’s version is make-believe.
A teachable moment, courtesy of the dissentive Jaime Manson and the National Catholic Distorter.
Last night, “PBS NewsHour” dedicated a segment into the Vatican takeover of LCWR. They interviewed two women of opposing views on the issue. Supporting LCWR was Jeannine Fletcher Hill, a professor specializing in feminist theology at Fordham University. Supporting the Vatican was Donna Bethell, a lawyer who serves as the chairman of the board at Christendom College.
[...]
The college’s website boasts, “Catholicism is the ‘air that we breathe,’ ” and “Academic excellence takes the Magisterium as its guide.”
[...]
When Ms. Bethell isn’t singing the praises of the Latin Mass and the curia, she is deeply committed to denying climate change. In addition to serving on the board of Christendom, she also serves on the board of the Sandia National Laboratories, a company that aids the U.S. with the development of nuclear weapons. No. 1 on Sandia’s five-point mission is “ensuring the [nuclear] stockpile is safe, secure, reliable, and can support the United States’ deterrence policy.”
In addition, Ms. Bethell’s husband, Thomas Bethell, who serves as senior editor of the American Spectator, spends his time not only denying climate change, but also denying evolution and, if you can imagine, the belief that HIV causes AIDS.
So, between Ms. Bethell and her husband, we have three significant conflicts with church doctrine on battling climate change, nuclear disarmament and evolution. And yet, Ms. Bethell gets awarded the post of director of the board at Christendom and is allowed to publicly defend the Vatican against nuns who supposedly contradict or ignore the church’s teaching.
The Vatican’s double standard on dissent is breathtaking.
Believably, some commenters actually agree with her.
What’s breathtaking – but not surprising – is the spurious claim that such issues are doctrinal – well, they are if you’re a liberal left-wing Catholyc. Such thinking (or lack thereof) is par for the course at the Distorter – forever knocking down Christ’s Church in order to create one in their image. No wonder they are so supportive of the LCWR.
Thanks a lot, Larry. I just lost 5 IQ points by reading that.
What she said.
I don’t know what y’all are complaining about. I suddenly feel incredibly intellectually dominant!
Talk about your spin. One in particular the comment “the Vatican takeover of LCWR Given that the orders are either of Pontifical or diocesan right, they have to have approval of the Pope or local Bishop to even exist.
The rest you hit pretty well. This is a prime example of how the NonCR stoops to disinformation that it knows their KoolAid drinking followers will swallow without question.
LarryD – what’s happened to all your commentators from the past? There seem to be so few anymore.
Anyway here are some comments from the opposite perspective.
We in our Church need more of the spirit of Paul in Galatians 2:11 et seq:
“But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.”
We need the process from Acts 15:22 et seq: – “Then with the agreement of the whole church …”
We need more of a Catherine of Sienna, or Theresa of Avila each of whom confronted a Pope. We need more of a Cardinal Schoenborn of Vienna dealilng with gay members of our Church; we need more of the pastors in the Seattle Diocesan Church who refused to provide petitions against gay marriage. Anybody want more examples?
I hope the wonderful women in religious communities in America will think prayerfully about their response to the awful Vatican investigation just announced. My suggestion is that the
LCWR will decide to withdraw from any canonical relationship and reconstitute themselves as a US non-profit organization to serve their members.
Lastly – I hope we are seeing the end of our current hierarchical one-man rule; issues such as mandatory clerical celibacy, contraception and the role of women in Orders should be
determined in Council. Our Church history gives the precedent for same. Early councils convened to determine Church doctrine – sometimes without papal involvement. Bishops for hundreds of years were called from the community – without papal approbation.
The highest papal pronouncements talk about a teaching with the whole Catholic community, except that no Pope ever has consulted the whole Catholic community. They just declare that the whole Catholic community is in agreement – by definition!
Peacem
JoeK
You’ve been away for months, Joe, and you still don’t have anything new to say.
As to your last point, I couldn’t agree more, and I wish them all the best in forming the Catholyc Coven of America. Heck, I might even send ‘em a couple of bucks to help ‘em out the door. (Which is no doubt held open by some oppressive, celibate deacon…grr!)
Joe, the only time I comment on any site is if I happen to strongly disagree with what has been said and feel the need to voice my opinion. Thus I am directing my very first comment on this site to you. I do it all the time at NCR! I usually just enjoy reading what “my people” say on Larry’s site. Maybe you will find a “friendlier” atmosphere at NCR…you seem soooo out of place here…
Just one question, Joe: If an Ecumenical Council convened and definitively pronounced that contraception and homosexual relations are intrinsic and grave evils, that a celibate priesthood would remain the norm for the Latin Church, and that women are not merely excluded, but ontologically incapable of receiving the Sacrament of Orders — would you accept it?
In other words, if conciliar government in the Church is the antidote to the “one-man government” you oppose, will you accept a conciliar decision you disagree with?
Why do people who disagree with the church so much always feel the need to reform it. If you want a church that is Enlightened, Homosexual Friendly (they even have Gay Bishops) and has Priests of the female persuasion then why not go and join the Anglican Communion?
Surely it can’t be a simply case of bitterness and resentment holding these people here? So enmeshed in their own pride and arrogance that they cannot stand that the church has got on happily for the last thousand or so years by sticking to it’s teachings and ignoring the fruit loops?
It can’t be the sheer staggering arrogance that “If the church would only listen to ME and change in the ways that – I – think it should then we would all be saved from oblivion, poor teaching and the global bacon shortage”?
Can it?
Joe – Goodbye dude. If you can’t reconcile with Catholic Doctrine & teaching then I wish you the best of luck and will pray for you but the combined effort of two thousand years of theological insight, teachings of the saints and the inspiration + guidance of the Holy Spirit is not about to do an abrupt ‘about face’ just because you want to salve your conscience in not having to believe the hard stuff that society doesn’t like.
The Orthodox don’t like Popes either, they prefer to settle everything via council. Have you thought about headin over that way? Of course, they can’t even agree on what constitutes an Ecumenical Council, so I guess there’s still some kinks to work out…
But seriously, is that what counts for logic in your world? St. Catherine of Siena and St. Teresa of Avila are both Doctors of the Church. St. Paul was St. Paul. There’s a difference between Holy Boldness and disobedience. As for Cardinal Schönborn, he believes in a “morality based on happiness.” Dante would have had a field day with him. I wonder where he would have put him?
Yeah. The Vatican “takeover” of (supposedly) Catholic religious orders. Which, sadly, is a lot more surprising than, say, a new mayor’s “takeover” of City Hall after a local election. The appropriate question is not, as NCR and the MSM would have it, “why are they doing this”, but rather, “why would they NEED to do this?”.
Not to mention that the Church doesn’t have _doctrines_ on scientific issues like climatology or evolution, or political issues like military policy. Any subject where the advice of the Church is subject to change based on either new circumstances or new evidence is, by definition, not a matter of doctrine.
Pingback: lcwr sspx same-sex marriage gay marriage pornography | ThePulp.it
Wait, there are people who don’t believe that HIV causes AIDS?
Yes. IIRC, usually because you can have HIV without developing AIDS, and because it’s so hard to profile HIV, and because acquired immune deficiency syndrome tends to show up in those whose systems have already been swamped.
Wow! You can’t get AIDS without having HIV, though, can you?
By current definition, no. (Kinda circular.)
“AIDS” without HIV would currently be identified as your immune system shutting down for no apparent reason.
Also from memory, though, it’s hard to detect HIV so if you did show up with AIDS and no detected HIV, they’d just figure they couldn’t spot the HIV.
Assuming I understand it correctly, the folks who don’t think HIV causes AIDS are applying the original suppressed immune response diagnosis.
All of this from a single chapter in a book a few years back, so I don’t know how modern it is. http://www.resistanceisfruitful.com/blog/2012/04/11/confessions-of-an-obsessive-hypochondriac/ looks like it’s got more views on what they think ,though.
Wow. I had no idea.
The Church needs feminist theology like a fish needs a bicycle.
Comment to Fr. Frank: we had a Council dealing with collegiality and the role of the laity; and we had a Pope who decided to ignore it and to take away the right to consider contraception and married clergy – and our bishops rolled over, sadly. We had a Pope who decided that episcopal collegiality was null and void. We have also had councils that voted on the authority of councils vis-à-vis the Pope – but that was called Conciliarism, which conservatives rejected. So I don’t know how to respond to your question. But given the Bishops’ and laypeople’s vote on contraception before Pope Paul VI’s encyclical – I am not sure what to say since this Commission’s vote was overruled. Bottom line – I am willing to accept a Council statement – but as we know our Church can act differently in the future. As a side note: think about Jesus’ Gospel teaching about the indissolubility of marriage: that “what God has joined, let no man put asunder.” Well, our Church found ways around that, either with annulments, or Pauline and Petrine privileges. Therefore, even a Council statement has been subject to change – hence my comment about the value of such statements. At least it would be an antidote to the singular autocratic rule we now have.
And – there have been many “dissenting” theologians and non-hierarchical voices that were silenced at one time or another whose views ultimately prevailed. Examples: John Courtney Murray, Yves Congar, Thomas Aquinas. As to women we have Marry MacKillop and Mother Guerin. In Council, we have Trent and Pius V whose decrees on Eucharistic liturgy were changed in Vatican II. We have issues of slavery, for one, where Church practice and decrees have been changed by subsequent Councils. At a minimum, I would like to see a broad discussion in Council involving not just hierarchs but representation of all the baptized before deciding on a binding issue. I do not consider a married clergy such an issue; here I would like to see individual Bishops’ conferences taking on a definitive role in liturgical practice – but they don’t seem so inclined, hence the call on the part of the “ordinary” baptized. As to other possible Council decisions – a Council involving representation of all those baptized as priest, prophet and king would work on issues such as contraception. Since the 90% plus of this populace has already spoken – such a Council decision should be normative.
And LarryD – you are right – I have not changed – nor shall I ever, at least for now. But, neither do you offer anything new.
As to “Blott” – our Church is always in need of reforming – from the time of Paul vs. Peter through all the early Councils and the Reformation. Why would you think it is not necessary now? And your question as to why not leave if in disagreement: mainly because I do not equate Church with Pope – nor do I equate citizen of United States with President. I don’t ask that our Church listen to “me.” I ask that it constantly listen to the Gospel of Jesus Christ – and take some lessons from the earliest Church communities – where the “whole Church” was involved in decisions; where women were welcomed into diaconate orders; where Paul welcomed women as equal to apostles and where social justice was the norm in community sharing of wealth. Again – if you equate hierarchical Church pronouncements over the course of history, you have a real problem, because so many such pronouncements have been changed.
Bottom line in the current issue of Vatican and the LCWR: my wife and I are sending a large donation to the Leadership Conference. We are also sending a donation, and inclusion in our estate, to the Dominican Sisters of Amityville, NY, where my wife was a member for 13 years. We are also sending a letter to our local Ordinary withdrawing all our pledges for the Catholic Appeal and Alive in Christ Campaign; instead we will direct these pledges to our local parish educational efforts and work for justice that our parish has established with 30 non-Catholic church organizations.
Lastly, I am sure this will warm the cockles of your heart, LarryD: we are donating funds withdrawn from our Diocese to the Women’s Ordination Conference. And we were happy to participate in the first ordination of women priests in our area several weeks ago.
Peace to all.
Lastly, I am sure this will warm the cockles of your heart, LarryD: we are donating funds withdrawn from our Diocese to the Women’s Ordination Conference. And we were happy to participate in the first ordination of women priests in our area several weeks ago.
Actually, Joe, that is quite possibly the saddest thing I’ve read in quite some time. To hear you joyfully and gleefully admit that you’ve freely chosen to ex-communicate yourself (if I read your comment correctly, in that you participated in the fake ordination) does not warm the cockles of my heart in the slightest. In fact, from now on, when I spend an hour in front of the Blessed Sacrament in Adoration, you will be foremost in my prayers.
I’m not interested in arguing with you anymore, Joe. I’m sorry I had said some time ago that I thought your comments were “cute”. They aren’t cute – they’re very, very sad and this has truly become a very serious situation.
I should have been praying for you much sooner than now, and I hope that Jesus in His loving mercy does not hold that against me.
I ask all my readers to pray for Joe as well.
And when we have a Friday of Reserved Sacrament adoration in our parish – you and our male hierarchical church will be foremost in my prayers. I have not self-excommunicated as neither have our church leaders who allowed the rape and molestation of children: although you could make such a case since Jesus called for such perpetrators to be killed (millstone in the sea).
Said ordination may be fake to your mind – not mine. Sorry for the “warm the cockles” bit – an attempt at irony that I regret.
The saddest thing I have regarding the dictat on LCWR is that we have Cardinal Levada telling women religious how to behave. This is the Bishop who received a report on clergy sexual abuse in the mid 1980s and burried it. Pope John Paul II had been receiving reports of sexual abuse from the Legionaries of Christ since at least 1980 through, for one, the Bishop of Rockville Centre, NY (where my wife and I lived at the time). No one did anything. So for the Cardinal at this point to investigate women who have served our Church in the ways of poverty and chastity so at odds with the way most of our episcopal leaders live – this is the real outrage.
The current state of our Church leadership is really sad – not those actions of us who seek to return to the original Gospel message.
Peace,
JoeK
It’s not my opinion that the ordination was fake – it’s Church doctrine.
Go ahead and express your outrage all you want – the sins of priests and bishops are not sufficient justification to act in defiance of Christ and His Church. You end up being no better than they.
I am still going to pray for you, and I will be asking all my readers to do the same.
And I appreciate your prayers as well.
It does not matter if “you” don’t “think” you’re excommunicated, Joe. We Catholics believe in objective truth which does not depend upon our thoughts, opinions, or feelings.
You don’t.
Your self-ex-communication started a long time ago. We will continue to pray that you once again joint the faithful and leave protestantism behind.
Pingback: The Saddest Most Terrible Comment « Acts Of The Apostasy