America Nuns Struggle With Vatican For Change

[Anselm]

Then what is a vow of obedience worth?

[CrossCuT]

Im sure the vow itself says something about obeying the Church Herself first and foremost.

[Benedictus]

Much of this dissent is being sounded by 'some' american religious sisters connected with LCWR. In my view, not meaning to seem excessively harsh, but in a decade or two natural causes will cull this group extensively. I doubt, by then, it will represent anything near 80% of sisters in the US. 

There are many reasons why the religious sisters, and to a lesser extent brothers, have gone so bad in the US. Vatican ll was often used as a driver for internal changes that were far from warranted and this lead to a crisis in many institutes. In many cases they still fail to recognize past mistakes and adapt. Only a few have reverted or reformed appropriately and so new institutes are leading the way in vocations now. 

I wouldn't take much notice of any dissent unless you have a role to oppose it, but pray for them. 

[Chiquitunga]

why must they always say "Nuns" it's Religious Sisters. Nuns profess Solemn Vows and are, for the most part, cloistered. I honestly usually have no problem when these two terms are interchanged in common speech, or if Sisters sometimes refer to themselves as Nuns, and Nuns can be referred to as Sisters in a general way, but for some reason I'm always bothered when it comes to news reports like this....

 

really quick, I haven't read the rest of the thread, but I remembered this statement I made and regretted it, as there was something very uncharitable and prideful about it... I am sorry and just wanted to correct myself here :blush:

[Ice_nine]

as there was something very uncharitable and prideful about it... I am sorry and just wanted to correct myself here :blush:

 

I didn't find it offensive or rude in any way if that helps ya. and I doubt anyone here would.

Edited July 30, 2013 by Ice_nine

[tinytherese]

I didn't find it offensive or rude in any way if that helps ya. and I doubt anyone here would.

 

I didn't find it rude either.

[MithLuin]

I have no problem saying that if I had lived in Constantinople in the first half of the 4th century I would not have gone along with Nestorios in his Christological heresy.

 

That's an interesting proposition, but since you yourself would be quite a different person had you grown up in 4th century Constantinople, it's really difficult to know that.  Meaning, you might find that for whatever reason your family had a strong loyalty to Nestorios which could in some way cloud the issue of whether or not his views were heretical (in the mind of your alternative self, I mean; the heresy would remain heretical, regardless).  

 

To counter, I could say that if I grew up in Ethiopia, I'd be much more likely to be monophysite.  Not because the heresy would be less wrong, but because I'd be *much* less likely to see/understand that.  Doesn't mean I couldn't be Catholic if I were Ethiopian, simply that I can't say with confidence how a completely different life experience would alter my viewpoints.  

 

 

To go back to the original purpose of this thread, it is true that there are women religious in America who disagree with the Vatican.  Women who would like to be ordained or think that other women should be allowed to be ordained.  These women religious by no means speak for *all* women religious, many of whom do not share their views.  But it's not a negligible number we're talking about, either.  So, yes, there is a problem, the Vatican is aware of it, and the media is aware of it as well.  But when determining who does or does not support such ideas, who is or is not faithful to the teachings of the Catholic Church...it would be wiser to pay attention to the actions of both individuals within an order and the order as a whole, and not to assume anything (orthodoxy or heterodoxy) simply based on association.  The truth tends to be more nuanced than that.

[Apotheoun]

That's an interesting proposition, but since you yourself would be quite a different person had you grown up in 4th century Constantinople, it's really difficult to know that.  Meaning, you might find that for whatever reason your family had a strong loyalty to Nestorios which could in some way cloud the issue of whether or not his views were heretical (in the mind of your alternative self, I mean; the heresy would remain heretical, regardless).  

 

To counter, I could say that if I grew up in Ethiopia, I'd be much more likely to be monophysite.  Not because the heresy would be less wrong, but because I'd be *much* less likely to see/understand that.  Doesn't mean I couldn't be Catholic if I were Ethiopian, simply that I can't say with confidence how a completely different life experience would alter my viewpoints.  

 

 

To go back to the original purpose of this thread, it is true that there are women religious in America who disagree with the Vatican.  Women who would like to be ordained or think that other women should be allowed to be ordained.  These women religious by no means speak for *all* women religious, many of whom do not share their views.  But it's not a negligible number we're talking about, either.  So, yes, there is a problem, the Vatican is aware of it, and the media is aware of it as well.  But when determining who does or does not support such ideas, who is or is not faithful to the teachings of the Catholic Church...it would be wiser to pay attention to the actions of both individuals within an order and the order as a whole, and not to assume anything (orthodoxy or heterodoxy) simply based on association.  The truth tends to be more nuanced than that.

I think you are over thinking my comment. I said that if I lived in the 4th century I would not have supported Nestorius, I mentioned nothing about a changes in my personal character or intellectual development. But let me put it this way, if my local bishop taught what Nestorius taught I have no qualms in saying that I would not support him in his heresy, and that I would speak out - to the degree that I can - in opposition to his false teaching. Obedience - even when one makes a religious vow of obedience - is given primarily to God. To put it another way, absolute obedience cannot be given to a religious superior, at least that is the view expounded by the Medieval Roman Catholic saints. One who has made a religious profession of obedience must obey his superior within the confines of the rule of the order (so if your religious superior says that the order will worship Vishnu instead of Christ you are not required to obey that command - and in fact are duty bound to dissent from it). Your vow of obedience is also made to the Church and to her teaching. Finally, your obedience also does not prevent you from appealing to a higher authority within the Church's hierarchy.

Edited July 31, 2013 by Apotheoun

[MithLuin]

Yes, though I've read some very interesting things about obedience in the East, which ultimately sounded like all the responsibility for any wrongdoing would fall on the superior.  Meaning, if you'd taken a vow of obedience, and your superior told you to lie....you could go ahead and lie, because you'd promised to obey and the culpability for the lie would fall on the superior's head.  Probably too simplified of an answer, and that example wasn't meant as spiritual guidance for anyone.  

 

But yes, everyone has the responsibility to witness to the truth of the gospel (well, by 'everyone' I mean 'every baptized Christian').  This does not mean that every religious sister is aware or involved in what other religious sisters in her order are saying.  They may live in different states or countries, they may be speaking in different languages or in forums she doesn't participate in.  To suggest that every member of the community is responsible simply because they are all in the same community is rather stretching it.  The superior is responsible for keeping everyone in line with the rule of the order (and more broadly, the teachings of the Church).  If it's the leadership that has gone astray, the methods of speaking out against this might not be entirely clear.  By which I mean...most things are an internal affair.  At what point to bring them to the attention of the local bishop or the general public is something that would depend on what exactly we're talking about here.   

[Apotheoun]

Even the old Catholic Encyclopedia states that the Eastern monks never gave perfect obedience because they lacked the stability required in the West since at least the time of St. Benedict, which is a fancy way of saying that Eastern monks - if they didn't like what their superior commanded - simply changed monastic communities (or more commonly spiritual fathers). It also states quite clearly that the monastic life in the ancient Church did not involve making vows, and that vows arose only later, first in the West and then in varying degrees in the East. There are no religious orders in the Eastern Orthodox Tradition even to this day; instead, there is simply monasticism.

Edited August 1, 2013 by Apotheoun