American Nuns are Revolting

MadsL

No, actually revolting against the Vatican.

Sister Pat Farrell, president of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, called the Vatican assessment of the organization a "misrepresentation." But she said the more than 900 women who attended the group's national assembly this week decided they would for now stay open to discussion with three bishops the Vatican appointed to oversee them.

"The officers will proceed with these discussions as long as possible but will reconsider if LCWR is forced to compromise the integrity of its mission," Farrell said at a news conference, where she declined to discuss specifics.

The organization represents about 80 percent of the 57,000 Roman Catholic nuns in the U.S.

The St. Louis meeting was the group's first national gathering since a Vatican review concluded the sisters had "serious doctrinal problems" and promoted "certain radical feminist themes" that undermine Catholic teaching on all-male priesthood, birth control and homosexuality. The nuns also were criticized for remaining nearly silent in the fight against abortion.

Link

G'wan Sister Pat!

Could this be the way forward for a reformed Catholic Church? I could see an Arab Spring type movement by the sisters being sick of being told to shut up and do as they are told by old white men.

totus tuus

MadsL wrote: »

No, actually revolting against the Vatican.


Link

G'wan Sister Pat!

Could this be the way forward for a reformed Catholic Church? I could see an Arab Spring type movement by the sisters being sick of being told to shut up and do as they are told by old white men.

For a start they're not nuns (members of religious orders), they're sisters.

They are also not a way forward to a reformed CC, either they conform to her teachings or get excommunicated!!!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

totus tuus wrote: »

For a start they're not nuns (members of religious orders), they're sisters.

They are also not a way forward to a reformed CC, either they conform to her teachings or get excommunicated!!!

Interesting pronoun.

MadsL

totus tuus wrote: »

For a start they're not nuns (members of religious orders), they're sisters.

Sorry, the word Sister must have confused me. :rolleyes:

and this

The organization represents about 80 percent of the 57,000 Roman Catholic nuns in the U.S.

totus tuus

MadsL wrote: »

Sorry, the word Sister must have confused me. :rolleyes:

and this

The organization represents about 80 percent of the 57,000 Roman Catholic nuns in the U.S.

Obviously the person who wrote the article doesn't know the difference either, religious orders aren't under investigation by the CDF.

MadsL

totus tuus wrote: »

Obviously the person who wrote the article doesn't know the difference either, religious orders aren't under investigation by the CDF. Also one sister represents their community and votes without their consent!!!

Care to share with those of us non-Catholics not familiar with the minutiae of Catholic hierarchy?

georgieporgy

http://anunslife.org/resources/sister-or-nun/

totus tuus

MadsL wrote: »

Care to share with those of us non-Catholics not familiar with the minutiae of Catholic hierarchy?

The following franciscan brother puts it better than I could:

There is a doctrinal visitation of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR). This visitation is a result from a call that Pope John Paul II in 2001 who asked the LCWR to step back and correct their position on gay marriage, women’s ordination and their positions on the role of Jesus in salvation history.

What we have to understand here is that the LCWR is made up of about 1500 women religious. They allegedly represent the sisters in their community. But the problem with this is that they do not. The sisters in these communities have no voice or vote on the LCWR. The only ones who have a vote and a voice are the sisters who are actually members, not their entire community. The sisters who are members of the LCWR vote independently of their community’s wishes or religious goals. This visitation does not include the Council of Major Superiors of Religious Women (CMSRW).

The other visit is one to the women religious communities. This visit is focusing on the prayer life, ministry, vocation recruitment, formation, community life, fidelity to the founder and the charism. This visit is only to sisters. It involves all sisters. Nuns are not being visited.

http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=5922653&postcount=47

MadsL

Members of LCWR are Catholic women religious who are leaders of their orders in the United States. The conference has approximately 1500 members, who represent about 80 percent of the 57,000 women religious in the United States.

The Church is quite fond of claiming to represent numbers of the population who were baptised as infants are they not. Boot on the other foot now they do not like what this canonically approved organisation has to say.

I was struck by this

Farrell ended the address with a phrase she learned while serving the church in Chile when the country was under a military dictatorship.

"They can crush a few flowers, but they can't hold back the springtime," she said, before receiving a standing ovation.

I think we have some echos of the the Liberation Theology factions in the 60-70s. From my point of view I think it is great to have some forward thinking sisters to balance out the great swell of neo-conservatives. Can't help thinking of the Inquisition either for some reason.

totus tuus

MadsL wrote: »

The Church is quite fond of claiming to represent numbers of the population who were baptised as infants are they not. Boot on the other foot now they do not like what this canonically approved organisation has to say.
.

No, the Catholic Church represents Christ on earth! However it's members are required to adhere to it's teachings!

MadsL

totus tuus wrote: »

No, the Catholic Church represents Christ on earth! However it's members are required to adhere it it's teachings!

Fish on Friday?
Reading Galileo's works?

The Church has changed its teachings over time has it not? Why not discourse with these sisters, they seem contemplative and prayerful. Would you allow that some of God's revelation through the Holy Spirit might come to them?

totus tuus

MadsL wrote: »

Fish on Friday?
Reading Galileo's works?

The Church has changed its teachings over time has it not? Why not discourse with these sisters, they seem contemplative and prayerful. Would you allow that some of God's revelation through the Holy Spirit might come to them?

Those aren't 'teachings', they're disciplines, and we are still required to abstain from eating meat on Fridays.

MadsL

totus tuus wrote: »

Those aren't 'teachings', they're disciplines, and we are still required to abstain from eating meat on Fridays.

How about the earth being the centre of the universe? Was that a discipline or a teaching?

Edit:

we are still required to abstain from eating meat on Fridays.

You mean you are once more required, I find it hard to keep up with the meat on Friday rule - keeps changing, for Brits at least.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8512721/Catholics-told-to-abstain-from-eating-meat-on-Fridays..html

Oh, and condoms. I hear they are ok now.

Point I'm obviously making is that the sisters seem to be getting a pretty hard time for advocating changes that will probably be standard practice in the Church in 20-50 years. As soon as a man decides.

totus tuus

MadsL wrote: »

How about the earth being the centre of the universe? Was that a discipline or a teaching?

Edit:

You mean you are once more required, I find it hard to keep up with the meat on Friday rule - keeps changing, for Brits at least.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8512721/Catholics-told-to-abstain-from-eating-meat-on-Fridays..html

Oh, and condoms. I hear they are ok now.

Point I'm obviously making is that the sisters seem to be getting a pretty hard time for advocating changes that will probably be standard practice in the Church in 20-50 years. As soon as a man decides.

The abstinance from meat is only applicable to England and Wales, it's still only a discipline and can be changed anytime, however, Church doctrine can't, such as women priests, abortion, ss marraige, homosexual relationships, which is what those sisters are striving for! And contrary to what you believe, condoms are still a no no.

The Church and Gallileo!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufa0WrxdMXk

MadsL

totus tuus wrote: »

The abstinance from meat is only applicable to England and Wales,it's still only a discipline and can be changed anytime, however

Sorry I'm confused now, didn't you just infer that it applied to all Catholics?
Do disciplines have national boundaries?

Church doctrine can't, such as women priests, abortion, ss marraige, homosexual relationships, which is what those sisters are striving for!

Can't or won't? To be honest I struggle to see the incompatibilities - the Church could accept that the earth was no longer the centre of the universe, a huge shift, it could easily accommodate any of the above. I cannot see any scriptural provisions that cannot be interpreted as cultural or mistranslated that would prevent any of these features of modern society.

And contrary to what you believe, condoms are still a no no

Not since November. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/8148944/The-Pope-drops-Catholic-ban-on-condoms-in-historic-shift.html

The Church and Gallileo!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufa0WrxdMXk

Please! trying to justify the excesses of the medieval church, good luck with that.

totus tuus

MadsL wrote: »

Sorry I'm confused now, didn't you just infer that it applied to all Catholics?
Do disciplines have national boundaries?

Some Bishops do relax the no meat rules in favour of some other form of penance, but it's very few!

Can't or won't? To be honest I struggle to see the incompatibilities - the Church could accept that the earth was no longer the centre of the universe, a huge shift, it could easily accommodate any of the above. I cannot see any scriptural provisions that cannot be interpreted as cultural or mistranslated that would prevent any of these features of modern society.

The Catholic Church relies on, Sacred Scriptures, Sacred Tradition and the Teaching Magisterium of the Church as handed down though Apostolic Succession. Once a teaching is part of Dogma, not even the Pope himself can ever alter it! Heaven and earth will pass away but My words will never pass away. (Matt 24:35)

Not since November. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/8148944/The-Pope-drops-Catholic-ban-on-condoms-in-historic-shift.html

Tabloid trash, the Pope did NOT endorse the use of condoms.

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/11/the-pope-did-not-endorse-the-use-of-condoms/

Please! trying to justify the excesses of the medieval church, good luck with that.

More detailed info on the Church and Gallileo

http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/galileo.htm

Onesimus

MadL, It sounds like you just used this article in your OP as a scapegoat to run off topic and have a go at the Church with all your galileo and eating meat of fridays nonsense.

If people are going to want to discuss the Catholic Church here could they please do us all a favor and read the catechism from start to finish for once and get some help in reading it too. Far too many self styled experts come into this forum thinking they have it ''made'' against the Catholic Church with their woeful 2 year old arguments.

laoch na mona

Onesimus wrote: »

read the catechism from start to finish for once and get some help in reading it too.

does thomas kinsella count as help he taught me the only line of it that i know

Seaneh

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Interesting pronoun.

The church is called "The Bride of Christ" several times in the NT.
It's not unusual for people to use that pronoun at all really.

totus tuus

Onesimus wrote: »

MadL, It sounds like you just used this article in your OP as a scapegoat to run off topic and have a go at the Church with all your galileo and eating meat of fridays nonsense.

If people are going to want to discuss the Catholic Church here could they please do us all a favor and read the catechism from start to finish for once and get some help in reading it too. Far too many self styled experts come into this forum thinking they have it ''made'' against the Catholic Church with their woeful 2 year old arguments.

I tend to agree, it seems I was wasting my time! :cool:

MadsL

Onesimus wrote: »

MadL, It sounds like you just used this article in your OP as a scapegoat to run off topic and have a go at the Church with all your galileo and eating meat of fridays nonsense.

If people are going to want to discuss the Catholic Church here could they please do us all a favor and read the catechism from start to finish for once and get some help in reading it too. Far too many self styled experts come into this forum thinking they have it ''made'' against the Catholic Church with their woeful 2 year old arguments.

OK, I apologise. I was using some well trod paths to get to the point that the Catholic Church has changed it's teachings more than once in relation to various things once held immutable.

These Sisters are working with the very marginalised in society and see these issues as dogmas the Church needs to change in order to be relevant in the 21st Century. Rather than debating that with these Sisters, the Church hauls out the old Inquisition tactics.

So I put it to apologists, if the Church can change her views on the Earth as the centre of the universe and other Christian sects acknowledge the ordination of women, why can the Church not at least entertain that debate?

I dare not speak of the sin that dares not speak it's name in this thread (shhh) but the Sisters, like many others are deeply questioning of the Church's position on this, especially as more and more research about the generic roots of, umm you know what. For them, the exhortation to Love one another, is more compelling that the possibly badly translated 'prohibitions'.

What I find truly scandalous is that these women are criticised in that report for

“focusing its work too much on poverty and economic injustice, while keeping ‘silent’ on abortion and same-sex marriage.”

Seriously? Christ would want them to do less work with the poor and outcast in society to hold up signs about abortion and same-sex marriage?

So, let me ask a straightforward question. Why is the Church afraid of this dialogue and starting to brandish the excommunication stick at very committed members?

MadsL

totus tuus wrote: »

The Catholic Church relies on, Sacred Scriptures, Sacred Tradition and the Teaching Magisterium of the Church as handed down though Apostolic Succession. Once a teaching is part of Dogma, not even the Pope himself can ever alter it! Heaven and earth will pass away but My words will never pass away. (Matt 24:35)

John Henry Newman didn't see things as quite as 'fully-formed' rather an evolving revelation.

Chapter 2, Section I, Paragraph 12

Moreover, while it is certain that developments of Revelation proceeded all through the Old Dispensation down to the very end of our Lord’s ministry, on the other hand, if we turn our attention to the beginnings of Apostolical teaching after His ascension, we shall find ourselves unable to fix an historical point at which the growth of doctrine ceased, and the rule of faith was once for all settled. Not on the day of Pentecost, for St. Peter had still to learn at Joppa that he was to baptize Cornelius; not at Joppa and Cæsarea, for St. Paul had to write his Epistles; not on the death of the last Apostle, for St. Ignatius had to establish the doctrine of Episcopacy; not then, nor for centuries after, for the Canon of the New Testament was still undetermined. Not in the Creed, which is no collection of definitions, but a summary of certain credenda, an incomplete summary, and, like the Lord’s Prayer or the Decalogue, a mere sample of divine truths, especially of the more elementary. No one doctrine can be named which starts complete at first, and gains nothing afterwards from the investigations of faith and the attacks of heresy. The Church went forth from the old world in haste, as the Israelites from Egypt “with their dough before it was leavened, their kneading troughs being bound up in their clothes upon their shoulders.”

http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/chapter2.html

Onesimus

MadsL wrote: »

OK, I apologise. I was using some well trod paths to get to the point that the Catholic Church has changed it's teachings more than once in relation to various things once held immutable.

These Sisters are working with the very marginalised in society and see these issues as dogmas the Church needs to change in order to be relevant in the 21st Century. Rather than debating that with these Sisters, the Church hauls out the old Inquisition tactics.

So I put it to apologists, if the Church can change her views on the Earth as the centre of the universe and other Christian sects acknowledge the ordination of women, why can the Church not at least entertain that debate?

I dare not speak of the sin that dares not speak it's name in this thread (shhh) but the Sisters, like many others are deeply questioning of the Church's position on this, especially as more and more research about the generic roots of, umm you know what. For them, the exhortation to Love one another, is more compelling that the possibly badly translated 'prohibitions'.

What I find truly scandalous is that these women are criticised in that report for

Seriously? Christ would want them to do less work with the poor and outcast in society to hold up signs about abortion and same-sex marriage?

So, let me ask a straightforward question. Why is the Church afraid of this dialogue and starting to brandish the excommunication stick at very committed members?

Infallibility

Although three of the ten cardinals who judged Galileo refused to sign the verdict, his works were eventually condemned. Anti-Catholics often assert that his conviction and later rehabilitation somehow disproves the doctrine of papal infallibility, but this is not the case, for the pope never tried to make an infallible ruling concerning Galileo’s views.


The Church has never claimed ordinary tribunals, such as the one that judged Galileo, to be infallible. Church tribunals have disciplinary and juridical authority only; neither they nor their decisions are infallible.
No ecumenical council met concerning Galileo, and the pope was not at the center of the discussions, which were handled by the Holy Office. When the Holy Office finished its work, Urban VIII ratified its verdict, but did not attempt to engage infallibility.


Three conditions must be met for a pope to exercise the charism of infallibility: (1) he must speak in his official capacity as the successor of Peter; (2) he must speak on a matter of faith or morals; and (3) he must solemnly define the doctrine as one that must be held by all the faithful.
In Galileo’s case, the second and third conditions were not present, and possibly not even the first. Catholic theology has never claimed that a mere papal ratification of a tribunal decree is an exercise of infallibility. It is a straw man argument to represent the Catholic Church as having infallibly defined a scientific theory that turned out to be false. The strongest claim that can be made is that the Church of Galileo’s day issued a non-infallible disciplinary ruling concerning a scientist who was advocating a new and still-unproved theory and demanding that the Church change its understanding of Scripture to fit his.


It is a good thing that the Church did not rush to embrace Galileo’s views, because it turned out that his ideas were not entirely correct, either. Galileo believed that the sun was not just the fixed center of the solar system but the fixed center of the universe. We now know that the sun is not the center of the universe and that it does move—it simply orbits the center of the galaxy rather than the earth.


As more recent science has shown, both Galileo and his opponents were partly right and partly wrong. Galileo was right in asserting the mobility of the earth and wrong in asserting the immobility of the sun. His opponents were right in asserting the mobility of the sun and wrong in asserting the immobility of the earth.


Had the Catholic Church rushed to endorse Galileo’s views—and there were many in the Church who were quite favorable to them—the Church would have embraced what modern science has disproved.

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-galileo-controversy

You see this is what happens when we assume too much without having studied the subject first. We have the habit of proclaiming ourselves the ''intelligent'' ones with regards to Catholicism. and this goes for me too ya know. I fall into this trap as well. But it's nice to know that we have apologists out there who can answer these things for us.

But it does seem odd that someone who is not Christian and abhors it, is somehow fascinated by the Vatican and their dealings with the religious orders within and their conduct. Someone who has not studied the difference between dogma and morals of the Church coming in proclaiming he has the monopoly upon the teachings of the Church should give all readers cause for grave concern.

The religious sisters are not calling to abandon those in poverty, but to focus on both subjects. Focusing on both does not require emphasis on one over the other but creates a perfect balance. and defending life in the womb requires more than just holding up a sign in order to get the message across.

We Catholics don't expect those who have no love for the Church to understand. So don't worry yourself for a minute about it.

Morbert

totus tuus wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufa0WrxdMXk

The speaker documents the mistreatment of Galileo at the hands of the church, but it is presented as an apologetic. I don't understand. Is he simply saying "The Church's treatment of Galileo was only moderately wicked."?

MadsL

What an entirely unjustified attack!

You see this is what happens when we assume too much without having studied the subject first.

And you are assuming a lot about my background and what i have and haven't studied.

We have the habit of proclaiming ourselves the ''intelligent'' ones with regards to Catholicism. and this goes for me too ya know. I fall into this trap as well. But it's nice to know that we have apologists out there who can answer these things for us.

I haven't proclaimed anything, I am just questioning why the Church holds fixed views other Christians have moved beyond.

But it does seem odd that someone who is not Christian and abhors it, is somehow fascinated by the Vatican and their dealings with the religious orders within and their conduct.

Again with the assumptions. If I live in this world should I not take an interest in how the world works?

Someone who has not studied the difference between dogma and morals of the Church coming in proclaiming he has the monopoly upon the teachings of the Church should give all readers cause for grave concern.

Where on earth did I proclaim I had a "monopoly upon the teachings of the Church "?????

The religious sisters are not calling to abandon those in poverty, but to focus on both subjects.

Sorry, this makes no sense - what "subjects?"

Focusing on both does not require emphasis on one over the other but creates a perfect balance.

A balance between what now? Is there a requirement to spend 50% of your time with the poor and 50% campaigning against abortion. Sisters devote their lives to many different areas are you saying focusing exclusively on teaching, or medicine or ministry to the poor is unbalanced?

and defending life in the womb requires more than just holding up a sign in order to get the message across.

I assume you are not alluding to bombs and death threats?

We Catholics don't expect those who have no love for the Church to understand.

So don't bother explaining? Is that your viewpoint?

So don't worry yourself for a minute about it.

Thus endeth the lesson. :rolleyes:

Actor

Chism... blah, blah, blah... Conservatives vs. liberals... blah, blah, blah...

The church is a broad church with many traditions. Liberal Catholicism is ok (as is conservative Catholicism) so long as everyone adheres to the same guiding principles and is obedient to the Holy Father.

Otherwise, please feck off and stop deceiving souls, spouting lies and using ill-gotten gains to fund your failed ideologies. Fund-raise for your own church or join one of a myriad of Protestant offshoots that suits your taste. A bit like shopping for the latest brand really.

Fanny Cradock

Quite what Galileo has to do with this thread I don't know. However, in the interests of providing something of a counter argument to the oft repeated claim that "religion and science doesn't mix. Sure look with the RCC did to Galileo", here are a couple of resources.

First is a book from Ronald Numbers called Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion (lecture here). Second is a paper by the late Ernan McMullin, who I happened to see shortly before his death. While neither men seek to absolve the RCC from the injustice that they visited upon Galileo they do attempt to set the record straight when it comes to the often simplistic retelling of the affair.

Onesimus

and people can read for themselves the truth of the injustice done to Galileo as told by the RC itself here

ResearchWill

Onesimus wrote: »

MadL, It sounds like you just used this article in your OP as a scapegoat to run off topic and have a go at the Church with all your galileo and eating meat of fridays nonsense.

If people are going to want to discuss the Catholic Church here could they please do us all a favor and read the catechism from start to finish for once and get some help in reading it too. Far too many self styled experts come into this forum thinking they have it ''made'' against the Catholic Church with their woeful 2 year old arguments.

Very Christan arguments, only come here if you have read what we say you must have read, I'm amazed you say read the catechism with no mention of the bible.

Snappy Smurf

I find the title of this thread funny. Did the OP mean to be ambiguous?

I do find liberal nuns revolting lolz.

skooterblue2

Actor wrote: »

The church is a broad church with many traditions. Liberal Catholicism is ok (as is conservative Catholicism) so long as everyone adheres to the same guiding principles and is obedient to the Holy Father.

Otherwise, please feck off and stop deceiving souls, spouting lies and using ill-gotten gains to fund your failed ideologies.

If I hear about one more person going on about the Earth revolving around the Sun lark I am going to lose my nut. I think I need a few more leeches to sooth me!!

skooterblue2

MadsL wrote: »

Seriously? Christ would want them to do less work with the poor and outcast in society to hold up signs about abortion and same-sex marriage?

So, let me ask a straightforward question. Why is the Church afraid of this dialogue and starting to brandish the excommunication stick at very committed members?

Hissssss! Heretic!!! I say we burn him!!!

skooterblue2

I am not so sure about upsetting those kind folk down in the Southern States. The last guy who suggested separating Church and State caught a rifle round in Dallas on 22nd November 1963. They were fairly strong about their religion!!

Fanny Cradock

skooterblue2 wrote: »

I am not so sure about upsetting those kind folk down in the Southern States. The last guy who suggested separating Church and State caught a rifle round in Dallas on 22nd November 1963. They were fairly strong about their religion!!

Let me be sure that I'm understanding you correctly. You are suggesting that Kennedy was killed because he proposed something that had been enshrined in the Constitution since its creation?

skooterblue2

I am suggesting there are a lot of people in the deep south that have deep issues.....

mcmoustache

I'm with totus and actor on this. For the record i'm not catholic or even a christian or theist for that matter.

The catholic church is what it is. If you don't like it, get out. That may sound harsh but hear me out.

I support same sex unions, contraception, meat on fridays and sex before marriage. If i want to be a member of a club that forbids these things, i have no right to demand that the church change its rules to suit me. It's up to me to find a club that agrees with my beliefs or make up one of my own.

I still reserve the right to my negative opinion of the church but i don't see why i should be allowed be a member if i'm not prepared to follow its teachings.

With regard to the OP, i'd like to see these habbit-wearing women given an ulimatum - obey or gtfo. It would send out a message that the rcc will not tolerate people making up their own religion and calling it catholic.

Fanny Cradock

skooterblue2 wrote: »

I am suggesting there are a lot of people in the deep south that have deep issues.....

OK, so other than vague insults about folks from the South, what exactly are you saying about the assassination of Kennedy?

skooterblue2

Could have been anyone .... CIA, KGB, Mafia, unhappy Cubans, FBI, KKK, the paperboy who got short changed by Joseph Kennedy, the list goes on but it definitely didnt happen in Alaska and I doubt the Inuits keep a team of sharpshooters on the pay role.

skooterblue2

I dont see why good Catholics should have to leave a perfectly good church, with assets, real estate, Largest art collection in the world, a bank, interests in pharmaceutical corporations that they demonise.

How about we get in Deloitte and Touche, see where the money is going, "expand thru stream lining (only fools and horse)". Make it more transparent as to governance and accountability. Make it democratic, all lay people to elect Bishops and above like local elections. Then in the media, have the figure heads make themselves more available to the media for interviews.

Any rule written by a man can be rewritten by another man .... see the Irish constitution. That's just for starters!!

Anyone who doesnt like what I am saying, I'll shut up when I get 20,000 Pfizer shares for 25 years worship and 6 years as an Alter boy and mass reader.

Actor

skooterblue2 wrote: »

I dont see why good Catholics should have to leave a perfectly good church, with assets, real estate, Largest art collection in the world, a bank, interests in pharmaceutical corporations that they demonise.

How about we get in Deloitte and Touche, see where the money is going, "expand thru stream lining (only fools and horse)". Make it more transparent as to governance and accountability. Make it democratic, all lay people to elect Bishops and above like local elections. Then in the media, have the figure heads make themselves more available to the media for interviews.

Any rule written by a man can be rewritten by another man .... see the Irish constitution. That's just for starters!!

Anyone who doesnt like what I am saying, I'll shut up when I get 20,000 Pfizer shares for 25 years worship and 6 years as an Alter boy and mass reader.

Truth cannot be attained through populism. The Church is not a democracy nor does it claim to be. There are however democratic elements.

Lastly, why is it always non-believers who think they know best with regards to the Church's running?

ResearchWill

Actor wrote: »

Truth cannot be attained through populism. The Church is not a democracy nor does it claim to be. There are however democratic elements.

Lastly, why is it always non-believers who think they know best with regards to the Church's running?

I think the other poster said he has been a worshiper for 25 years and alter boy for six, maybe it's just me but that does not sound like a non believer.

skooterblue2

@ ResearchWill Kindly dont forget the Mass reader bit

ResearchWill

skooterblue2 wrote: »

@ ResearchWill Kindly dont forget the Mass reader bit

Oops sorry, lol the most important bit.

georgieporgy

skooterblue2 wrote: »

I dont see why good Catholics should have to leave a perfectly good church, with assets, real estate, Largest art collection in the world, a bank, interests in pharmaceutical corporations that they demonise.


Anyone who doesnt like what I am saying, I'll shut up when I get 20,000 Pfizer shares for 25 years worship and 6 years as an Alter boy and mass reader.

The rest of us are willing to wait till the next life for our reward. You want yours now? :rolleyes:

skooterblue2

georgieporgy wrote: »

The rest of us are willing to wait till the next life for our reward. You want yours now? :rolleyes:

If you could make it out to cash please Georgieporgy, That would be fine. Its not that I want to cut out the tax man, its just I dont want to be like that crowd out in the States who decided to settle for 40 Acres a mule. They never got their 40 acres but the sure got their mule in the form of the Previous President.

Actor

ResearchWill wrote: »

I think the other poster said he has been a worshiper for 25 years and alter boy for six, maybe it's just me but that does not sound like a non believer.

I know a minister of the eucharist who doesn't believe in transubstantation. Church attendance is not a sufficient condition for belief.

MadsL

mcmoustache wrote: »

With regard to the OP, i'd like to see these habbit-wearing women given an ulimatum - obey or gtfo. It would send out a message that the rcc will not tolerate people making up their own religion and calling it catholic.

I hear you, but I do see a history here. If they are male priests espousing 'left of centre' theology they are are part of a broad church. When they are Sisters they should stfu and do as they are told or face the excomunication stick.

Actor wrote: »

Truth cannot be attained through populism. The Church is not a democracy nor does it claim to be. There are however democratic elements.

Interesting, how will the American church respond to the fact that the lastest poll of Catholics showed 51% supported same-sex marriage. URL="http://www.gallup.com/poll/154529/Half-Americans-Support-Legal-Gay-Marriage.aspx"]source[/URL

Equally, Catholics are also now believing that God gave people their sexual orientation.

"An overwhelming majority of Catholics (69 percent) believe that sexual orientation is fixed and cannot be changed by “ex-gay” therapies. When asked if sexual activity between people of the same sex is sinful, 56 percent said no.

URL="http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/candacechellew-hodge/4417/new_poll_shows_strong_catholic_support_for_gay_rights/"]source[/URL

Lastly, why is it always non-believers who think they know best with regards to the Church's running?

Yeah, it is not like Catholics are marching in the streets demanding change, oh wait
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/connelly/article/Support-the-Sisters-Big-march-on-St-James-3782906.php

totus tuus

MadsL wrote: »

I hear you, but I do see a history here. If they are male priests espousing 'left of centre' theology they are are part of a broad church. When they are Sisters they should stfu and do as they are told or face the excomunication stick.


Interesting, how will the American church respond to the fact that the lastest poll of Catholics showed 51% supported same-sex marriage. URL="http://www.gallup.com/poll/154529/Half-Americans-Support-Legal-Gay-Marriage.aspx"]source[/URL

Equally, Catholics are also now believing that God gave people their sexual orientation.
URL="http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/candacechellew-hodge/4417/new_poll_shows_strong_catholic_support_for_gay_rights/"]source[/URL


Yeah, it is not like Catholics are marching in the streets demanding change, oh wait
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/connelly/article/Support-the-Sisters-Big-march-on-St-James-3782906.php

Looks like the Great Apostasy is in full swing then!!!

MadsL

totus tuus wrote: »

[/B]

Looks like the Great Apostasy is in full swing then!!!

Ah, prophecies of doom, bringing out the heavyweight guns now.

skooterblue2

Actor wrote: »

I know a minister of the eucharist who doesn't believe in transubstantation. Church attendance is not a sufficient condition for belief.

We are all doomed I tells ya , Doomed!! The Spanish Inquisition were never this thorough !!

mcmoustache

MadsL wrote: »

Equally, Catholics are also now believing that God gave people their sexual orientation.
URL="http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/candacechellew-hodge/4417/new_poll_shows_strong_catholic_support_for_gay_rights/"]source[/URL


Yeah, it is not like Catholics are marching in the streets demanding change, oh wait
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/connelly/article/Support-the-Sisters-Big-march-on-St-James-3782906.php

They don't get to decide what's catholic and what isn't. Catholics need to follow certain beliefs and if they don't they shouldn't call themselves catholic. It's pretty simple.

Again, as much as I dislike the RCC they are clear about what membership of their club entails, I really wish people who aren't really catholic would stop pretending that they are.