Vatican Will Send a Bishop to Set U.S. Nuns Straight

[Stevil]

The Vatican has appointed an American bishop to rein in the largest and most influential group of Catholic nuns in the United States, saying that an investigation found that the group had "serious doctrinal problems."

The Vatican's assessment, issued on Wednesday, said that members of the group, the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, had challenged church teaching on homosexuality and the male-only priesthood, and promoted "radical feminist themes incompatible with the Catholic faith."

. . .

"I'm stunned," said Sister Simone Campbell, executive director of Network, a Catholic social justice lobby founded by sisters. Her group was also cited in the Vatican document, along with the Leadership Conference, for focusing its work too much on poverty and economic injustice, while keeping "silent" on abortion and same-sex marriage.

Continues

Time to employ Stevil's translator.
"The Vatican has appointed an American bishop to rein in the largest and most influential group of Catholic nuns"
The Vatican has appointed an American bishop to remind these Catholic nuns of their place in the pecking order, Pope, Bishops, Priests, Alter boys, Choir Boys, boys, non Catholic men, non Catholic boys, Non Christian men, non Christian boys, Criminal men, Criminal boys, Atheist men, Atheist boys, Gay men, Gay boys then Nuns

"saying that an investigation found that the group had "serious doctrinal problems.""
saying that an investigation found the group had fallen out of line with company policy

"radical feminist themes incompatible with the Catholic faith"
equal rights principles which threaten the positions of the all male Catholic Board.

"for focusing its work too much on poverty and economic injustice, while keeping "silent" on abortion and same-sex marriage."
for focusing its work too much on humanistic areas, while keeping "silent" on the church's desire to oppress (Catholic and non-Catholic) women and homosexuals.

[TheWalkingContradiction]

National Public Radio's Fresh Air | "An American Nun Responds To Vatican Criticism"

Pat Farrell, president of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, is interviewed by Terry Gross. At the linked page, it's possible to listen to the interview, view a transcript, or just read the article and the selected quotes.

Honestly, I've never had a high regard for nuns, having known some rather wretched specimens in my early life. Still, Sister Pat seems to be a relatively reasonable and well spoken woman.

I have met a lot of ex-nuns, deeply religious women as well as atheists, who got tired of nonsense like this.  I have also taught with two very well spoken, very intelligent and surprisingly open-minded nuns, and I fear what this latest Inquisition could mean for them.  Then again, this is a major difference between Catholicism and Protestantism (or at least an idealistic and perhaps unrealistic interpretation of Protestantism).

Like Recusant, I also knew a lot of horrible nuns who were nothing like The Flying Nun or Sound of Music Maria (which shapes a popular image not unlike The Giving Tree or Santa Claus).  Many nuns I have met are more like the Fundamentalist pun Satan Claus.

In the 1980s there was an excellent book about ex-nuns who had come out of the closet and were now openly lesbian.  It was called...  Kicking the Habit.

[Hector Valdez]

I am concerned for the future of the Nuns. It is unfortunate that the nunnery was contrived in catholic culture as a backhanded way to give women a role in the Catholic church. It has always been understood that women were supposed to support their husbands, while the men were supposed to do all of the work.

At the same time, it is understandable. Certainly, women have always been second class citizens in this country and abroad. This situation will probably not change for many years, and I am not certain that complete parity between men and women would be entirely a good thing. For one, the intellectual styles present and men and women complement each other very well. Submissiveness as a trait in women probably is a result in the historical choice of men to select submissive mates. Historically, females chose husbands who were more dominant and outgoing, for the very purpose that that energy was more likely to ensure survival of their young.

I don't think the seperation of females and males into these types of categories is ultimately bad. But I do think submissiveness to be an unfortunate thing, just as someone who values dominance should.

[Stevil]

It has always been understood that women were supposed to support their husbands, while the men were supposed to do all of the work.

At the same time, it is understandable.

Stevil, stares uncomfortably at the ground.

I am not certain that complete parity between men and women would be entirely a good thing.

Stevil turns and runs away from RR's proximity

I don't think the seperation of females and males into these types of categories is ultimately bad

Stevil gets comfortable in his favorite chair, popcorn in one hand, beer in the other and watches the street, through the gap between the curtains, intently as he expects the women folk to castrate this poor chap.

[Dobermonster]

I am concerned for the future of the Nuns. It is unfortunate that the nunnery was contrived in catholic culture as a backhanded way to give women a role in the Catholic church. It has always been understood that women were supposed to support their husbands, while the men were supposed to do all of the work.

At the same time, it is understandable. Certainly, women have always been second class citizens in this country and abroad. This situation will probably not change for many years, and I am not certain that complete parity between men and women would be entirely a good thing. For one, the intellectual styles present and men and women complement each other very well. Submissiveness as a trait in women probably is a result in the historical choice of men to select submissive mates. Historically, females chose husbands who were more dominant and outgoing, for the very purpose that that energy was more likely to ensure survival of their young.

I don't think the seperation of females and males into these types of categories is ultimately bad. But I do think submissiveness to be an unfortunate thing, just as someone who values dominance should.

Submissiveness is an unfortunate thing? And I don't mean strictly in the context of male-female relationships. Imagine a world where every person had a dominant personality. Submission is necessary for concession - give and take. It's necessary when you are given a directive from your boss, or just when the other person has a better idea or grasp on things than you do. Sometimes it's necessary just for the sake of civility. It's a term so often used in a negative context as to go unrecognized (although still very much present) in society.

As for men = dominant, women = submissive . . . I think the truth in that is apparent. Of course, speaking in generalizations risks excluding those that don't fit neatly into the median.  In politics, any pollster will tell you that an assertive man is looked upon positively, whereas an assertive woman may garner a more negative reaction. The evolutionary bias seems like a good explanation. Speaking personally, I prefer dominant, assertive men. Other women may prefer to take on a dominant role, and seek more submissive partners. This doesn't mean that I cannot be assertive or stand up for myself, it just means I am attracted to that characteristic. I'm not sure, however, how 'parity = not good' can be deduced from the above. Perhaps you can elaborate?

Anyhow . . . nuns. I hope they have the balls to stand up against this nonsense. Fortunately, I think their loyalty to God will outweigh that which is demanded by their male counterparts.

[En_Route]

I am concerned for the future of the Nuns. It is unfortunate that the nunnery was contrived in catholic culture as a backhanded way to give women a role in the Catholic church. It has always been understood that women were supposed to support their husbands, while the men were supposed to do all of the work.

At the same time, it is understandable. Certainly, women have always been second class citizens in this country and abroad. This situation will probably not change for many years, and I am not certain that complete parity between men and women would be entirely a good thing. For one, the intellectual styles present and men and women complement each other very well. Submissiveness as a trait in women probably is a result in the historical choice of men to select submissive mates. Historically, females chose husbands who were more dominant and outgoing, for the very purpose that that energy was more likely to ensure survival of their young.

I don't think the seperation of females and males into these types of categories is ultimately bad. But I do think submissiveness to be an unfortunate thing, just as someone who values dominance should.

Submissiveness is an unfortunate thing? And I don't mean strictly in the context of male-female relationships. Imagine a world where every person had a dominant personality. Submission is necessary for concession - give and take. It's necessary when you are given a directive from your boss, or just when the other person has a better idea or grasp on things than you do. Sometimes it's necessary just for the sake of civility. It's a term so often used in a negative context as to go unrecognized (although still very much present) in society.

As for men = dominant, women = submissive . . . I think the truth in that is apparent. Of course, speaking in generalizations risks excluding those that don't fit neatly into the median.  In politics, any pollster will tell you that an assertive man is looked upon positively, whereas an assertive woman may garner a more negative reaction. The evolutionary bias seems like a good explanation. Speaking personally, I prefer dominant, assertive men. Other women may prefer to take on a dominant role, and seek more submissive partners. This doesn't mean that I cannot be assertive or stand up for myself, it just means I am attracted to that characteristic. I'm not sure, however, how 'parity = not good' can be deduced from the above. Perhaps you can elaborate?

Anyhow . . . nuns. I hope they have the balls to stand up against this nonsense. Fortunately, I think their loyalty to God will outweigh that which is demanded by their male counterparts.

I think there is a stark difference  between being prepared to submit to the authority of a particular person out of economic necessity  or  say out of respect  for that person's perceived superiority or seniority and being submissive by temperament, which is not context- dependent. If I accept I have been bettered in an argument (we're talking hypotheticals now) then it is not a question of being submissive if I concede the point at issue but a question of being convinced intellectually of the merits of the argument. In terms of relationships, it is likely that allowing one person to get their way as a matter of course is probably not the healthiest option for  either party. The terms dominant and submissive tend to refer more usually to carnal recreation, but there tends not to be much of a correlation between the bedroom persona and everyday behaviour.

[Sweetdeath]

I love how all this submissive stuff is suppose to only apply to females. they are submissive males and dominant females as well.

i agree both traits should exist, but it isn't only one particular gender that shows it. and i think both genders should have an equal balance. if someone is submissive and nothing else, they will get no where--same for one who is overly dominant.


I am a lesbian, so i laugh when people seem to think all this b.s only applies to hetero couples. 

Let's stop generalizing and accept that all humans have these traits, regardless of their sex.

[Sweetdeath]

I am concerned for the future of the Nuns. It is unfortunate that the nunnery was contrived in catholic culture as a backhanded way to give women a role in the Catholic church. It has always been understood that women were supposed to support their husbands, while the men were supposed to do all of the work.

At the same time, it is understandable. Certainly, women have always been second class citizens in this country and abroad. This situation will probably not change for many years, and I am not certain that complete parity between men and women would be entirely a good thing. For one, the intellectual styles present and men and women complement each other very well. Submissiveness as a trait in women probably is a result in the historical choice of men to select submissive mates. Historically, females chose husbands who were more dominant and outgoing, for the very purpose that that energy was more likely to ensure survival of their young.

I don't think the seperation of females and males into these types of categories is ultimately bad. But I do think submissiveness to be an unfortunate thing, just as someone who values dominance should.

You really have a lot to learn about human beings. or maybe you only mean some women and some men?
Not all women are like this.
not all men dominate.

[Firebird]

I am concerned for the future of the Nuns. It is unfortunate that the nunnery was contrived in catholic culture as a backhanded way to give women a role in the Catholic church. It has always been understood that women were supposed to support their husbands, while the men were supposed to do all of the work.

At the same time, it is understandable. Certainly, women have always been second class citizens in this country and abroad. This situation will probably not change for many years, and I am not certain that complete parity between men and women would be entirely a good thing. For one, the intellectual styles present and men and women complement each other very well. Submissiveness as a trait in women probably is a result in the historical choice of men to select submissive mates. Historically, females chose husbands who were more dominant and outgoing, for the very purpose that that energy was more likely to ensure survival of their young.

I don't think the seperation of females and males into these types of categories is ultimately bad. But I do think submissiveness to be an unfortunate thing, just as someone who values dominance should.

What exactly do you mean by "intellectual styles"? I don't really understand what you're saying here; on one hand you say complete parity would be a bad thing, implying the perceived submissiveness of women is good, then saying that submissiveness is bad. Not that I agree with your perception of women as submissive either, but some clarification is in order here.