New York Times |
"Vatican Reprimands a Group of U.S. Nuns and Plans Changes" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/19/us/vatican-reprimands-us-nuns-group.html?_r=1#h)
QuoteThe 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 (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/19/us/vatican-reprimands-us-nuns-group.html?_r=1#h)
Can't have the sisters going off the reservation. How dare they focus too much on poverty and economic injustice, while neglecting the really important things?! I'm sure they'll be back on the right track in no time once the bishop has laid down the law. It's a good thing that the Vatican was keeping an eye on them!
Quote from: Recusant on April 22, 2012, 01:14:52 AM
New York Times | "Vatican Reprimands a Group of U.S. Nuns and Plans Changes" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/19/us/vatican-reprimands-us-nuns-group.html?_r=1#h)
Quote
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.
Come now, instead of focusing on the stuff that Jesus actually talks about in the Bible, don't these women know they're supposed to be crusading against other women (amongst other groups)? Priorities.
Heheh all my support goes out to the nuns. ;D
If all Christians focused on poverty and economic justice instead of sticking our noses in everyone's business, most people wouldn't have any problems with us. In my opinion, the key for both problems is education - well-educated people usually aren't poor and usually are at least in the middle class. Nuns would probably do a pretty good job providing education for pre-schoolers, which is critical because we loose a large portion of our youth before they ever get into kindergarten. But the bishops are more concerned about doctrine because that's how they keep the status quo, which keeps them on top (figuratively, of course).
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on April 22, 2012, 10:50:32 PM
If all Christians focused on poverty and economic justice instead of sticking our noses in everyone's business, most people wouldn't have any problems with us.
Amen. I dare say Xtians would have more allies than they knew what to do with if more of them acted like Christ's followers.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on April 22, 2012, 10:50:32 PM
If all Christians focused on poverty and economic justice instead of sticking our noses in everyone's business, most people wouldn't have any problems with us.
Agreed. A lot of the anti-poverty stuff they do is really admirable. Though I do wish they weren't so hostile to birth control as part of that.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on April 22, 2012, 11:16:43 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on April 22, 2012, 10:50:32 PM
If all Christians focused on poverty and economic justice instead of sticking our noses in everyone's business, most people wouldn't have any problems with us.
Amen. I dare say Xtians would have more allies than they knew what to do with if more of them acted like Christ's followers.
Yep. And I daresay they'd find that not only would they have more allies, they'd probably have more people willing to stay in the Christian faith if more of them acted like Jesus' followers, too. A heck of a lot of people ultimately leave the religion not because they have serious issues with Jesus' ideas, but because they have serious issues with the people who claim they represent him. The leaders of the Catholic church, for instance...
Anyhow, good for those nuns. I am on a friendly basis with a local priest and nun, and both are awesome people who are just about obsessed with helping the poor, the sick, and all those generally in need of some love. They don't speak out against homosexuality, or anything. They're too busy focusing on their own business, which appears to be being excellent examples of what it means to love others.
So, hey, kudos to the nuns that article mentions. I hope they don't back down and start blindly obeying 'the powers that be'.
It sounds like at least some of the nuns aren't going to just kowtow to the bishop.
QuoteFrom BBC | "Leader of 'radical' US nuns rejects Vatican criticism" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17794961):
Sister Campbell suggested a difficult time ahead: "It's totally a top-down process and I don't think the bishops have any idea of what they're in for."
The bishop (of Seattle, Washington) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Peter_Sartain) that the Vatican has appointed is urging Catholics in that state to work to repeal the law which allows same-sex couples to marry in that state. So there's no doubt that he has his priorities straight.
I wonder if the bishop realises the magnitude of the poison challis he's been given (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg34.imageshack.us%2Fimg34%2F2438%2Fheheoc.gif&hash=50cf1131f6316b9f48965cce1bfe1877dc8f90e7)
Catholicism would be in much better shape if the nuns were in charge.
Quote from: Amicale on April 23, 2012, 06:39:24 AM
So, hey, kudos to the nuns that article mentions. I hope they don't back down and start blindly obeying 'the powers that be'.
What concerns me is the likelihood of their being shut down if they don't back down. Someone posted a YouTube vid of Penn Jillette giving his opinion of the 2012 Repub candidates, and in it he said something to the effect that he believes all this extreme religiousity and fanaticism is the death throes of irrationality, it's last, doomed fight to stay alive. I certainly hope so. I hope I can see in my lifetime the end of such things as nuns rebuked for being more concerned with injustice and poverty than moral scolding.
Quote from: Jimmy on April 23, 2012, 03:17:06 PM
Catholicism would be in much better shape if the nuns were in charge.
Depends on the nuns, I guess. The more modern, liberal nuns... sure, I agree. The pre-V2 nuns (ie, Tridentine, SSPX, FSSP, etc) nuns... those can be on the strict and quite alarming side. And some of them in the more traditional orders are still around! The ones my grandmother grew up with used to whip her and her friend with the priest's belt, just for coming into their church foyer on cold winter mornings to get warm before school. :o
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on April 22, 2012, 11:16:43 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on April 22, 2012, 10:50:32 PM
If all Christians focused on poverty and economic justice instead of sticking our noses in everyone's business, most people wouldn't have any problems with us.
Amen. I dare say Xtians would have more allies than they knew what to do with if more of them acted like Christ's followers.
From your mouth to the Vatican's ears.
So can they actually "kick out" the nuns if they don't straighten up and start persecuting homosexuals and women who need abortions? What happens then? I guess if the nuns wanted to keep practicing, they would have to get their own headquarters (presumably their "cloister" or wherever they are belongs to the Catholic Church) and then they could keep doing what they do, but not be endorsed by the Catholic Church? Presumably they would have to start gathering donations and declare themselves an independent non-profit.
Quote from: Amicale on April 23, 2012, 03:30:10 PMThe ones my grandmother grew up with used to whip her and her friend with the priest's belt, just for coming into their church foyer on cold winter mornings to get warm before school. :o
That and worse is the often repeated story of Catholic and semi secular education up to the 1960s.
If some one knows the theory behind beating the love of Christ into little children, I'd be interested in hearing it.
National Public Radio's Fresh Air | "An American Nun Responds To Vatican Criticism" (http://www.npr.org/2012/07/17/156858223/an-american-nun-responds-to-vatican-condemnation)
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.
Quote from: Recusant on April 22, 2012, 01:14:52 AM
QuoteThe 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 (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/19/us/vatican-reprimands-us-nuns-group.html?_r=1#h)
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.
Quote from: Recusant on July 19, 2012, 07:12:57 PM
National Public Radio's Fresh Air | "An American Nun Responds To Vatican Criticism" (http://www.npr.org/2012/07/17/156858223/an-american-nun-responds-to-vatican-condemnation)
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.
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.
Quote from: RenegeReversi on July 20, 2012, 02:42:21 AM
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.
Quote from: RenegeReversi on July 20, 2012, 02:42:21 AM
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
Quote from: RenegeReversi on July 20, 2012, 02:42:21 AM
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.
Quote from: RenegeReversi on July 20, 2012, 02:42:21 AM
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.
Quote from: Dobermonster on July 20, 2012, 05:32:22 AM
Quote from: RenegeReversi on July 20, 2012, 02:42:21 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: RenegeReversi on July 20, 2012, 02:42:21 AM
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.
Quote from: RenegeReversi on July 20, 2012, 02:42:21 AM
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.