Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
NYT Bishops Playing Church Queens as Pawns
Bishops Play Church Queens as Pawns
By MAUREEN DOWDPublished: April 28, 2012
WASHINGTON
Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
Related News
-
Vatican Reprimands a Group of U.S. Nuns and Plans Changes(April 19, 2012)
-
Times Topic:Nuns
Related in Opinion
-
Op-Ed Columnist: We Are All Nuns(April 29, 2012)
Readers? Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
IT is an astonishing thing that historians will look back and puzzle over, that in the 21st century, American women were such hunted creatures.
Even as Republicans try to wrestle women into chastity belts, the Vatican is trying to muzzle American nuns.
Who thinks it?s cool to bully nuns? While continuing to heal and educate, the community of sisters is aging and dying out because few younger women are willing to make such sacrifices for a church determined to bring women to heel.
Yet the nuns must be yanked into line by the crepuscular, medieval men who run the Catholic Church.
?It?s not terribly unlike the days of yore when they singled out people in the rough days of the Inquisition,? said Kenneth Briggs, the author of ?Double Crossed: Uncovering the Catholic Church?s Betrayal of American Nuns.?
How can the church hierarchy be more offended by the nuns? impassioned advocacy for the poor than by priests? sordid pedophilia?
How do you take spiritual direction from a church that seems to be losing its soul?
It has become a habit for the church to go after women. A Worcester, Mass., bishop successfully fought to get a commencement speech invitation taken away from Vicki Kennedy, widow of Teddy Kennedy, because of her positions on some social issues. And an Indiana woman named Emily Herx has filed a lawsuit saying she was fired from her job teaching in a Catholic school and denounced as a ?grave, immoral sinner? by the parish pastor after she used fertility treatments to try to get pregnant with her husband.
Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York recently told The Wall Street Journal that only ?a tiny minority? of priests were tainted by the sex abuse scandal. But it?s a global shame spiral. The church leadership never recoiled in horror from pedophilia, yet it recoils in horror from outspoken nuns.
In Philadelphia, Msgr. William Lynn, 61, is the first church supervisor to go on trial for child endangerment. He is fighting charges that he may have covered up for 20 priests accused of sexual abuse and left in the ministry, often transferred to unwitting parishes.
Somehow the Philadelphia church leaders decided that the Rev. Thomas Smith was not sexually motivated when he made boys strip and be whipped playing Christ in a Passion play. Somehow they decided an altar boy who said he was raped by two priests and his fifth-grade teacher was not the one in need of protection.
Instead of looking deep into its own heart and soul, the church is going after the women who are the heart and soul of parishes, schools and hospitals.
The stunned sisters are debating how to respond after the Vatican?s scorching reprimand to the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, the main association of American Catholic nuns. The bishops were obviously peeved that some nuns had the temerity to speak out in support of President Obama?s health care plan, including his compromise on contraception for religious hospitals.
The Vatican accused the nuns of pushing ?radical feminist themes,? and said they were not vocal enough in parroting church policy against the ordination of women as priests and against abortion, contraception and homosexual relationships.
In a blatant ?Shut up and sit down, sisters? moment, the Vatican?s doctrinal office, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, noted, ?Occasional public statements by the L.C.W.R. that disagree with or challenge positions taken by the bishops, who are the church?s authentic teachers of faith and morals, are not compatible with its purpose.?
Pope Benedict, who became known as ?God?s Rottweiler? when he was the cardinal conducting the office?s loyalty tests, assigned Archbishop J. Peter Sartain of Seattle to crack down on the climate of ?corporate dissent? among the poor nuns.
When the nuns push for social justice, they?re put into stocks. Yet Archbishop Sartain has led a campaign in Washington to reverse the state?s newly enacted law allowing same-sex marriage, and he?s a church hero.
Sister Simone Campbell, executive director of Network, a Catholic lobbying group slapped in the Vatican report, said it scares the church hierarchy to have ?educated women form thoughtful opinions and engage in dialogue.?
She told NPR that it was ironic that church leaders were mad at sisters over contraception when the nuns had committed to a celibate life with no families or babies. Given the damage done by the pedophilia scandals, she said, ?the church?s obsession, at times, with the sexual relationships is a serious problem.?
Asked by The Journal if the church had a hard time convincing the flock to follow its strict teachings on sexuality, Cardinal Dolan laughed: ?Do we ever!?
Church leaders behave like adolescent boys, blinded by sex. That?s the problem with inquisitors and censors: They become fascinated by what they deplore.
The pope needs what the rest of us got from nuns: a good rap across the knuckles.
Re: NYT Bishops Playing Church Queens as Pawns
Above Us Only Sky
I hope they respond by leaving. There are probably many Christian institutions that would love to have these women as members carrying out Christ's word while also respecting the bodily and spiritual autonomy of people... and not reprimand them for it. Their work with poverty is going unappreciated in the political push and shove. I hope they find a new "home" for themselves.
Not that I don't think what The Church is doing here is so far beyond the pale it's circled back around and is now getting a good view of the pale's rear end, but comparing this to Preist Pedophilia is like comparing... Well it's like comparing the reaction of an organization to a group of devote members publicity denouncing the rules and standards of said organization with that of a group of devote members committing acts so heinous they could ruin the organization in private. Doesn't make it right by any stretch of the imagination, but it doesn't make it a sexist endevour---more a PR one.
Which really just reinforcess my opinion the organized religion* is completely farcicle.
*please note: I did not and had no intention of singling out the Catholic Church from any other religious organization. Furthermore, my above stated option in no way means I feel those here or elsewhere who subscribe to an organized religion are any less amazing than my non-religious self. Namaste.
Between this and the rabid gay haters being more likely to be closeted, sigh. I wish general opinion and policies wrt sex were more influenced by those who actually like (or know anything about) sex. Then again, I suppose those getting laid don't have as much free time to sit around and think about how everyone but them is getting laid...and for the first time ever I kinda feel sorry for the anti-sex people, hmmm.
Wouldn't bother me in the least. Whether nun or priest, you are called to teach Chruch doctrine, not your own personal version of it.
And the Church has never said they take issue with the nun's work with poverty. The Church's issue with them is not teaching Church doctrine on other areas. I believe I posted a link to the actual document which proved former accusation wrong. I'm *sure* Maureen Dowd has read through that document.
ETA: Here it is again, for anyone who really wants to know what this is all about:
http://www.usccb.org/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&pageid=55544
See, I don't see what is so far beyond the pale. Is it beyond the pale when any organization disciplines employees for not following the organization's rules?
True in that respect. But I don't follow or agree with the organizations rules, so it is difficult for me to fall in line with their position here. I was speaking to my opinion of the situation as a whole in my opening sentence, not the specifics of why as it relates to the institution of The Church.
Please to post this document you speak of...?
I'm not clear that they were teaching against doctrine, just sort of specializing in caring for the poor part of it. Is an organization required to be comprehensive in its teachings-- like, they can't just specialize?
Also, I don't know if you meant this or not, but your "Wouldn't bother me" paragraph sounds to me like "Good riddance." Surely your attitude is not one of "Good riddance" to people committed to Christ's love?
Wouldn't bother you? These women, who took a vow of poverty would have literally no place to go, with no retirement savings plan if they "left." They are feeling like the church is trying to force them out for caring for the needy, and as most nuns are older, literally where would they go?
I did in my ETA. And yes, they were teaching against Church doctrine.
No, I'd much rather they act as a nun completely (keep vows of chastity, poverty AND obedience). In other words, our nuns should be committed to Christ;s love AND His Church.
My Church is being hypocritical here. Priests take a vow of celibacy too, yet, many didnt during those painful, horrific decades (as well as denying the sanctity of life and protecting children). THAT is a serious issue. I am so over this obedience and the like. These women SHOULD NOT leave because of this. Stand up for hypocrisy and THAT is where change will occur. THERE, no where else.
The Pope has spoken out in word and in writing against priests being unfaithful to their vows as well (and btw, celibacy is not a vow, but a promise and there is a difference but I don't know enough to expound on it). In addition, there have been investigations into seminaries that are not following Church teaching/guidelines. So, no my Church has not been hypocritical in that regard. I do think, however, that it is harder to pinpoint priests as a group because priests are not, for the most part, in orders such as nuns.
As for teaching against Church doctrine, I would love to see more and more priests disciplined for doing so. And I would feel the same way about them leaving if they chose not to obey. You're either a Roman Catholic priest or nun that follows and teaches Roman Catholic teaching .... or you're not.
I cannot support any person, regardless of how egregious their non criminal violation being thrown out without support in age or infirmity.
One slip up and Sister Agnes of the Poor, age 82 is out the door on her butt? That seems callous and cruel.
You do know of what I speak, yes? Speaking out against is not enough. He should be on hands and knees everytime he goes to a country where there are cases. Our current Pope did meet with a group of survivors when he came to DC 4 or so years ago, but still not enough. It never will be. So, I do say it is hypocritical. Plus, by the by, you go against Chuch teaching when they stray (say The Inquisition, swindling people with indulgences, Limbo, Assumption of Mary, immaculate conception, contraception use and on and on) from Jesus' teachings or word from Popes.
But, maybe by your bolded words, all those priests that broke trust with their congregations were no longer Roman Catholics...but monsters and should ahve been defrocked and bounced to the nearest jail? If so, then that is one point we can agree.
The church? callous and cruel? But its history is so nice and fluffy...
I'm sorry. Could someone please point to the section of the official document I posted where the Church says they will send Sister Agnes of the Poor out on her butt? I mean, it might be there, so if anyone can do that I'd appreciate that.
No, I get it Tef. Nothing will ever be good enough. But that doesn't mean that because of the horrible abuse in the Church that it suddenly has to keep it's mouth shut re: nuns and priests who do not adhere to/teach Church doctrine. As far as I'm concerned that would make a bad situation worse. I know that most Catholics on this board feel very differently.
The document explains all of this....why this happened as well as what needs to be done to address it.
Lets defend the undefendable with "you have to follow orders". Sad lolz.
Spanish nun, forced out of convent to live w/ her mother over facebook usage.
http://www.technolog.msnbc.msn.com/technology/technolog/sister-internet-kicked-out-convent-facebook-use-124893
you know, just one example
Sheeeit, I'm just glad they don't want to burn me anymore!
Yes, one example proves that this is prevalent. The irony is that, chances are, this decision probably came from a mother superior, not the big, bad, power hungry, women hating men in the Church heirarchy. Even so, it doesn't sound like this was one slip up and I'm willing to bet Sister Internet was given ample opportunity to change her ways.
Still waiting for proof that the Church is actually looking to throw these superiors out on their butts.
What exacty is the undefendable here?
I just find it amusing that the Pope picked Sartain.
Two years ago SNAP asked that his appointment to Seattle be rescinded - the first time they've done that. Why? Because Sartain went ahead with ordaining a man who had recently been caught with kiddie porn (he was later convicted of sexual assault).
http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2010/09/j_peter_sartain_new_seattle_ar.php
But, you know, it must be hard finding a bishop who isn't implicated in some way....
food blog | garden blog | curly dogs blog
The Catholic Church - Bazing! lol