The Vatican's Corrective to Liberal Catholics

[rug]

A three-year inquiry ends with a sharp but measured assessment of unorthodox religious practice in the U.S.

April 26, 2012, 7:47 p.m. ET
By ELIZABETH SCALIA

What has happened to Catholic religious life—especially among women—since its heyday five decades ago?

In 1956, membership in Catholic religious orders was soaring to historic heights. The sheer number of young women who felt called to the mission of the American church led to the creation, at the Vatican's behest, of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, an umbrella group answerable to Rome.

Flash forward 56 years, and the landscape for religious vocations is very different. Growth that once seemed unstoppable has gone into reverse. Many women left religious life for a world full of revolution and new ideas. Those who remained within the Leadership Conference also changed—so much so that the church sent them a corrective last week.

After a three-year investigation into the state of non-cloistered religious life in the United States, the church's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith produced an eight-page doctrinal assessment of the Leadership Conference, and its member communities, that identifies areas of keen concern. It cites theological and doctrinal errors; dissenting positions on the "pastoral approach to ministry of homosexual persons"; and the "prevalence of certain radical feminist themes" incompatible with church teaching, including female ordination.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304723304577367752400899214.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

[southernyankeebelle]

1. I sure hope these nuns tell them to bite them.

[rug]

3. Me too.

I suspect this whole episode is more about Canon Law and control than it is about theology and pastoral ministry.

[skepticscott]

5. When in it's history

has the Catholic church NOT been primarily about control?

[rug]

6. About the time of the lions.

[skepticscott]

7. Exactly...a very long time ago

and never since, by your account.

[rug]

11. I can make my own accounts without your misstatements.

Among many other things, the Catholic Church has since the fourth century been a secular power with all that it entails. But that does mean it has been "been primarily about control", which is your account, and a simplistic one at that.

[laconicsax]

22. The Catholic Church is a secular power?

[rug]

24. Was and is. If it wasn't you'd have nothing to talk about.

Read your history. Start at 313.

[laconicsax]

28. I guess Orwell left one out...

War is peace
Freedom is slavery
Ignorance is strength
Theocracy is secular

[rug]

30. Yes. He also left out the Papal States, the Line of Demarcation, and the mobilization against HHS.

Wait. 1984 is not history! Why you just pulled that out of your ass!

[laconicsax]

32. This is too funny! You cannot be serious!

I'm nominating you for a DUzy.

[rug]

42. Thank you.

I'm buying you a cap.

[trotsky]

47. Again with a juvenile personal swipe. Please, rug. Knock it off.

The reason you are being laughed at is that while there are certainly secular elements to your church's organization (the logistical tasks in assigning priests to parishes, maintaining buildings, organizing reporting structures, balancing the books etc.), in no way is the Catholic Church truly a secular organization by any sincere use of the word.

Definition of secular: "of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred"

In order for the definition to strictly apply, the leadership in Rome would need to not be connected to any church building, priest, nun, sacred object, relic, teaching, or site considered holy. And that's clearly not the case. That's their primary business.

I understand what you are trying to do; I've seen many Catholics do the same thing. You want to think of your church as pure and holy and completely good, and then this group of corrupt old men over here who are not truly part of it, who are trying to tarnish it. Calling your church's organization secular is clearly part of this mindset.

[cleanhippie]

29. Really? The RCC is SECULAR?

sec·u·lar [sek-yuh-ler] adjective
1. of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal: secular interests.
2. not pertaining to or connected with religion ( opposed to sacred): secular music.
3. (of education, a school, etc.) concerned with nonreligious subjects.
4. (of members of the clergy) not belonging to a religious order; not bound by monastic vows ( opposed to regular).
5. occurring or celebrated once in an age or century: the secular games of Rome.

Unless you are using your "other way of knowing" dictionary, it seems you are mistaken.

[rug]

31. Really. The Pope is also the ruler of Vatican City. Really.

Speak to Ambassador Diaz if you don't believe me.

http://vatican.usembassy.gov/ambassador.html

Or Nuncio Vigano if you prefer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Nunciature_to_the_United_States

You may call him Archbishop.

[cleanhippie]

33. The Roman Catholic Church is a secular organization. You heard it here first, folks!

Considering the other things you say you believe, it's not difficult to see how you could believe this, too.

[rug]

34. You really should stop rolling around the floor before the ignorance of the RCC becomes palpable.

[cleanhippie]

36. The RCC is secular.

[skepticscott]

35. Time to declare

that rounds are over.

Remember the lesson of the psych ward.

[rug]

37. I am unsurprised you use psychiatric patients as a means of insult.

[skepticscott]

38. It's a metaphor, not an insult

and has been explained as such. If you're having trouble comprehending, don't be afraid to ask for help. I promise that no one here will think any less of you for it.

[rug]

39. What's the metaphor? "You belong on a psych ward"?

No insult there, not to me, not to people dealing with mental illness.

[skepticscott]

41. No, that's not the metaphor

But great job of projecting and playing the poor victim. Would you like to try again, or do you need help? As I said, it has been explained before.

[rug]

43. By all means, post the nonbigoted metaphor.

[skepticscott]

45. It means

that a particular discussion thread is fruitless and not worth continuing or pursuing, since the person being argued with is clearly immune to facts or logic, and has nothing worthwhile to say.  It doesn’t mean that the person that is being argued with is actually mentally ill, only that you would offer similar advice to someone foolishly trying to argue with a person who IS clinically delusional, as such people are similarly immune to evidence and cannot be expected to respond rationally or substantively. And yes, I know you’ll try to argue that this is bigoted and insulting towards mentally ill people…it’s not.  It is simply a recognition of the condition that MAKES them mentally ill, recognition that is necessary for them to be treated properly.
 
Damn, and you really thought you had me there.  Sorry, not your day.  But I’m sure you’ll be wracking your head for a lame, face-saving argument that still tries to paint me as a bigot.  Feel free, if you need the exercise.  You’re nothing if not tedious and predictable.
 

[AlbertCat]

65. the ruler of Vatican City

You are confusing (deliberately) "secular" with "government".

All religions are just ancient government. Government was NOT secular until the USA set up a secular government.

It is quite possible, and evident throughout the world today, that a government need not be secular. Ask Saudi Arabia, or Iran.

If you want to point out that the RRC is also a nonsecular government, fine. But this stupid argument that it is secular is disingenuous beyond belief... except of course coming from you, Mr. Let's-argue-about stupid-crap-just-for-the-sake-of-it.

[rug]

67. I'm not in the least confused.

Despite all the thrashing and gnashing I see in this thread.

Oh, and the "stupid crap" began in post #22.

[mr blur]

48. Well, it does a lot of banking, I suppose.

A very secular activity.

[rug]

49. Anyone who thinks the Vatican does not have a global secular role gravely misunderstands it.

There's a reason it maintains formal diplomatic relations with 174 nations.

[laconicsax]

51. It's the most secular theocracy in the world!

[rug]

52. Theocracy by definition means the governance of a state.

The difference is the leaders of that state government think they rule by divine principle.

[laconicsax]

53. Uh huh.

And I suppose the Pope's authority has nothing to do with divine right too.

[rug]

54. Not his secular authority.

It's interesting that you have difficulty grasping this.

[eqfan592]

55. OMFG rug, seriously?

You screwed up in what you said. Just admit it and move on. The church is not now, nor has it every been a "secular power." It is a complete and total oxymoron. The church may be said to HAVE secular powers, and the pope may be said to HAVE secular authority, but that is saying something very different than what you said (and even still one could argue those statements don't work because they hold those powers and authorities as a result of their positions in the church and the churches existence).

[rug]

57. Really. This is exactly what I said:

"Among many other things, the Catholic Church has since the fourth century been a secular power with all that it entails."

This is what you said:

"The church is not now, nor has it every been a 'secular power.'"

This is a fraction of what history says:

The Papal States:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_States

The establishment of the Holy Roman Empire:



Treaty of Tordesillas:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_of_Demarcation

(Brazilians speak Portuguese. Don't ask me how many that is.)

The Lateran Accords:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateran_Treaty

Startled though you may be, the fact remains, the Catholic Church has, among other things, been a secular power for nearly 1700 years.

[laconicsax]

58. His "secular authority" is the result of being the divinely endorsed head of the Vatican.

I'm having no difficulty grasping what you're arguing, it's just so laughably false that I'm not even sure that you actually believe it.

Really. Look at what you're arguing. The Vatican is a secular power because it has secular functions? You might as well argue that every church that has a budget is secular because accounting and payroll are secular functions. Hell, you could even argue that the US Army is a religious power because it has chaplains.

The Roman Catholic Church is a religious organization. The Vatican is a theocratic state. No part of either of those statements of fact even allow for the RCC or Vatican itself to be a secular power. Even the secular functions you're on about are in the service of the religion on which the whole thing is founded.

[rug]

59. I'm not arguing with you, I'm reciting facts.

The only thing laughable about this is your squirming denial of centuries of history.

[laconicsax]

60. You can cite all the history you like. You're still talking about a theocracy.

No matter how much you move goal posts, no matter how much you try to bend definitions, you cannot escape the truth.

[rug]

62. Ok I will. History is a better gauge of reality than your posts.

"you cannot escape the truth"



Preach it, brother!

[muriel_volestrangler]

61. Its secular role is not global; its authority is limited to 110 acres

(CIA Factbook comparison: "about 0.7 times the size of The National Mall in Washington, DC"!). It is not a fully independent state - it's too intimately tied up with Italy. It has an unsustainable demographic structure - a birth rate of 0. The only reason it has those diplomatic relations is religious. The only reason anyone goes to live there is religious. Its only industry is religion.

[rug]

63. How long would you say that has been the case?

[muriel_volestrangler]

64. Since the unification of Italy (nt)

[rug]

66. Do you say prior to 1870 the Catholic Church was a secular power?

[muriel_volestrangler]

68. As the Papal States, yes

Up until then, it had control, whether truly independent or not at times, over a real population.

[rug]

69. I don't think population is the standard.

While its status was murky after the unification of Italy, the Lateran Treaty of 1929 pretty clearly defined its sovereignty and secular status.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_the_Holy_See

Beyond that, this institution continues to wield considerable secular influence.

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. Maybe the American bishops need to be picketed by the Catholic congregation?

Let them know how unpopular the 1% of the Roman Catholic church is with the 99%.

Occupy the Bishop's Palace.

[skepticscott]

10. What good would picketing do?

Leaving and taking their money with them is the only thing that might have an influence, and that's assuming that the church hierarchy isn't so rotted and corrupt that it can't reform itself under any motivation.

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. It'll take ages for "taking their money" (ie their donations) to have an effect

The bishops have legal control of most of the Catholic church's assets. Individuals stopping giving new money, or not turning up, will not be that visible at first. Others won't realise how many feel the same way. It won't get publicity. They need to adopt the tactics of the Occupy movement, of unions, of civil rights movements: create visible news stories that shame the controllers of the organisation. The bishops like to portray themselves as leaders with support. It's vital that this is fought by the Catholics against them, so that they all know how many of them there are. I'd assume they'd stop giving money to any part of the church that is under the control of the bishops too.

[rug]

12. It needs some kind of reaction.

Very few Catholics think the Church is composed of princelings. Why, it's right there in the Catechism.

[southernyankeebelle]

18. Well I always thought the nuns knew better because they are the ones who really work with the poor

and struggling middle and lower middle class families. I say I stand with them.

[cbayer]

2. Women! Give them an inch, they'll take a mile.

I continue to think the Vatican is stepping on the wrong toes here. I've heard some great radio shows which interviewed some really angry nuns lately.

[rug]

4. The rulers are being sharpened even as we type.

[skepticscott]

8. And I'm sure the redhat club is cowering before those rulers

like a bunch of schoolboys.

Right.

[rug]

14. No, they're already cowering from your internet posts.

[trotsky]

15. Why do you have to do that?

He was commenting about the political reality of your church - we all know they aren't truly threatened by this - and you had to launch a trademark snide attack. Why?

[Goblinmonger]

16. Because he has nothing else. n/t

[rug]

20. A thoughtful contribution to the discourse.

Quite snappy.

[Goblinmonger]

44. As thoughtful as yours.

And I wasn't trying to be snappy. Just calling it like I see it.

[skepticscott]

17. That's what it does

It can only do what it's capable of.

[rug]

21. "It".

Good job, scott. Keep it up.

[2ndAmForComputers]

46. I agree with the use of that pronoun in this case.

[rug]

50. Even a dog has a gender specific pronoun.

[skepticscott]

56. Yes he does

What's your point?

[rug]

19. Snark begets snark.

Have a talk with him unless he's out hunting redhats.

Frankly, I prefer to have a congenial substantive conversation without lame, gratuitous comments thrown in. I suspect you do too.

But I am not above responding in kind. You take your chances.

[trotsky]

23. Snark about a corrupt old church's leadership deserves a personal attack?

Really?

Why can't you be the change you want to see?

[rug]

25. "by your account" must refer to someone else.

[trotsky]

26. So because he said those three words in a different subthread...

in a completely non-insulting way, he deserves a snide personal attack.

Okey dokey rug. You keep up the good fight.

[rug]

27. Will do.

[Warpy]

40. The main reason the hierarchy is freaking out

is that the nuns are no longer a cheap to free labor pool to do all the grunt work of the church. Instead, they've been going out and doing the grunt work of the culture.