Vatican Rebukes Nuns for Radical Views ...for focusing too much on poverty

TylerIE

Lets hear the AH slant on this!!!

The Vatican reprimanded the largest group of nuns in the United States on Wednesday, saying the sisters had promoted “radical feminist themes incompatible with the Catholic faith” and remained too “silent” on same-sex marriage.

The New York Times reports on the results of an investigation against the Leadership Conference of Women Religious that began in 2008 by the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The conference is based in Silver Spring, Maryland and represents about 57,000 sisters, the vast majority of women in the country’s religious orders.

In its assessment, the Vatican claimed the nuns had “serious doctrinal problems” and failed to submit to bishops, the “authentic teachers” of the church, on issues including the male-only priesthood, homosexuality, and the health care overhaul, which the Catholic social justice lobby Network supported. Network, founded by nuns, was specifically cited in the report for focusing too much on poverty and economic injustice while staying “silent” on abortion and same-sex marriage.

Cardinal William Levada, the former San Francisco archbishop who now leads the Congregation for the Doctrine of the faith, has appointed Archbishop J. Peter Sartain of Seattle to lead reforms of the nuns’ conference. Changes will include revision of the group’s statutes, replacement of a handbook used by the nuns, and approval of every speaker at their public programs, according to the Times.

The Vatican has also ordered a separate investigation of all American congregations for religious sisters, according to the Christian Science Monitor. The results of the inquiry have not been released at this time.

Link

ThinkAboutIt

Who cares.

Immaculate Pasta

The Vatican, a great bunch of lads.

Now sits back, waits while the atheists are foaming at the mouth waiting to bite.

Ghost Buster

ThinkAboutIt wrote: »

Who cares.

84% of the population allegedly

Biggins

We have our own problematic situation here to fret about.

Irish priest on the run from the USA, slipped out of the USA a day before his trial:

AN Irish priest who fled the US after a civil jury found him guilty of molesting an altar boy last night insisted on his innocence after absconding from the trial.

Fr Michael Kelly, from Ballingarry, Co Tipperary, yesterday said that he was in Ireland on "health grounds".

The 62-year-old cleric has protested his innocence since he was first accused in 2008 of sexually abusing a student in the mid-1980s.

However, his actions this week have stunned even his own legal team as he flew to Ireland the day before he was due to give evidence in the second phase of his sexual abuse civil trial.

His friends in Ballingarry yesterday expressed shock and disbelief that he didn't "stay and stand his ground".

Details continues here: http://www.independent.ie/national-news/irish-priest-who-fled-us-after-sex-abuse-finding-protests-innocence-3085592.html

wendell borton

This is nothing new, ratzenger been rooting out liberals since he ran the inquesition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology#Criticism

Hande hoche!

The actress who plays Al Bundy's wife in that show has a magnificent chest.

Pdfile

well isn't it geat that even the pope tells women to shut up ??

women; know yer place right ? :pac:

Doc Ruby

The vatican seems to be handing out a lot of warnings these days. Maybe the whole edifice is on the verge of collapse?

Son Of A Vidic

Love this part...

failed to submit to bishops, the “authentic teachers” of the church

Where did JC mention anything about submitting to 'authentic' teachers? Oh I forgot, these are more of the man made rules dictated by the power mongers in Rome and their Emperor. They bear no relation to JC, who by all accounts apparently, was a pretty decent and righteous dude. Representing everything that Rome isn't.

wendell borton

The catholic church is an extension of the roman empire who had jesus executed.

Biggins

wendell borton wrote: »

The catholic church is an extension of the roman empire who had jesus executed.

Say wha?

Seriously?
There is so much wrong in that statement and misunderstanding, if not contradiction, it borders on silliness - and I say that as NOT a fan of a Rome org.

Lando Griffin

Feel sorry for the nuns but sure you won't be making money out of poor people unless you own a tarmac laying company. What they need doing is caring for rich old people and help them part with their wealth before they will it to their children, bit like a tarmac laying company. This archbishop lad is a serious player and i would think the nuns are in for rough time poor deers.

Nodin

Odd - despite having disavowed catholicism and religion, I still find this rather depressing......

Temptamperu

Biggins wrote: »

Say wha?

Seriously?
There is so much wrong in that statement and misunderstanding, if not contradiction, it borders on silliness - and I say that as NOT a fan of a Rome org.

Hes kinda right, the Bible you read was all the juicy parts emperor constantine cherry picked and most of our holidays are roman holidays not catholic even the name Roman Catholic is a roman empire allowed religion.

Biggins

Originally Posted by wendell borton
The catholic church is an extension of the roman empire who had jesus executed.

Temptamperu wrote: »

Hes kinda right, the Bible you read was all the juicy parts emperor constantine cherry picked and most of our holidays are roman holidays not catholic even the name Roman Catholic is a roman empire allowed religion.

The bible parts were indeed cheery picked to suit a then agenda by the select religious congress based more around political stability and unifying people - however in regards to wendell borton comment, its ironic (alone) that he's by his comment is insinuating that by 'extension' he's inferring the catholic church should bear equal responsibility for the demise of its own original leader?

...Which is very ironic that he should connect the two together as in league with other - when the Roman empire was trying to actually kill them all off!

El Weirdo

Biggins wrote: »

The bible parts were indeed cheery picked to suit a then agenda by the select religious congress based more around political stability and unifying people - however in regards to wendell borton comment, its ironic (alone) that he's by his comment is insinuating that by 'extension' he's inferring the catholic church should bear equal responsibility for the demise of its own original leader?

Will you, for Christ's sake, change your group membership back to "Subscriber" in your User CP?! It's weird not seeing your name in italics!

GLaDOS

Vatican in saying something stupid shocker.

Wibbs

Biggins wrote: »

Say wha?

Seriously?
There is so much wrong in that statement and misunderstanding, if not contradiction, it borders on silliness - and I say that as NOT a fan of a Rome org.

Like Temptamperu said it's not that wrong B. Look how the church is organised. The hierarchy is not too far off the imperial Roman standard. It became a very Romanised belief system after the Italian(and Greek) lads get their hands on it. I mean it was a Jewish faith at first with all that brings with it. Yet a Christian today doesn't have to observe Jewish food restrictions or lopping off of bits of the willy. Why? Because the Greeks and Romans thought both pretty barbarian and abhorrent to civilised man. Plus your Italians loooove their pork. Look at the Catholic veneration of Mary. Mary is mentioned remarkably rarely in the original texts. Barely at all in two of the John Paul George Ringo's of the Gospels. Yet Catholics tend to spend more time praying to her than the founder of the faith. Again because the Roman pantheon of deities had way more women involved compared to the middle eastern faiths. They needed a stand in for Diana et al and Mary was a charm for it. Very Roman. Latin being the language of the church until very recently another example. The Protestants took umbrage with much of this, however they're following the texts the Romans had already decided were valid back in the day, so they're drinking from an adulterated chalice themselves. It's not called the Roman Catholic church for nothing B. Now the aforementioned Prods can overegg this a tad and they're somewhat right, but again they're trailing in the legacy of what went before them.

This recent vatican bullshít? Par for the course. They've never been too comfortable with people actually following the example of the man they claim as the son of god. Not when it affects "business". All the way back to Francis of Assisi and well before. "Blessed are the poor" is more a statement, than a practice with them. Serve them(and all self defining "Christians") to follow their founder. The religion and the humanity around it would have been way better off. As Gandhi reckoned “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Yep. Douze pointes to the skinny Indian lad.

Biggins

Wibbs wrote: »

Like Temptamperu said it's not that wrong B. Look how the church is organised. The hierarchy is not too far off the imperial Roman standard. It became a very Romanised belief system after the Italian(and Greek) lads get their hands on it. I mean it was a Jewish faith at first with all that brings with it. Yet a Christian today doesn't have to observe Jewish food restrictions or lopping off of bits of the willy. Why? Because the Greeks and Romans thought both pretty barbarian and abhorrent to civilised man. Plus your Italians loooove their pork. Look at the Catholic veneration of Mary. Mary is mentioned remarkably rarely in the original texts. Barely at all in two of the John Paul George Ringo's of the Gospels. Yet Catholics tend to spend more time praying to her than the founder of the faith. Again because the Roman pantheon of deities had way more women involved compared to the middle eastern faiths. They needed a stand in for Diana et al and Mary was a charm for it. Very Roman. Latin being the language of the church until very recently another example. The Protestants took umbrage with much of this, however they're following the texts the Romans had already decided were valid back in the day, so they're drinking from an adulterated chalice themselves. It's not called the Roman Catholic church for nothing B. Now the aforementioned Prods can overegg this a tad and they're somewhat right, but again they're trailing in the legacy of what went before them.

This recent vatican bullshít? Par for the course. They've never been too comfortable with people actually following the example of the man they claim as the son of god. Not when it affects "business". All the way back to Francis of Assisi and well before. "Blessed are the poor" is more a statement, than a practice with them. Serve them(and all self defining "Christians") to follow their founder. The religion and the humanity around it would have been way better off. As Gandhi reckoned “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Yep. Douze pointes to the skinny Indian lad.

No argument about the pieces they selected for inclusion for the present day bible.
I think one such book they didn't like was that of St Thomas. I have studied that he wrote about how 'god' was in everything around us, from the rocks to the flowers and earth - but then he stated and/or inferred within his writings that there was no need for material things and churches shouldn't have places of veneration as such and they were not needed.
DONG!!!
There went that book for inclusion.
The Rome Org needed congregations to come together if only to also collect the 'dues'.

Nodin

mikemac1 wrote: »

Advocate.com, the worlds leading source for LGBT news and entertainment

Well I wouldn't read there expecting a fair article on the Vatican

It's referring to an article in the New York times. If you can find any factual innaccuracies therein, do please share.

Biggins

El Weirdo wrote: »

Will you, for Christ's sake, change your group membership back to "Subscriber" in your User CP?! It's weird not seeing your name in italics!

Awe shucks, you noticed!
I never knew you cared! :pac:

Here's a "Thank you" from two of my daughters!

http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/3061/lovewh.jpg

Mammanabammana

Your beliefs don't make you a better person. Your behaviour does.

I'd love to be in a position to ask any of the hierarchy, any of the cardinals or bishops, in the vatican, the seat of evil on the planet, what their thoughts would be on what Jesus would think of them and their fucked-up organisation now. I would genuinely love to hear what they would have to say.

TylerIE

mikemac1 wrote: »

Advocate.com, the worlds leading source for LGBT news and entertainment

Well I wouldn't read there expecting a fair article on the Vatican

I found the story linked elsewhere to the Advocate version but couldn't find the original article on a quick search.

Notwithstanding that the one direct quote in the article that is most disgraceful is hardly a figment of the reporters imagination.

ToddyDoody

This is about money i think, and how the church can get more of it so that it can survive. Nothing wrong with that. Its only a shell of a thing though really, and i say this knowing they'll bury me, my family and all the people i know (give or take the few who go up in smoke)

AskMyChocolate

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Love this part...



Where did JC mention anything about submitting to 'authentic' teachers? Oh I forgot, these are more of the man made rules dictated by the power mongers in Rome and their Emperor. They bear no relation to JC, who by all accounts apparently, was a pretty decent and righteous dude. Representing everything that Rome isn't.

Yup. Would love to meet a pharisee now. Probably still confused and baffled as to JC's ability to see the truth/God.

Pharisee's opinion: " I may not be right, but I know what's wrong. And that's wrong."

A Pharisee would punch Ratzinger in the face.

The Vatican and the hierarchy of the Catholic Church are an unmitigated disgrace. They have brought shame on decent men and women who have given their lives to try to walk in Jesus' footsteps.

They'd be ashamed of themselves, if they were capabale of shame.

(Not to Godwin this thread by explaining the difference between Lemass and Aherne)