Religion
Related: About this forumVatican moves to shut up catholic women.
The Vatican chief of doctrine has accused U.S. women religious leaders of not abiding by a reform agenda the Vatican imposed on their leadership organization following a doctrinal assessment of the group.
Cardinal Gerhard Müller, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, told the leadership group they were ignoring procedures for choosing speakers for their annual conferences and questioned if their programs were promoting heresy.
Using the most direct and confrontational language since the Vatican began to rein in the Leadership Conference of Women Religious two years ago, Müller told leaders of the conference that starting in August, they must have their annual conference programs approved by a Vatican-appointed overseer before the conference agendas and speakers are finalized.
http://ncronline.org/news/vatican/head-vatican-doctrinal-congregation-confronts-lcwr-noncooperation
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
rug
(82,333 posts)There, your stupid headline is replaced with the actual one.
Are you even capable of honest discussion?
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)And why is the Inquisition still a thing? I read that in the past this line of thinking hasn't gone well, but instead we got the Crusades and the Inquisition, and now world wide cover up of pedophile priests, so I don't really understand how they could have been worse.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)So it's clear that the Vatican itself is playing some semantic word-changing games. To improve its image.
Inquisition head Muller by the way, now seems oddly out of step with the Pope; who is calling for a wide "debate" on doctrinal matters. Are some conservative bishops and cardinals now rebelling against the Pope?
There's been a lot of in-fighting in the Vatican itself for the last few years. Cardinals associated with the Vatican bank, especially.
Then the earlier Pope resigned.....
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)was the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith for a time.
rug
(82,333 posts)Imo, this Cardinal, and whoever he represents, wants to crack down on their very overt stance on social justice issues, including the emphasis on freedom of conscience in reproductive issues. In short, they want to crack down on them because they're liberal.
Instead of saying that outright, they throw in things like they're dabbling in "new age thought" and the "Conscious Evolution" movement, thereby undermining doctrine.
His remarks are here:
http://www.doctrinafidei.va/muller/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20140430_muller-lcwr_en.html
At the moment the site isn't loading. I bet it's deluged with traffic right now.
Here's what I think is at least some of the text from another site, a conservative Catholic site that is orgasming over this. (Since it's from an official statement I don't think the copyright limit applies. If it does, I'll redact it to four paragraphs.)
with the Presidency of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR)
April 30, 2014
Opening Remarks
By Cardinal Gerhard Müller
I am happy to welcome once again the Presidency of the LCWR to Rome and to the Congregation. It is a happy occasion that your visit coincides with the Canonization of Pope John Paul II and Pope John XXIII, two great figures important for the Church in our times. I am grateful as well for the presence and participation of the Delegate for the implementation of the LCWR Doctrinal Assessment, Archbishop Peter Sartain.
As in past meetings, I would like to begin by making some introductory observations which I believe will be a helpful way of framing our discussion.
First, I would like to acknowledge with gratitude the progress that has been made in the implementation of the Doctrinal Assessment. Archbishop Sartain has kept the Congregation appraised on the work regarding the revision of the LCWR Statutes and civil by-laws. We are glad to see that work continue and remain particularly interested that these foundational documents reflect more explicitly the mission of a Conference of Major Superiors as something centered on Jesus Christ and grounded in the Church’s teaching about Consecrated Life. For that collaboration, I thank you.
Two further introductory comments I would like to frame around what could be called objections to the Doctrinal Assessment raised by your predecessors during past meetings here at the Congregation and in public statements by LCWR officers. We are aware that, from the beginning, LCWR Officers judged the Doctrinal Assessment to be “flawed and the findings based on unsubstantiated accusations” and that the so-called “sanctions” were “disproportionate to the concerns raised and compromised the organization’s ability to fulfill its mission.” This principal objection, I note, was repeated most recently in the preface of the collection of LCWR Presidential Addresses you have just published. It is my intention in discussing these things frankly and openly with you to offer an explanation of why it is that we believe the conclusions of the Doctrinal Assessment are accurate and the path of reform it lays before the LCWR remains necessary so that religious life might continue to flourish in the United States.
Let me begin with the notion of “disproportionate sanctions.” One of the more contentious aspects of the Mandate—though one that has not yet been put into force—is the provision that speakers and presenters at major programs will be subject to approval by the Delegate. This provision has been portrayed as heavy-handed interference in the day-to-day activities of the Conference. For its part, the Holy See would not understand this as a “sanction,” but rather as a point of dialogue and discernment. It allows the Holy See’s Delegate to be involved in the discussion first of all in order to avoid difficult and embarrassing situations wherein speakers use an LCWR forum to advance positions at odds with the teaching of the Church. Further, this is meant as an assistance to you, the Presidency, so as to anticipate better the issues that will further complicate the relationship of the LCWR with the Holy See.
An example may help at this point. It saddens me to learn that you have decided to give the Outstanding Leadership Award during this year’s Assembly to a theologian criticized by the Bishops of the United States because of the gravity of the doctrinal errors in that theologian’s writings. This is a decision that will be seen as a rather open provocation against the Holy See and the Doctrinal Assessment. Not only that, but it further alienates the LCWR from the Bishops as well.
I realize I am speaking rather bluntly about this, but I do so out of an awareness that there is no other interpretive lens, within and outside the Church, through which the decision to confer this honor will be viewed. It is my understanding that Archbishop Sartain was informed of the selection of the honoree only after the decision had been made. Had he been involved in the conversation as the Mandate envisions, I am confident that he would have added an important element to the discernment which then may have gone in a different direction. The decision taken by the LCWR during the ongoing implementation of the Doctrinal Assessment is indeed regrettable and demonstrates clearly the necessity of the Mandate’s provision that speakers and presenters at major programs will be subject to approval by the Delegate. I must therefore inform you that this provision is to be considered fully in force. I do understand that the selection of honorees results from a process, but this case suggests that the process is itself in need of reexamination. I also understand that plans for this year’s Assembly are already at a very advanced stage and I do not see the need to interrupt them. However, following the August Assembly, it will be the expectation of the Holy See that Archbishop Sartain have an active role in the discussion about invited speakers and honorees.
Let me address a second objection, namely that the findings of the Doctrinal Assessment are unsubstantiated. The phrase in the Doctrinal Assessment most often cited as overreaching or unsubstantiated is when it talks about religious moving beyond the Church or even beyond Jesus. Yes, this is hard language and I can imagine it sounded harsh in the ears of thousands of faithful religious. I regret that, because the last thing in the world the Congregation would want to do is call into question the eloquent, even prophetic witness of so many faithful religious women. And yet, the issues raised in the Assessment are so central and so foundational, there is no other way of discussing them except as constituting a movement away from the ecclesial center of faith in Christ Jesus the Lord.
For the last several years, the Congregation has been following with increasing concern a focalizing of attention within the LCWR around the concept of Conscious Evolution. Since Barbara Marx Hubbard addressed the Assembly on this topic two years ago, every issue of your newsletter has discussed Conscious Evolution in some way. Issues of Occasional Papers have been devoted to it. We have even seen some religious Institutes modify their directional statements to incorporate concepts and undeveloped terms from Conscious Evolution.
Again, I apologize if this seems blunt, but what I must say is too important to dress up in flowery language. The fundamental theses of Conscious Evolution are opposed to Christian Revelation and, when taken unreflectively, lead almost necessarily to fundamental errors regarding the omnipotence of God, the Incarnation of Christ, the reality of Original Sin, the necessity of salvation and the definitive nature of the salvific action of Christ in the Paschal Mystery.
My concern is whether such an intense focus on new ideas such as Conscious Evolution has robbed religious of the ability truly to sentire cum Ecclesia. To phrase it as a question, do the many religious listening to addresses on this topic or reading expositions of it even hear the divergences from the Christian faith present?
This concern is even deeper than the Doctrinal Assessment’s criticism of the LCWR for not providing a counter-point during presentations and Assemblies when speakers diverge from Church teaching. The Assessment is concerned with positive errors of doctrine seen in the light of the LCWR’s responsibility to support a vision of religious life in harmony with that of the Church and to promote a solid doctrinal basis for religious life. I am worried that the uncritical acceptance of things such as Conscious Evolution seemingly without any awareness that it offers a vision of God, the cosmos, and the human person divergent from or opposed to Revelation evidences that a de facto movement beyond the Church and sound Christian faith has already occurred.
I do not think I overstate the point when I say that the futuristic ideas advanced by the proponents of Conscious Evolution are not actually new. The Gnostic tradition is filled with similar affirmations and we have seen again and again in the history of the Church the tragic results of partaking of this bitter fruit. Conscious Evolution does not offer anything which will nourish religious life as a privileged and prophetic witness rooted in Christ revealing divine love to a wounded world. It does not present the treasure beyond price for which new generations of young women will leave all to follow Christ. The Gospel does! Selfless service to the poor and marginalized in the name of Jesus Christ does!
It is in this context that we can understand Pope Francis’ remarks to the Plenary Assembly of the International Union of Superiors General in May of 2013. What the Holy Father proposes is a vision of religious life and particularly of the role of conferences of major superiors which in many ways is a positive articulation of issues which come across as concerns in the Doctrinal Assessment. I urge you to reread the Holy Father’s remarks and to make them a point of discussion with members of your Board as well.
I have raised several points in these remarks, so I will stop here. I owe an incalculable debt to the women religious who have long been a part of my life. They were the ones who instilled in me a love for the Lord and for the Church and encouraged me to follow the vocation to which the Lord was calling me. The things I have said today are therefore born of great love. The Holy See and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith deeply desire religious life to thrive and that the LCWR will be an effective instrument supporting its growth. In the end, the point is this: the Holy See believes that the charismatic vitality of religious life can only flourish within the ecclesial faith of the Church. The LCWR, as a canonical entity dependent on the Holy See, has a profound obligation to the promotion of that faith as the essential foundation of religious life. Canonical status and ecclesial vision go hand-in-hand, and at this phase of the implementation of the Doctrinal Assessment, we are looking for a clearer expression of that ecclesial vision and more substantive signs of collaboration.
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2014/05/urgent-cdf-statment-on-lcwr/
BTW, I don't object to the notion of having a body examine and define doctrine. In fact it's important for a institution as large and as diverse as the RCC to have one (assuming of course that Iron Maidens are not involved).
But what is going on here is utter bullshit and a complete exercise of authoritarian power.
Müller includes in his remarks the threat that these congregations, societies and orders are at risk of losing their "canonical status", exposing thousands of these religious, often elderly, women to expulsion not only from the RCC but from their means of support, after decades of personal service to the poor.
The gauntlet's been thrown.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)That's not enough for the OP.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)The original headline seems more dishonest when talking about a group that's actually trying to do what everyone around here is claiming the RCC wants to do but can't.
rug
(82,333 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)The OP headline is much closer to the truth than the "renamed themselves so people wouldn't know they were actually the inquisition" office put out.
rug
(82,333 posts)You're flailing defending this tripe.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)Religions, Catholicism, are not above playing some semantic language games themselves. For example? Consider the whitewashing changes the Church has made to the name of its infamous "Inquisition."
The church's "Inquisition" was founded in the 16th century, to prosecute those who did not follow Catholic Doctrine. And it quickly set about doing that; most famously in the murderous Spanish Inquisition.However? By about 1905 or so, the "Inquisition" had a terrible name in the history books. So it's name was changed by the Church, to try to distance itself and its current office, from it's near-genocidal past. It was prettified considerably; its new name incorporated the idea that the Inquisition was just a wonderful "Holy Office":
"On July 21, 1542, Pope Paul III proclaimed the Apostolic Constitution Licet ab initio, establishing the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition, staffed by cardinals and other officials whose task it was "to maintain and defend the integrity of the faith and to examine and proscribe errors and false doctrines". It served as the final court of appeal in trials of heresy and served as an important part of the Counter-Reformation.
This body was renamed the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office in 1904 by Pope Saint Pius X. In many pious Catholic countries, the term is often informally abbreviated as Holy Office (i.e. Santo Oficio).
The Congregation's name was changed to Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on December 7, 1965, at the end of the Second Vatican Council. Soon after the entry into force of the present Code of Canon Law at the end of 1983, the adjective "Sacred" was dropped from the names"
As noted above, the name in 1904 was changed to essentially the "Holy Office." However, perhaps this was not descriptive enough of its actual function. So the name was changed again in 1965, to the present "Sacred" Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith."
But then again finally, perhaps from a momentary moment of modern honesty? The word "Sacred" was dropped in 1983.
By the way? I've offered a longer opinion below, on how to handle honest confusions and disagreements of the NAMES OF OP articles.
Totally aside from the Church's semantic games (not to mention some tricky footwork on literal vs. metaphorical readings of the Bible), we can clear up problems with titles, here and now.
rug
(82,333 posts)stone space
(6,498 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)the horrid old men in the Vatican are way beyond intellectual dishonesty.
rug
(82,333 posts)about intellectual dishonesty.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)Their "Inquisition" had a bad name. So it became "The Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith."
rug
(82,333 posts)For one thing, it changed its name several times for several reasons having nothing to do with having "a bad name".
For another thing, each name change was openly announced.
It has nothing to do with the sleazy attempt in the OP.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)1) Here's one problem: often the original headlines are often not written by the author of the article.
2) Many of us have noticed that for this reason or others, the original titles on the articles are not quite fully accurate; they do not accurately reflect the content.
3) Yet people object if re-posters change the original title itself.
So how should we all handle some honest confusions here? When even the original title is not entirely accurate.
There are a couple of ways to fix this.
One is: 1) put whatever title you want as your own OP title. But be sure to include the original title with the excerpt, in the material that follows.
If there is a noticeable contrast between the two titles? You 2) might honestly note the difference, and briefly discuss this.
Or say 3) put the original title in your own OP headline, but in scare quotes; to suggest that the original title is not good. (Scare quotes are not generally allowed in mainstream journalism; but might be allowed in the more polemical atmosphere of blogs.)
Any other constructive suggestions?
The aim is to fully, honestly represent the original title and article. But then to also note any differences you might have with either or both. There are any number of honest ways to do that.
stone space
(6,498 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)but carry on with your efforts.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)It requires all sorts of mental gymnastics to continue to work for an organization that labels you second class and actively promotes misogyny and bigotry not just against you, but others as well.
Compartmentalization, cognitive dissonance and intellectual dishonesty all play a role. Then there is just plain old denial.
I have a lot more respect for people who leave the organization and stand by their principles.
SwankyXomb
(2,030 posts)No matter how nicely you pretty it up as the "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith", it's still the Inquisition.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)punishing heresy the way they used to. But if they could, there is no doubt that they still would. Neither human cruelty or religious righteousness have changed.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)The National Catholic Reporter reports some seeing all this as "heavy handed" suppression of women's issues, and the LCWR:
"Cardinal Gerhard Müller, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, told the leadership group they were ignoring procedures for choosing speakers for their annual conferences and questioned if their programs were promoting heresy.
Using the most direct and confrontational language since the Vatican began to rein in the Leadership Conference of Women Religious two years ago, Müller told leaders of the conference that starting in August, they must have their annual conference programs approved by a Vatican-appointed overseer before the conference agendas and speakers are finalized.
....In April 2012, the Vatican appointed Sartain as the LCWR's "archbishop delegate" and gave him authority to revise its statutes and programs. In Müller's statement, he said this appointment has been criticized as "as heavy-handed interference in the day-to-day activities of the Conference. For its part, the Holy See would not understand this as a 'sanction,' but rather as a point of dialogue and discernment."
That LCWR did not discuss with Sartain the outstanding leadership honoree this year "is indeed regrettable and demonstrates clearly the necessity of the Mandate's provision that speakers and presenters at major programs will be subject to approval by the Delegate.
"I must therefore inform you that this provision is to be considered fully in force. ... Following the August Assembly, it will be the expectation of the Holy See that Archbishop Sartain have an active role in the discussion about invited speakers and honorees," Müller said.
Müller concluded with this warning: "At this phase of the implementation of the Doctrinal Assessment, we are looking for a clearer expression of that ecclesial vision and more substantive signs of collaboration."
Read Müller's statement: Meeting of the Superiors of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith with the Presidency of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious
[Dennis Coday is editor of NCR. His email address is dcoday@ncronline.org. Follow him on Twitter: @dcoday.]"
That's what it says: Muller, the head of the Inquisition who appointed a bishop to monitor the LCWR, concludes with a "warning" for these uppity women. Demanding their "collaboration." With the Inquisition appointee over them.
Looks like typical priestly bullying. With threats of "heresy" trials.
rug
(82,333 posts)I've often questioned the accuracy of many headlines; including the original ones. Here's my solution: if a poster wants to post a different headline, to give a different slant on the article, let him do that. As the title of his OP. Just include the original title in the body of the post. So the original title is there too.
Is the present slant on the article here, horribly wrong? Is it too strong? As I read your insert from Muller himself, after much hemming and hawing too be sure, Muller finally says he doesn't want to cover up his point with "flowery language. And in the course of his more statement he makes it clear that he supports the 1) firm takeover of at least this woman's organization by his appointed bishop; while 2) the alternative would be to firmly accuse them of "heresy."
These clearly are very firm moves, to shut up at least liberal Catholic women. Likely over issues like female ordination and so forth. While next, threatening them with charges of "heresy" is a very, very serious move.
In spite of Muller's disclaimers, there's a lot of hemming and hawing and even flowery language here about cooperation and so forth. But under all that is a rather strong threat from the church; and a preemptory move to assume strong control over the formerly freer organization. By the Vatican's Inquisition.
And if it addresses nuns? Note that nuns these days are often standing with women in general. So it's a move to shut up Catholic women.
Warpy
(111,245 posts)on reproductive dogma will be all male, all (theoretically) chaste, and knowing absolutely nothing about the lives of women, sex, the risk of HIV without condom use, too many babies to feed, or anything else they'll be discussing.
Where the hell these men got the idea they were qualified to say anything on the subject is beyond me. It's an exercise in pure arrogance. Nothing good will come of it.
Nuns do know about all these things except maybe the sex part. Yet none have been invited.
It's just the same old Vatican misogyny with a friendlier face.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)How much to their surprise will they realize nothing will change including the ferocity of the Women Religious.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)So women have all kinds of power in the RCC? I think the old man's club has done a splendid job of keeping the womens in their place within their organization. Yes, the secular world has progressed further than the RCC in this regard but that is generally the way things work. Religions play catch up to the social progress of the secular world.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)in the battle with Ratz, especially from monastic communities such as the Franciscans. I expect it to continue and for them to keep doing their work and what they do.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)"The Vatican ignores nuns at their peril" more than a few times here. It's as laughable now as it ever was.
The cold, hard truth is this: women in the Catholic Church have no power other than what is granted to them by men. Whether they will ever stop deluding themselves and come to grips with that is the question.
