What sisters mean to me

[rug]

Posted at 08:54 AM ET, 04/26/2012
By James Martin

Last week, on the day when the Vatican released the results of its investigation of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, which represents 80 percent of women’s religious orders in this country, I received emails from several Catholic sisters. All described themselves as saddened, stunned or demoralized by the Vatican document, which severely criticized the LWCR in a number of areas.

Catholic sisters are my heroes. They have been my teachers, spiritual directors, mentors, bosses and friends. I can barely begin to describe the admiration I have for these women, many of them now in their 70s and 80s, and for what that they have done for God, for the church, for what Catholics call the “people of God,” and for me.

When I was a young Jesuit working in Nairobi, Kenya, for example, two elderly Maryknoll sisters patiently listened to my worries about living in the developing world, shared some of their own experiences of years in ministry in remote villages, and encouraged me to “push on,” as they say in East Africa. When my father was dying of cancer ten years ago, one Religious of Jesus and Mary sister took a four-hour train ride to visit him in the hospital for an hour, stayed overnight at a nearby convent, and the next morning took the train home, for another four-hour journey. When I thanked her, she thanked me for the “honor” of letting her come. And during a difficult spiritual crisis, one Sister of St. Joseph helped me to find God in the midst of my doubts, and was even able to get me to smile. “God did all the work,” she said, when I thanked her, “not me.”

In the wake of the Vatican document, my sister friends, some nearing the end of their lives, seemed to need a word of gratitude. The very least I could do was to show some support in a small way--on Twitter. (Of course I had written about my admiration for them before, but it seemed that it was a particularly good time for praise.) Besides, gratitude is always in season.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/what-sisters-mean-to-me/2012/04/26/gIQA9AMuiT_blog.html

James Martin, a Jesuit priest and contributing editor of America magazine, is the author of “Between Heaven and Mirth: Why Joy, Humor, and Laughter Are at the Heart of the Spiritual Life.”

[skepticscott]

1. And this guy is as surprised

as all of the sisters to find that the redhat club is a bunch of misogynistic trolls?

Sheesh, what planet have these people been living on?

[rug]

3. I don't think he's surprised at all.

But then I also doubt he thinks religion is personified by a red hat.

[skepticscott]

5. Whoever said he did or that it was?

Nobody, and certainly not me, as you and your strawman know perfectly well.

But the particular document that he's commenting on DID come from the redhat club, which is all that's relevant in this case. So the question remains, why the shock and dismay over something that those of us who can honestly evaluate said redhats find totally unsurprising?

[rug]

8. You did.

"this guy is as surprised as all of the sisters"

[skepticscott]

9. Nice try at deflection

But obviously that wasn't what I was referring to. (well obvious to all but the disingenuous and chronically passive aggressive).

Rounds are over.

[rug]

10. This one is.

[Jester Messiah]

2. Are we supposed to be supportive of Catholic activities in Africa?

Because let me tell ya, that dog won't hunt.

[dmallind]

4. Why do we not support THIS private group's right to assert its own rules?

When so few of us reject the BSA's ability to kick out atheists, or Vanderbilt's to disallow humanist student groups or a religious charity's right to only hire fellow believers? What, precisely, is the difference? Religious orders, and even lay membership in the church, are entirely voluntary and it's not like the rules, or who makes them, have changed recently. Consistency in consistent circumstances, however inconvenient, is the sign of sound critical thinking.

[skepticscott]

6. I completely recognize

the Vatican's right to treat women as second or third class citizens, even though I find the exercise of that right despicable. I simply have to shake my head at the lifelong Catholics who are surprised or dismayed by it. What church have they been watching for the past couple of millennia?

[dmallind]

7. Yes - it's the theists who have to answer this one

Can't think of a single one who offered any opinion on the scouts kicking out atheists that wasn't the right of private voluntary groups to set their own criteria for acceptability and that those who disagree should just deal with it or leave. The Catholic church is a private voluntary group doing exactly that. How can one possibly be treated or evaluated differently?

I by the way AM consistent. A search will reveal that I had no problem with any of the groups enforcing their own rules as long as they were not given state support or preference. I still don't. Including this one. If you want to be Catholic you need to live by the RCC's rules and quit pretending you get to make up your own.