The NY Times Latest Attack on the Catholic Church

This was taken from the 12 July 2009 Opinion section of the NY Times, with my comments added:

What the Sisters Are Up To

By FRANCIS X. CLINES
Published: July 12, 2009
Across 30 years, the modern version of the Sisters of St. Joseph has been revolutionizing the treatment of imprisoned women in New York. Thanks to the nuns’ efforts, mothers are now allowed to care for their infants on the inside and remain close to their children in creative visitors’ programs. Once they are paroled, these women and their children can find a year’s shelter in one of nine Providence House sanctuaries the nuns created in defunct city rectories and convents. The 1st line already undermines where they are heading by using the term "modern version". They make it clear that they are not the same as what they are about to mention in the next paragraph. You also notice how he focuses in on the social justice aspect alone.

The order has never lacked courage: five members were guillotined in the French Revolution for giving shelter to the hunted. Now it is the bewildered community of American nuns that is the subject of two sweeping Vatican investigations. The question is whether the sisters are “living in fidelity” to the religious life — a question being put to nuns in no other nation. Back to the real version here. & the real reason they were guillotined had to do with their being faithful Catholics. They refused to take the civil oath. But why let the truth get in the way with your agenda? & I highly doubt they are bewildered. They know exactly why. & maybe that question is being raised here because there is no need to ask it elsewhere.

Do you notice how they are setting this bunch up to be the victims, not the bad guys they really are? The author knows why the question is being raised. It is because they are anything but faithful.

Vatican investigations called “visitations” usually focus on serious flaws like the pedophilia scandal. So, what are nuns doing wrong? That is the question being asked by the sisters and legions of Catholic laypeople. Apparently undermining orthodox Catholic teachings resulting in people spending eternity in Hell isn't wrong in their viewpoint. & notice how they drag up the pedophile scandal. Apparently they fail to see the connection. That scandal came about because priests weren't "living in fidelity" any more than this group is.
“Well, it’s all nonsense,” says Bob Bennett, a lawyer who led the church’s lay inquiry into the priest pedophilia scandal — which, he says, the church has still not fully addressed. He is amazed that American nuns, of all good people, are suddenly being scrutinized. “They are the jewels, the church’s class act,” he says. The faithful ones are jewels. These ones are more like fool's gold, cubic zirconium. The claim they are "good people" reminds me of the phrase you often hear after the neighbors find out they lived next door to a mass muderer. & you will notice who they call on for a statement. Not to Bennett, if it was clear they were good, there would be no need to investigate the scandal they are causing. & the Church can deal with more than 1 problem at a time as well.
The sisters won’t talk publicly about fears that the Vatican’s goal is to push them back toward a more submissive veil-and-wimple past. At the Providence House programs last week, they talked instead about the myriad problems of their ex-con mothers trying to get a grip on life. As ever, the nuns labor at the brink, begging alms to keep their mission going. “Look, none of us are marching to get women ordained,” one sister said in putting down the cliché that they seek to undermine Rome. Note how once again, they are making it sound like this group are victims. They are afraid, I'll grant that, afraid the truth will come out that they are not living in fidelity, that they are undermining Rome, that they are rebelious & not submissive as their vows require of them, & that most of them do want to get women ordained & that a good number are marching as well. It isn't a cliche. & the reason I put the cartoon I did at the top of this post is to remind you that there have been plenty of sisters who have been talking publicly & being in total rebellion in everything they say.
Tom Fox, editor of The National Catholic Reporter, suspects the inquiries are steeped in patriarchy and male chauvinism. “Next time, let’s have our women religious study the quality of life of our male clerics,” is Mr. Fox’s advice. 1st of all, note who they call on, someone from 1 of the most rebellious, Catholic in Name Only while seeking to undermine authentic Catholic teaching newspapers out there. Hardly an unbiased observer as his agenda is in line with these groups the Vatican is investigating. Remember the N(on)Catholic Reporter supports women's ordination. It has nothing to do with male chauvenism. & what he says is disingenuous as well. It is a woman religious who is leading this visitation. Not a male. The problem he has, she is "living in fidelity". He is using smoke & mirrors.

Meanwhile, I also came across a post on Creative Minority Report about a column by Fr. Richard McBrien that takes a similar tact. (Please Pray For Little Dicky ) I followed the link to Fr. McBrien's column & found it just as disingenuous & misleading as the NY Times article. In other words, just what I would expect from someone who fully supports their actions of destroying the Catholic Church.

He starts out by explaining why he hasn't commented until now because he expected this visitation " to come up more or less empty-handed as did the Vatican's earlier study of U.S. seminaries and theologates." The fact is it didn't come up empty handed. & he knows it. There were some (not necessarily enough) things that were corrected. In fact he all but admits he is lying here when he says in the next paragraph: "I may, of course, hear from some seminary quarters itemizing a few of the negative results of that previous study. I would welcome such input and would want to assure the sources in advance of complete confidentiality." May? He knows he will & wants to hear from those who claim the results were negative. He knows that those who claim the results were negative are those who didn't like the push towards more orthodox teaching & fidelity to the Church's teacing on homosexuality. In other words the ones he will hear from are on the same page as he is.

Then he goes on to explain why he decided to write the column. "I experienced a change-of-mind about the study of women religious in the United States, however, when I learned earlier this year that the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) has initiated a doctrinal investigation of the Leadership of Conference of Women Religious (LCWR), the largest of its kind in North America." I suspect he is afraid he will be next & he knows that if he is he will be found wanting in the doctrinal department.

"In light of previous statements made about religious life by the cardinal-prefect of the Vatican congregation, Franc Rodé, one has reason to wonder how objective and dispassionate the visitation of religious communities of women in the United States will be." Here we go, he is setting things up to make them the victims not the wrtongdoers they (& he) really are.

At least he does admit the statement that concerns him. "According to a report posted by Neil W. McCabe for The Boston Pilot (Feb. 13), the weekly newspaper of the archdiocese of Boston, Cardinal Rodé delivered the keynote address at a symposium on religious life at Stonehill College in North Easton, Massachusetts, in late September.
In that address, the cardinal pointed out that religious orders that stressed the continuity of Vatican II with the authentic Tradition of the Church did not suffer the same crisis in vocations as those that interpreted the council's changes as a rupture from that Tradition."

He says the Cardinal sees a problem but . . . "I know of no religious community, of women or of men, that interpreted the changes brought about by Vatican II as a "rupture" from the Tradition of the Church." & he knows why they won't admit to it being the "rupture" it really is. 1st of all, the changes he refers to had nothing to do with what Vatican II was really. They were brought about because of the false "Spirit of Vatican II" they used to justify their rupture. To admit that fact is to admit that what they did was leave the Catholic Church, leave the original charism of their orders, & turn into something that kept a few appearances of Catholicism while being anything but.

"Nor did the cardinal name any." That wasn't the purtpose of the address, to point fingers. It was to give some general pointers about what the visitation was looking to find.

"We are dealing here with a classic case of setting up a "straw man" (or, in this instance, a "straw woman") and then easily knocking it over." OK so why didn't you Fr. McBrien? Becuae you know it isn't a "straw woman"!!

After listing the 4 types of communities the Cardinal describes, Fr. McBrien says this about the Cardinal's comments on the 4th type: "At least the cardinal did not say that such communities have remained in the Catholic Church only because they know that they can do more harm to the Church from the inside than from the outside." He may not have said it because it didn't need to be said, we all know it is the truth.

"Cardinal Rodé's was a serious allegation and should not have been made without evidence. Perhaps it is expected that such "evidence" will be gathered during the course of the visitation of religious communities of women in the United States and in the CDF's investigation of the LCWR." Very disingenuous on Fr. McBrien's part. Again he knows that it would have been out of line for the Cardinal to make specific charges. That wasn't the purpose of the talk.

Then we come to the real "staw man/woman". Fr. McBrien's bit about what he claims is the real reason for the decline of women religious & priests as well. He mentions a a brief comment by Sister Sandra Schneiders, IHM. he said that she "described as a red herring the Vatican's concern for a decline in religious vocations as a major reason for the visitation. She insisted that the decline in the number of women religious follows the demographic trends for the greater female population." OK then explain how orders like the Nashville Dominicans or the Ann Arbor Dominicans. The Poor Clares at Hanceville in Alabama had to start a daughter foundation in Arizona. Why aren't they following the demographic trends? Simple, they live out fidelity. & to mention them is to show that it has nothing to do with demographics.

But Fr.McBrien goes 1 step beyond & ends the article by using the same arguement to explain the decline in vocations to the priesthood. "One could say the same about the decline in vocations to the priesthood. Today there are increased career opportunities for young men, many of whom, in the 1950s and earlier, aspired to be policemen, firemen, FBI agents, or, in the case of some, priests.
Relatively few Catholic males had the financial wherewithal to study at the college or university levels to become doctors, lawyers, or business leaders. That situation has changed dramatically in recent decades." OK, it is true that in years past some men entered the priesthood because it was an opportunity for an education that would not have otherwise been available. But even then, most of them had a real calling. But to say that is the real reason for the decline is to ignore the fact that the decline isn't universal. Where there are good, orthodox Bishops, the number of vocations is going up. Where men who are faithful to the magesterial teachings are welcome, there is an upswing in vocations & ordinations. & the same is true in those men's religious orders as well. The ones that practice fidelity are seeing the vocations.

But to admit this is to admit the validity of the reasons for the visitation. To admit it is to admit that the Vatican's reasons aren't red herrings. Rather it is the whole explanation he gives as the decline that is the real red herring. & it smells like 1 that has should have been thrown in the compost heap a long time ago as well.

_______________

These are, IMHO, another of the many attempts to sabatog the Vatican's efforts. Just like the Arians tried to do to the orthodox Bishops in the 3rd Century, just like other heretical movements have tried time & again. These heretics will use whatever means, politics, the media etc. But what they fail to learn is that God will always protect His Church. & that their efforts to destroy His Church are doomed to fail in the end.

I do think they sense it & thus all the reactions we are seeing.