Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Shop AMAZON*
A priest recommended both of those sisters to me when I was looking for a spiritual director a couple years ago. I took one look at the web site, rolled my eyes and kept on looking.
All truth is God's truth, but it only becomes Catholic truth if a Bishop gets a cut from it.
Good for him.The whole multi-culti bit is one of the reasons we're stuck with Dictator Zero.Besides, it's no fun being the One True Church if you let all those Protestants in.
They are accused of not being Catholic. So the Bishop's order is perfectly reasonable.
Maybe you don't like it, but it seems to me that the Church is well within its rights to expect its representatives to preach Church doctrine, and to prevent them from using the institution of the Church as a place to preach non-Church doctrine.After Vatican II, many of the nuns escaping the convents went full commie. Many of them took their cue from Paulo Freire's Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Quite of few of those nuns and ex-nuns found their way to Woodstock.
He's either Bishop Dursley, or the Bully Bishop at our house.In this case, though, Nuns and Priests have been at loggerheads for centuries. More of the same.Or maybe the Bishop just wanted some more press after the story yesterday about the flourishing Catholic Multicultural Center (that the Bishop tried to get rid of).
Some people call it positive.Some people call it negative.Some people call it neutral.Some people call it good intentions.It's the cult of ambiguity. It's always progressive.
'New Ageism'? 'indifferentism.'?What the hell (pardon the pun) is that?The Catholic Church have what is called 'Firmly Held Beliefs' and others that are not. The ones that are FHBs ARE NOT OPEN TO DISCUSSION. These include the belief of God, Christ, the Trinity, the Resurrection, forgiveness of sin, and such. Others like Purgatory or Limbo are not FHBs. You can be a Catholic and not believe in Limbo.But no... these are CATHOLIC NUNS an 'New Age' stuff is NOT part of the teachings of the Church.Either they believe in the teachings of the Church and not this stupid stuff or they should not be Nuns (or even Catholics.)It really is that simple.
All truth is God's truth, but it only becomes Catholic truth if a Bishop gets a cut from it.If you want to belong to the club/church then you need to follow the rules of the club.If you don't like it.....join another club or start your own. And turn in your uniform too before you go.
If you believe one religion is as good as the next you should join one that agrees with you. Believing people of different religions should respect one another's faith is not the same as believing all are equally valid, especially while drawing on the resources on one.
In writings on the religious life from the Middle Ages, it was commonly thought that of the three vows of poverty, chastity, & obedience, obedience was the hardest vow.Some things don't change.
This is Crack catnip.
If you don't believe that your Catholicism is superior to other religions why are you a nun?
Reminds me of Pope John Paul II's visit to Nicaragua when the Sandinistas were in power (circa 1983).All the lefties were hoping that the Pope would give his blessing to the Marxist priests and nuns, and give his imprimatur to the Sandinistas.That's not what happened. This event caused a lot of excitement, pro and con, in Woodstock, which is as much a religious community as it is an arts colony. Woodstock contains both Zen and Hinayana Buddhist temples.John Paul wasn't a fan of commies, no matter how nicely they dressed up their ideology.
If you don't believe that your Catholicism is superior to other religions why are you a nun?I think perpetual questioning is part of being a good Catholic. But apparently (I'm not a Bishop) questioning too much, or too openly, or in a way that is too much affiliated with the Church, is problematic.They should stick to their bread-making, maybe.
I understand that the Anglicans have a perfectly reasonable religion that is tolerant of gays and women's rights and all the causes liberals consider sacred. It's a fine religion, but the only problem is that no one actually practices it.....In England, there are now more practicing Catholics than Anglicans.
But apparently (I'm not a Bishop) questioning too much, or too openly, or in a way that is too much affiliated with the Church, is problematic.They weren't just questioning. They were actively proselytizing against the precepts of the Church.It is expected that you question your faith. You are not supposed to, as a Catholic Nun, run around and actively try to cast doubt in other's minds.If you have such doubts, then leave the vocation of Nun. Stop representing the church in order to undermine it and start your own religion or find another that suits you.
These nuns are as Catholic as Andrew Sullivan.
Shouting T said: Maybe you don't like it, but it seems to me that the Church is well within its rights to expect its representatives to preach Church doctrine, and to prevent them from using the institution of the Church as a place to preach non-Church doctrine.Exactly. For some reason, people seem to get really upset over some idea that Catholicism should be all things to all people. For example, they get upset that the church won't give communion to non-Catholics (although non-Catholics are always welcome to take the steps to become Catholic) or non-Catholics feel that it is somehow their business who the Church ordains. I don't get it. If you want to be Catholic and get the benefits as well as meet the obligations, you are welcome to do so. My mom did, many years ago - it wasn't that burdensome and she enjoyed it. But if you don't want to be Catholic and go along with what the Church teaches, just don't be.
The problem with Anglicanism is that it's just a way station on the way to Unitarianism.Which leads to huge, old Anglican churches in which only a few pews in the front actually have people sitting in them.Religions do better if they actually have firm beliefs, or if they actually believe in nothing.The wishy-washy middle ground attracts many but holds few.
They're Druids, but want Catholic financial support.No thanks, Sister. I mean, sister.
John Paul wasn't a fan of commies, no matter how nicely they dressed up their ideology.Being Polish tends to do that to a person.
The left likes its religion content-free.
I'm fascinated by all religions. I would love to learn more about Judaism and Buddhism, etc. But I don't think they should easy
"Whatever" is the religion of Choomism.Pass the brownies and pray, or not.
Sounds like they are non-believing heretics. He should kick them out and let them do their own thing on someone else's clock.Trey
My suspicion has always been that cultural relativism got its start from field anthropologists who didn't want to end up stewing in a giant pot over an open fire.
Must be some writing out there about this odd fact...Marxism is very attractive to many Catholic intellectuals, particularly Jesuits.Anybody know of any writing on this subject?
These nuns are as Catholic as Joe Biden.
I am surprised the nuns in question were not Mary Knollers.
Marxism is the opiate of the pimpled.
These nuns are indeed modern heretics. The most disgraceful among them support abortion.I know a few of their supporters. Their religion is simply atheistic liberal nihilism, couched in aimless wandering, nature worship, and warm hugs.
"Marxism is very attractive to many Catholic intellectuals, particularly Jesuits."When people stop believing in one faith, they move to another. But a certain kind of Catholic won't admit they have stopped believing - I call them faux-Catholics. You know like those faux-doors they paint which look like doors but are just painted wall. These people who want to be official teachers within the Catholic Church though they don't believe in salvation are walls which are painted to look like doors.If you want a book on it, read "Trojan Horse in the City of God" which the present Pope wrote when he was Cardinal Ratzinger. And there's plenty of articles and reviews of that book so you can follow a whole discussion - everyone joined in and all points of view are all there in the discussion.
These nuns are as Catholic as Nancy Abortion Pelosi.
"Indifferentism" is "the belief that no one religion or philosophy is superior to another." Then why have religion or even belief?
"Then why have religion or even belief?"Nice work if you can get it.All the benefits and none of the demands.
These nuns are as Catholic as the Kennedy's.How many divorces, rapes, abortions and murders on their rap sheets.I mean it is not like they posted an anti muslim film or anything like that there.
"Indifferentism" is "the belief that no one religion or philosophy is superior to another."Then why aren't they Muslims? Do they think Jesus ISN'T the son of God?Do they enjoy knowing that they feel their entire life's work is worthless?
They are ardent followers of Screwtape.
Carol said...The left likes its religion content-free.Hence Unitarians.Excommunicate em!Burn em at the stake!
Dust Bunny Queen:Subversion from within is the most insidious. When someones betrays a nation, we call it treason. When a husband or wife betrays their spouse, we call it adultery. It is commonly understood to be a high crime committed by individuals lacking integrity.
Surely there must be a place in the modern world for Unitarians who want to do fancy dress-up.
"it seems to me that the Church is well within its rights to expect its representatives to preach Church doctrine"I like a lot of the writings of Hans Küng. Especially his earlier stuff. The reason I like it is pretty close to the reason why the Catholic Church doesn't want him as an official teacher. He's pretty much a Protestant. "Many of them took their cue from Paulo Freire's Pedagogy of the Oppressed."Contemporary liberation theology has really become better precisely because of the Church's response to marxist tendencies. The one's who stayed in like Gutierrez and Boff and Sobrino and such really had to hone their thought--expressing a much better integration with Freire's themes and Church doctrine. "If you want to belong to the club/church then you need to follow the rules of the club."That's pretty much what I was saying. Though, the Catholic Church is a bit like a private room in the club.This is also why I'm happily a Protestant.
"Indifferentism" is "the belief that no one religion or philosophy is superior to another."What kind of idiot becomes a Catholic nun, if she believes that Catholicism is in no way superior to any other religion?Ah, so she's a moral turd. A sleazy free rider who wants to sponge off the Catholic Church, and its members, while refusing to actually help the people she's sponging off of.Don't "admonish" them, kick them out.
MadisonMan said... If you don't believe that your Catholicism is superior to other religions why are you a nun? I think perpetual questioning is part of being a good Catholic. But apparently (I'm not a Bishop) questioning too much, or too openly, or in a way that is too much affiliated with the Church, is problematic.<<<I'm curious, MadMan, do you REALLY not understand the problem?Questioning, wondering, thinking, those are all fine and wonderful things. But they're not "questioning", they've decided. They've decided that Catholicism is no better than any other religion. I'm sure you agree with them. That's fine.What's not fine, is taking a living from the Catholic Church, when you're not willing to actually BE a part of that Church.And that's what those "nuns" are doing.
Believing people of different religions should respect one another's faith is not the same as believing all are equally valid, especially while drawing on the resources on one."We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."H.L. Mencken
It's amazing how many people prefer the "Church of Mush."They want mush from the pulpit, mush in doctrine, mush in answer to every question.From the Catechism of Mush:Q: Is there a God?A: If you find it meaningful, yes.Q: Has God revealed Godself to us?A: So it seems; at least, we like to think so; but we don't get dogmatic about it.Q: Is God a Trinity of Persons?A: Yes--except when God is not a Trinity of PersonsQ: Is Jesus the Son of God?A: We prefer "Child." Try again.Q: Is Jesus the Child of God?A: Aren't we all?Q: Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father except through me." How do we understand that?A: Jesus was having a bad day. Besides, he's limited. Except when he's not.Q: Does God care what we do in this life? Will it matter for eternity?A: How do you feel?...And so it goes.
All religions mock other religions, and all are correct to do so.
Q: Is there a God?A: Impossible to know, if one is honest about it.Q: Has God revealed Godself to us?A: Impossible to know, if one is honest about it. So question's premiss is invalid.Q: Is God a Trinity of Persons?A: See answer to #1. But if you're speculating, why stop at three?Q: Is Jesus the Son of God?A: Impossible to know, if one is honest about it. So question's premiss is invalid.Q: Is Jesus the Child of God?A: Impossible to know, if one is honest about it. So question's premiss is invalid.Q: Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father except through me." How do we understand that?A: Jesus is 'said' to have said that. Let's not assume facts not in evidence. Putting that aside, I would take the meaning of the statement to be a tautology: On knows my dogma by following my dogma.Q: Does God care what we do in this life? Will it matter for eternity?A: See answer to question #1. You don't get to proceed as if God does exist. The proper way to word your question is "If God does exist, would he care what we do in this life? Will it matter for eternity?". Answer then is, "who knows".
The only thing that is not relative is that it is all relative.
SomeoneHasToSayIt said... All religions mock other religions, and all are correct to do so.This is not true. All religions think other religions are wrong in some respect. Mockery results from failing to accept this or assigning it more importance than it deserves.
mccullough:The natural order is not relative. At least not within a limited frame of reference. It's a mathematical principle which exceeds the boundaries of human ego and desires.
Someone, you are assuming the answers to #1 and #2 before you start. I disagree with your answer to #1. Strongly so and honestly so. And since most of your other answers refer back to that one it makes your little sequence a bit sophomoric.Good at making someone who already agrees with it agree with it.
"I think perpetual questioning is part of being a good Catholic. But apparently (I'm not a Bishop) questioning too much, or too openly, or in a way that is too much affiliated with the Church, is problematic."I think there is a significant difference between "questioning" and "teaching."Teachers assume a level of authority and so are subject to a level of judgement that ordinary folks never face. No, I'm not Catholic but I don't think they threw out the New Testament warnings about mill-stones and the dire consequences of leading others astray.Question all you like... but that's not what is going on if these nuns have a doctrine and a spiritual center for spreading that doctrine.
"What kind of idiot becomes a Catholic nun, if she believes that Catholicism is in no way superior to any other religion?"People are attracted to the liturgical tradition and trappings, it makes them feel spiritual. They also like the platform from which to perform good deeds.Doesn't just happen in the Catholic Church. Protestants have all sorts who go into ministry "because I like working with people" or "like working with youth" but don't see the need for belief past "this is useful for people if they want to follow it."
The nuns in question are Sinsinawa Dominicans. Enough said.They went way off the rails long ago. Nearly all of my family was educated by them but only I (as the youngest by many years) got the full blast of their modernist crazy thinking. The Sinsinawas may mean well, but they are not particularly Catholic anymore. Which is fine... right up until they are using Catholic parishes and schools to teach non-Catholic teachings while claiming it is Catholic. THAT is what the Bishop is trying to stop.
But Someone, are you a Catholic?If so, then your answers are wrong.If not, what do you care?
Paddy O said... Someone, you are assuming the answers to #1 and #2 before you start. I disagree with your answer to #1. Strongly so and honestly so. And since most of your other answers refer back to that one it makes your little sequence a bit sophomoric.Really? Then give me your evidence, please. I was honest enough to admit I have none, and therefore cannot assert either side. I could only express a belief.You seem to think you CAN assert an affirmative. So, the burden of evidence is on you.And while you're at it, try to redeem the poor start you got by choosing to insult me with the 'sophomoric' pejorative.
EMD said... But Someone, are you a Catholic? If so, then your answers are wrong. Born and raised. But then, among other things, I started to question when, to state just one example, the proclaimed special gifts of the sacrament of Holy Orders proved inadequate to stop some of its recipients from buggering little boys.
Born and raised. But then, among other things, I started to question when, to state just one example, the proclaimed special gifts of the sacrament of Holy Orders proved inadequate to stop some of its recipients from buggering little boys.Then, you are very confused.People of all faiths, and lack of faith, also bugger little boys.There is nothing inimical to Catholicism in this.
Shouting Thomas, it would behoove you to read all posts in a thread. Then you might not make foolish statements like that.I said ALL religions mock all others, and are correct to do so.What do you suppose that means?
What do you suppose that means?It means you are very confused.People who are not religious also bugger little boys.The sin in part of the human condition. Ascribing it as a characteristic of any particular group is nonsense.
Shouting Thomas. You can have the last word. Not interested in engaging with ignorant trolls, as you have proved yourself to be, time and again.
If Good and Evil Exist, God ExistsSo, SomeoneHasToSayIt, do you consider good and evil to exist, or not?
Really? Then give me your evidence, please. Jesus rose from the dead. There were witnesses. It caused a very obscure movement to have an impact that far outweighed its apparent beginnings, all without requiring the development of an army and applying its philosophy through military force. It did this later on, but it was well after it got its start. I have lots more evidence. That you choose not to accept it does not mean it is not evidence or that it is an inherent impossibility. You are not convinced. Many people are actually and honestly convinced in a way that results in radical transformation of their lives. The burden of evidence isn't on me because there is sufficient evidence already out there. Honest people have been convinced by such evidence, and by asserting their either lack of honesty or their intellectual lack you began the insults. Numbering the statements and putting them in a series of not necessarily true logical order does not make it less sophomoric. It's literally sophomoric for me as I took a class on logic as a sophomore in college.
Note also that your first statement is not "show me the evidence", it's "impossible to know". How do you know it is impossible (as in cannot ever happen nowhere to anybody at any time)? That's an absolute declaration based on a very limited set of knowledge and experience and time/space. Even if I didn't have evidence, saying that such evidence is an inherent impossibility is already determining the discussion for all sides.
Shouldn't that be called henotheism?
You want evidence?The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical ApproachThe author uses modern rules of evidence investigating the historicity of the resurrection and miracles of Jesus.699 pages. Dismiss it, and you'd have to dismiss much of our knowledge of Western Civilization, which very often has less historical basis than this.
The existence of God is not dependent on the ability to prove God.So the demand for evidence logically fails.
Morlino was once a Jesuit. He is not one now. Whether he was asked to leave by the Jesuits, whether it was completely his idea to leave, or whether it was mutually agreed that he leave has never been publicaly revealed. Since it is hardly ever the case that a man decides to leave the Jesuits so as to become a diocesan priest, it is most likely that he was either asked to leave,or it was mutually agreed that he leave.
wildswan,I looked up this title on Amazon, and do not see Ratzinger on the list of authors.
Good.Christians who profess that Christianity is not absolute or that it makes no difference what you believe in as a way to God are not Christians, no matter what they think.Catholicism has standards and if you don't believe in them or worse act to intentionally undermine them you are not a Catholic. I write this as a former Protestant believer, lay minister school drop-out and current agnostic.
30 years ago an uncle attended the Unitarian Church in Madison while on a date.I asked him what it was like and he said 'They pray to "Whom it may concern"'.
Someone:Clever.But a "catechism" isn't a scientific document, but a summary of articles of faith.As it is, Christianity does, indeed, make assertions of fact in connection with its assertions of faith: not only that God exists, which need not be susceptible to scientific proof (and maybe shouldn't be, at least in the strict sense; because if God's existence were provable the way, say, the law of gravity is, where would there be room for faith?), but also claims that are true or false in an empirical sense: "was born under Pontius Pilate, suffered death, and was buried, and rose from the dead."If those assertions of fact are not true, Christianity is not true.
Now, here is a fact:Jesus--at least as a literary character and phenomenon--exists. And as a literary and cultural phenomenon, the story of Jesus must be explained. It exists without question, and has since about the year AD 50 or 60, which is when the oldest documents of the New Testament are dated. But let's be more conservative and go with AD 100, by which time there is no question the story, as we know it, was widely circulated in the Near East.That this event happened is indisputable. The question is, how does one explain it?Of course, it could be made up.In which case, many more things need to be explained. First, who made it up. Why? Why this story of all stories?Why circulate a story about a group of people, during the life of many of those people, in the same area in which those people, and the events described, would have happened...if it wasn't true?Imagine someone publishing a story today in, say, Baltimore, about events that happened in Washington, D.C., around the year 1960 or 1970. Imagine then saying that a certain individual was famous throughout the area, and performed stupendous deeds, as infamously executed, and then rose from the dead, and a great uproar ensued.Well, of course, such a story would not only be false, it would obviously be false. Lots of people would be able to say, none of those things happened; we were here, and it's all made up.So how do we explain the stories about Jesus' miracles, suffering, death and resurrection being circulated, within 20-30 years after said events, in the same area, if they weren't substantially true?The miracles of Jesus are many, and any number of them could have been disputed at the time: "that story about healing thousands of people--never happened"; "that story about raising a child, raising Lazarus, from the dead--never happened"; "yeah, sure he was crucified, but there was no resurrection."So isn't it a curious strategy for whoever circulated these stories, to do it this way? How much more sensible to circulate stories that can't be easily contradicted factually? Why not circulate them far away from the setting, so that the odds of someone coming along and contradicting them are more slim?Once again, that's not what happened. It needs explaining.Was it all a conspiracy? How many people cooperated? It would seem to have required quite a lot, and they would have had to work very hard on keeping the essential details straight--and it appears they succeeded in that.This conspiracy needs explaining--if that's what happened.Finally, let's speak of the claim of resurrection. Of course it could be a fantasy. But then there is the question, what happened to the corpse? Why was it missing? Do the Gospels lie in claiming the tomb was guarded? Suppose the disciples took the body. How curious that so many of those who knew Jesus personally would claim they saw him rise from the dead, and suffer terrible consequences for that claim. How to explain it?And then when we review history since then, there are any number of miracles associated with Christianity that need some explanation. But you get the idea.Phenomena don't need to be proved--they exist. How to explain them? That's the question.
I'm obviously biased, but it seems to me that if the story of Jesus was substantially invented, then the inventor of that story is one of the greatest geniuses in history. Who was it? How did this happen? And how did s/he or they leave no traces?It would be most worthwhile if someone pursued that hypothesis. Of course, there may be a very good reason no one does--because it's too fantastic; leaving an uncomfortable alternative.
So, SomeoneHasToSayIt, do you consider good and evil to exist, or not?The concepts "good" and "evil" (or "bad") are relative, of course.Roadkill seems "bad" to me, "good" to a crow.George Washington seems "good" to me, and "evil" to King George, I would guess.So you question is really just: are there contrasting things, are their conceptual opposites. Sure. Otherwise nothing would be intelligible.
Paddy O - you clearly don't know what the word "evidence" means.Until you learn that, we can't have a discussion.
To everyone:If living your life "as if" your religious beliefs were true, makes you a kind, generous, compassionate, etc., person, great! Whatever it takes is OK by me. Just don't go making assertions you can't back up.And this 'resurrection' assertion you think is so important, is neither important (to being a good person) or unique to Christianity.If it makes you feel good, fine. If you helps keep you on the straight and narrow, fine. Just don't presume there is anything other than 'faith', involved. That should be enough for you, but alas, it never seems to be.Leave science to the scientists, who at least know that everything they 'know' is just provisional, subject to revision and the limits of homo sapiens brain power.
I'm obviously biased, but it seems to me that if the story of Jesus was substantially invented, then the inventor of that story is one of the greatest geniuses in history. Who was it? How did this happen? Really not so hard to understand, given basic knowledge of human nature. Here's one way to look at it.The Ego (if I can use that term), of Self, or even 'soul' --- wants nothing more so, than to believe that it will never come to an end.So a man-crafted belief system that is particularly clever at tapping into that most basic human desire, would certainly resonate and persist over the Ages.The Resurrection story is a particularly brilliant twist, since if one 'believes' in that single alleged victory over Death, it makes it so much easier to also 'believe' that one's own Ego might survive too. After all, it's been done once, why not again? Many religions miss that cool 'resurrection' item.People think that man is the rational animal, but he is even more so, a rationalizing animal, and the Christian dogma is one of the best ever invented to hang rationalizations (I have reasons to believe I will continue on after death!) upon.Kudos to the architects of the story.
Post a Comment