20
   

Vatican Reprimands a Group of U.S. Nuns

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Apr, 2012 11:01 am
I was born in the Bronx--i've long known that everyone in New Yawk living north of there was not quite right in the head.
0 Replies
 
Ceili
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Apr, 2012 12:13 pm
Harper is not Catholic. He belongs to some end of timer religion. Don't really care as long as he doesn't muck with certain rights we now enjoy.
I think one of the biggest differences between Canada and the US is who emigrated and where. In the Canada we have a majority Catholic population and the biggest Protestant religions are Anglican, United and Lutheran - more catholic like.. (sorry to any believers, it's kinda true though.)
Where as in the States the biggest group are evangelicals.
A wee bit of history, if you will.
When this country was explored or expanded to the west, it was done in large part by two groups. The Law - the NWMP and the trading companies - The Hudson's Bay and the Northwest Company were the two big competitors. Each company preferred to hire employees from certain places in the UK. The Hudson bay preferred taller men and often hired local English boys. The NWC preferred shorter men (they fit better in boats, short doorways) and used men from the Orkney islands, the local French and resulting Metis - mostly catholic.
These groups often brought in priests or ministers soon after new areas were opened. In fact, great chunks of Alberta were explored and settled because of Fr. Albert Lacombe. He also wrote the first Cree dictionary.
While the Scots Irish settled in the US, they pretty much ignored the north. When the famine happened, the resulting Irish hoard coming to N. America were mostly Catholic, and they spread out across the country. The Ukrainian diaspora were also a mix of Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholics.


Today is election day in Alberta. I think Edmonton will remain a patchwork of red, blue and orange. I fear what the rest of the province will do. If they change colour and vote for the Wild Rose idiots, I think there will be a push to change the electorate boundaries. We have, for waaaaaaay to long been held victim to the red neck rural vote. It's time it was changed to reflect the reality of the times.
What pisses me off the most is that these same people who for over forty years haven't even considered a viable opposition are suddenly unhappy with the party they bought and paid for. I don't understand the anger.. It's not as if we are singing the blues here.. And now, they want to change enmasse to a party with absolutely NO experience and nothing but backwood ideas and Sarah Palinesque sound bites.
I really want to move!!
Just when I was starting to be happy with our image changing from the predictable stereotype, with Jewish and Muslim mayors in our biggest cities and a woman leading the province, we go and prove our stripes once again.
I'm just hoping the cities do rise up and vote. People are planning to vote strategically. We'll see what the outcome will be, but I'm not all that hopeful. I've been disappointed by my province so many times in the past...
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2012 11:57 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter, the following link from Wikipedia gives an explanation of the intent of the law. It seems that it has an intent, from the standpoint of religions that are not historically part of Russia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_on_Freedom_of_Conscience_and_Religious_Associations
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2012 12:08 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

As usual, Foofie has nothing relevant to add. My remarks had to do with the possibility of politicians catering to religious groups.


You were talking about religious groups wherever. Russia and many countries fall outside the scope of your statement, I believe.

While Foofie may not have anything relevant to add, the inference, I believe, is that you have something relevant to add, even when it goes into the smallest details of some historical fact that is already made. In my opinion, that is a subjective opinion of your own value to the forum. In my own opinion, you are dismissive of many other posters. Do you agree that you subscribe to an autocratic style of management, from your days of management? TGYE! (Thank God Your an Expatriate).
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2012 12:14 pm
@Foofie,
I had no intent to discuss the intend of the law (what I know about the intent is only hearsay from discussions with Russians).
I only wanted to point at those different three 'levels' ...
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2012 02:18 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Lustig Andrei wrote:
Vatican Reprimands a Group of U.S. Nuns
Bad Nuns! Bad!
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Apr, 2012 01:41 am
@Foofie,
No, idiot, i was talking about the possible influence of religion on some politicians in industrialized nations. Your incoherence is no fault of mine.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Apr, 2012 06:16 am
@Miller,
Miller wrote:

Fido Quote:

Quote:
He is a Nazi... And His oath to Hitler is older than any oath to the church.


Is that why he wears expensive perfume and fancy little dance shoes?
I don't know about that... As far as I know, he may have girls poop in his face like hitler used to... What does it matter... The church may have been the first modern western state with the first set of modern western laws; but they are so about themselves and so reactionary that they are a chanker on the meat of humanity... What is the last revolution they were in favor of??? They are always about counter revolution, never about revolution... I am one, and like the man said: When I find a better church I will leave that one; but they sure leave a lot to be desired... They have to control everything... You have to mouth the company line... Don't ever try to be better than them, more forgiving, charitable, or understanding or they will knock you down a notch...
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Apr, 2012 10:26 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

No, idiot, i was talking about the possible influence of religion on some politicians in industrialized nations. Your incoherence is no fault of mine.


You are getting obtuse in your explanations; however, I can almost hear the vitriol that, in my opinion, reflects your reply. Needless to say, since I am not the only poster to receive the wrath of Setanta, I cannot give total credence to your ad hominem judgements.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Apr, 2012 10:31 am
@Fido,
Fido wrote:

Miller wrote:

Fido Quote:

Quote:
He is a Nazi... And His oath to Hitler is older than any oath to the church.


Is that why he wears expensive perfume and fancy little dance shoes?
I don't know about that... As far as I know, he may have girls poop in his face like hitler used to... What does it matter... The church may have been the first modern western state with the first set of modern western laws; but they are so about themselves and so reactionary that they are a chanker on the meat of humanity... What is the last revolution they were in favor of??? They are always about counter revolution, never about revolution... I am one, and like the man said: When I find a better church I will leave that one; but they sure leave a lot to be desired... They have to control everything... You have to mouth the company line... Don't ever try to be better than them, more forgiving, charitable, or understanding or they will knock you down a notch...


Would I be correct to say that one reason not to give as great importance to the New Testament (aka, King James Version), as Protestantism, is because it would then allow laity to question hierarchal direction?
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Apr, 2012 10:40 am
@Foofie,
The King James version of the New Testament is the Protestant version/translation of the Gospels. So I don't understand what you're asking.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Apr, 2012 11:15 am
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:

Would I be correct to say that one reason not to give as great importance to the New Testament (aka, King James Version), as Protestantism, is because it would then allow laity to question hierarchal direction?
The English translation for the Catholic bible is now the so-called "The New Jerusalem Bible (NJB)" (before it has been the "Jerusalem Bible").
[In German, we have the "Unified" or "Unity Translation" used by both the Evangelical Church of Germany as well as the Catholic church. However, there's now some dispute about a new translation.]

It is not only my understanding that Catholics concentrate more on the New Testament than Evangelicals/Protestants.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  2  
Reply Wed 25 Apr, 2012 11:19 am
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:

Would I be correct to say that one reason not to give as great importance to the New Testament (aka, King James Version), as Protestantism, is because it would then allow laity to question hierarchal direction?


The Catholics I know tell me that they were never encouraged to read/follow the Bible, but to follow the directions of the Church. The Reformers (Luther, Calvin, etc) were the ones who started reading it and questioning Church dogma. The Protestant versions of the Bible came out of the Reformation.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Apr, 2012 11:49 am
@JPB,
JPB wrote:
The Reformers (Luther, Calvin, etc) were the ones who started reading it and questioning Church dogma. The Protestant versions of the Bible came out of the Reformation.
Luther used earlier German translations for his translation, too. He was, however, the first German speaking person to translate the New Testament completely from the Greek version while the others before used mainly the Vulgata.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Apr, 2012 12:41 pm
There was more than one translation of the bible into English, and including before the Reformation. Bede and Aldhelm translated portions of the bible, and at the famous Lindisfarne abbey, a translation of the gospels was made, with the translator(s) unknown. There was also the Wessex Gospels, a translation of the four evangelists made in the late tenth century. These were all "Old English" translations--translations into Anglo-Saxon.

The most notorious is the early translations into English is the Wycliffe bible. There were two versions, the first almost a word for word translation from the vulgate, and probably too difficult for the literate speaker of Middle English who was not very familiar with Latin grammar and syntax. The second version was more "user friendly" for speakers of Middle English.

Wycliffe may well be the source of church oppostion to translations of scripture into the "vulgar tongues." Wycliffe opposed church interference in secular affairs (his patron and protector was John of Guant), and he said that mismanaged church properties should be taken from them. He went further, saying that a king who did not do that was remiss in his duties, and in his definition of mismanagement he included church properties the income of which was not applied to the charitable purposes for which they had ostensibly been given to the church. He also preached predestination and preached against papal infallibility (not then an official policy of the church). He also condemned the possession of multiple benefices and the selling of indulgences as simony. Many of his teachings prefigured both Luther and Calvin. Because he had powerful protection, he was himself safe, but many of his followers, called Lollards, were persecuted, including public execution by hanging or burning. These persecutions took place after Henry Bolingbroke usurped the throne from Richard II in 1399.

The Lollards went further than Wycliffe, challenging the doctrine of transubstantiation, the authority of priests and the actual composition of the "community of the saved." Wycliffe and his English translation of the bible were blamed, and the obsessively religions Henry V (son of Henry Bolingbroke) ordered the confiscation and the destuction of copies of the Wycliffe bible, and the arrest and execution of Lollards. Nevertheless, well over one hundred copies of the Wycliffe bible have survived, all of them manuscript transcriptions in those days before the printing press.
Lustig Andrei
 
  2  
Reply Wed 25 Apr, 2012 12:45 pm
@Setanta,
Wasn't Wycliffe himself burned at the stake for the horrendous sin of having translated the Bible into English? Executed anyway, right?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Wed 25 Apr, 2012 12:59 pm
No, not with John of Gaunt as his protector. He died in 1384. In 1414, a church council was convened at Konstanz to resolve the problem of three popes, and to deal with what were seen as heresies. Jan Hus was lured there, on a promise of safe conduct, then seized, tried and burned. With Wycliffe in his grave for 30 years, they had to settle for digging up his remains and burning those.
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Apr, 2012 01:03 pm
@Setanta,
Ahh. Okay. I knew there was a bon[e]fire involved in there somewhere. Smile
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jun, 2012 04:10 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Washington Post wrote:
By David Gibson| Religion News Service, Updated: Friday, June 1, 10:58 Leaders representing most of the nation’s 57,000 Catholic nuns on Friday (June 1) answered a Vatican crackdown on their group by charging that Rome’s criticisms of the sisters were “unsubstantiated,” caused “scandal and pain” and “greater polarization” in the church.

“Moreover, the sanctions imposed were disproportionate to the concerns raised and could compromise their ability to fulfill their mission,” the 22-member board of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious warned in a statement issued after a special four-day meeting in Washington.

The LCWR board meeting followed the surprise announcement in April that Pope Benedict XVI wanted a Vatican-led makeover of the group on the grounds that it was not speaking out strongly enough against gay marriage, abortion and women’s ordination.

Rome also chided the LCWR for doctrinal ambiguity and sponsoring conferences that featured “a prevalence of certain radical feminist themes incompatible with the Catholic faith.”

The unexpectedly strong pushback to the Vatican may be an indication of how much backlash the campaign has sparked among Catholics, who value the sisters’ longstanding ministry in education, health care and social services, and who bristle at Rome’s demands to focus instead on sexual morality and enforcing orthodoxy.


http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4SNYR_enUS350US350&q=vatican+us+nuns



ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jun, 2012 04:35 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Most of us posting on this subject matter on a2k know I've a long time bias against Cardinal Ratzinger, aka Pope Benedict. I see him as the arrow leading to further longtime irrelevancy of the vatican just when it was newly energized in what I then thought were good ways, back in the sixties. I do remember that a sane friend on a2k appreciated him for some points, though not all, in a long ago thread.

I'd say Go, Nuns, except I've no idea what they are doing still sticking with it.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/10/2021 at 07:41:48