http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2012/may/04/tensions-building-between-liberal-nuns-vatican/?partner=yahoo_feeds The article cited here is the most recent indication of a societal opinion that does not make sense. The key paragraphs in the article are the following:
A pivotal moment came in 2007, when Dominican Sister Laurie Brink delivered the keynote address at a national LCWR assembly stating that it was time for some religious orders to enter an era of “sojourning” that would require “moving beyond the church, even beyond Jesus.”
With the emergence of the women’s movement and related forms of spirituality, many sisters would see “the divine within nature” and embrace an “emerging new cosmology” that would feed their souls, said Brink. For these sisters, the “Jesus narrative is not the only or the most important narrative. … Jesus is not the only son of God.”
A year later, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith opened its investigation of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious.
My understanding the word “sojourn” is that it means the same as to journey or to travel. So Sister Brink is saying that a person can be a Roman Catholic Nun but without the Roman Catholic Church and she can also be a Christian without believing that Jesus is the Son of God, the second person of the Holy Trinity and the Savior promised to the world by the Holy Bible.
The problem with this position is that it is non sensical. If sister Brink wants to say that an individual can regard themselves to be Christian but without Jesus that’s fine but that is not what she says nor wants. She wants the individual to be able to declare themselves an official Nun of the Roman Catholic Church without the Church or its approval. To cut the argument short, I ask, can someone declare themselves to be my child but without biological birth from my wife and myself? Well, they can declare themselves to be that but just declaring it does not make it true or factual. A person may feel within themselves that are one of my progeny but they cannot therefore move into my house, eat my food, take my money or represent themselves in legal proceedings as being my child.
I seem to remember this type of case happening before in the case of Father Hans Kung of Germany. He held the official chair of Roman Catholic theology at a German university. However, his teaching were not in consonance with the official teaching of that Church. When Pope John Paul removed him from his teaching position there was an outcry. Academics condemned Rome for suppressing freedom of speech. However, the Vatican was very clear. It said that Father Kung remained a priest of the Roman Catholic Church based upon the doctrine of “Character indelible” (A doctrine that declares when a priest is ordained he is ontologically differentiated and that differentiation cannot be undone by human action.) The Holy See also declared that Father Kung was allowed to write, speak and teach whatever he wanted, to whomever would listen and at any time and place. However, he was no longer regarded as a theologian of the Roman Catholic Church and his teaching should not be regarded as representing the official Roman Catholic theological position. Essentially this is analogous to President Obama dismissing his Press Secretary and saying that his views no longer represent the views of the Obama administration.
I will not labor the point of faith versus the Faith, except to declare that personal faith in “the divine within nature” and embracing an “emerging new cosmology” is most likely shared by thousands of Roman Catholic Christians, however such personally individual faith is not the same as the Faith and should not be deemed representative of Roman Catholic theology. Which is to say that persons can embrace such thinking, (whatever it means since it is very vague) but even as a lay catechist they cannot teach such. This is especially true in the light of the final quote in this report, namely, the “Jesus narrative is not the only or the most important narrative. … Jesus is not the only son of God.”
Why, because Christianity is essentially about Jesus. The three great ecumenical creeds clearly affirm Jesus as the “only begotten of the Father” and “In Jesus His (God’s) only Son our Lord. conceived by the Hoy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.”
The Vatican is not declaring that the nuns are not people. It is not saying that their dedication to social work and community building is unworthy. It is not declaring that the personal private opinions of these woman is condemned. What the Vatican is saying is that if they want to be considered official representatives of the Roman Catholic Church then they are required to adhere to the teachings structures and procedures of that Church and that if they have issues with such items they can petition for redress of their complaints. However, they cannot unilaterally present their personal opinions, prejudices or stereotypes as being officially Roman Catholic. At least for this writer it is a no brainer.
How do you see the central issue? Are there other societal examples declaring something to be true which is obviously not true? What is the result when we accept that merely declaring something to be true makes it true? Has anyone read Animal Farm by George Orwell? Do the pigs practice “truth by definition?”. What does the horse think of it?
Progressive Politics 