The leader of Planned Parenthood thanks the liberal nuns

Before reading more, read this if you haven’t done so already:

Now from CNA with my emphases and comments

Planned Parenthood head thanks religious sisters for ‘critical support’ of health care bill

Washington D.C., Mar 27, 2010 / 07:28 am (CNA).- Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards has praised the Catholic religious sisters who endorsed the Senate health care bill, claiming they deserve gratitude for making “a critical demonstration of support” for a bill that significantly increased coverage of “reproductive health care.”

Writing for the Huffington Post Wednesday in her capacity as president of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Richards claimed that it was Catholic nuns who “most importantly broke with the bishops and the Vatican to announce their support for health care reform.”  [I hope those old women are proud of themselves.]

“This brave and important move, demonstrating that they cared as much about the health care of families in America as they did about church hierarchy, was a critical demonstration of support.”

The group NETWORK claimed [lied] in a March 17 letter to the House of Representatives that it represented 59,000 women religious across the U.S. It urged members of Congress to support the bill.

Their statement was uncritically reported by the Associated Press. [uncritically] White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and others working to pass the legislation invoked the sisters’ endorsement for support[Which means that the sisters caused real scandal and did real harm.]

On March 18 U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) spokeswoman Sr. Mary Ann Walsh said NETWORK “grossly overstated” their numbers.

“The letter had 55 signatories, some individuals, some groups of three to five persons. One endorser signed twice,” she added. “There are 793 religious communities in the United States,” Sr. Walsh said.

Another group of women religious, the Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious (CMSWR), issued a statement saying it represented 10,000 sisters and supported the U.S. bishops’ criticisms of the Senate health care bill.

In her Huffington Post essay, Richards said in the last days of the debate over the health care bill, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and the USCCB “threatened to bring down health care completely over their narrow demands.”

Bart Stupak may not ask the nuns for advice, as he recently announced to the press, but maybe next time she should,” Richards jabbed. [Look at that sentence... it is in the Huff Post, it involves the liberal nuns, the president of Planned Parenthood, and Rep. Stupak.]

She praised Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.) for fighting against an “abortion ban” in the House Energy and Commerce Committee Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) gathered 41 signatures of members who pledged to vote against any final bill with the “Stupak ban.”

“These women stood in the way of plenty of men in Congress who were ready to cut a deal, whether with Bart Stupak or the National Conference of Catholic Bishops,” she continued.

Richards said Planned Parenthood was “committed” to changing the “egregious” Nelson language in the bill that President Obama signed into law on Tuesday. She claimed the bill unjustly treats abortion coverage differently than all other health care. [They claim that abortion is health care.]

However, she also said the bill was a “huge victory for women’s reproductive health” because it significantly increased insurance coverage of “reproductive health care, including family planning.” [And the euphemisms just keep coming.]

“Reproductive health care” and “women’s rights” are euphemisms common among abortion advocates.  [Speaking of euphemisms!]

Richards, the daughter of former Democratic Texas governor Ann Richards, noted that some in Congress opposed her agenda.

The simple and discouraging truth is that we have an anti-choice House of Representatives,” she claimed. [!]

She lamented that 64 Democrats voted in favor of the Stupak Amendment and that there are “too many” Republicans and Democrats in Congress opposed to “women’s rights.

“We need more than health care; we need women and men elected to office who will stand up for our health and our rights, even when it’s hard. So here’s to the women leaders in Congress — and to the nuns [Get that?] — and to the women everywhere who were counting on them. They need our gratitude and our support,” Richards’ Huffington Post essay concluded.

Technorati Tags:

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Emanations from Penumbras, The future and our choices and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

69 Responses to The leader of Planned Parenthood thanks the liberal nuns

  1. EXCHIEF says:

    So…given the fact that they defied the U S Bishops, given the fact that they at least indirectly supported abortion which is against Church teaching, and given the fact that they obviously caused grave scandel should all of those who signed the document be excommunicated? Just asking.

  2. Maltese says:

    “For every Mother Theresa, there seem to be 1,800 nutty American nuns, female Clint Eastwoods who have it in for men and are out to get the Pope.” Walker Percy, Lost in the Cosmos

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZ64VMUnIPo

  3. TNCath says:

    Mother Clare Millea, if you read this blog, I certainly hope you are you taking notes! Unfotunately, I am very skeptical about what, if anything, will be done to these nuns.

    As Bruno Tattaglia in The Godfather was, according to Vito Corleone, a “pimp” for Don Barzini, Bart Stupak was nothing more than a “pimp” for Obama. I will not venture any farther than that with what I think the dear Sisters were in this debacle.

    On a related note, I always find Sister Mary Ann Walsh of the USCCB to be an interesting chameleon. She is often a supporter of the LCWR’s style of religious life as she does not wear a habit. At the same time, she is also an effective communicator who defends the bishops, which, of course, is her job. I don’t know what to think of her.

  4. irishgirl says:

    Ugh..I think I’m going to be sick.

    The holy founders and foundresses of these ‘sisters’ are shaking their heads in disbelief as they look down on their arrogant and disobedient ‘daughters’.

    I wish the Bishops would ‘be men instead of mice’ and EXCOMMUNICATE them! I am tired of them not doing anything!

  5. New Sister says:

    TNCath – to remove any doubt on the color of the “chameleon”, remember her statement after Pelosi, Kerry, Kennedy received Holy Communion before the Holy Father in 2008: “…people go to Communion if they *feel* in their heart they are prepared to receive…”

    My 7th graders know better than that!

  6. ray from mn says:

    “Richards, the daughter of former Democratic Texas governor Ann Richards….” Once they get a good job there, they never leave.

    Washington sure is incestuous, isn’t it? Just like the courts of France and England.

  7. Andy F. says:

    Are you sure you didn’t rip this from “Screwtape Proposes A Toast,” Father?

  8. medievalist says:

    Hmm, these plaudits from Planned Parenthood should go nicely on the mantlepiece with Obama’s pen.

  9. gloriainexcelsis says:

    As I said before about someone else – From an unprovided death deliver them, O Lord.

  10. TJerome says:

    Next time your liberal parish asks for donations for the “Nuns retirement fund” think of these traitors and act accordingly.

  11. JimGB says:

    Sadly, I think that we have to resign ourselves to the fact that nothing will ever be done by the Church to address these errant sisters, who revel in materialism, defy the teachings of the Church, happily accept the plaudits of radical abortion supporters, and even in extreme cases help in procuring abortions (i.e., a certain member of the Sinsinawa Dominicans). My questions is, rather than constantly praying for an increase in vocations to these orders, should we not pray that they receive no new vocations, so when these gals pass on, their communities become extinct?

  12. Jackie L says:

    So, let me get this straight, “Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and the USCCB ‘threatened to bring down health care completely over their narrow demands’”. But Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) deserves praise for gathering 41 signatures of members who pledged to vote against any final bill with the “Stupak ban”.

    So was HCR too important to bring down over abortion or not? I guess logic can not be applied to groups like Planned Parenthood.

  13. Rachel says:

    When will this stop? Why are these orders still around? I struggle with trust a lot. I admit that I don’t trust our bishops and very few priests. I don’t think anything will be done. These “nuns” have caused GRAVE scandal. They should be excommunicated NOW. Not talked to. Not coddled. How much more do we need to take? The scandal that is happening in the Church is worse than what is going on outside of the Church. How dare these “nuns” call themselves Catholic. I am so sick to my stomach right now :(.

  14. TonyC says:

    Just wondering; how much longer can the bishops ignore these people?

  15. Mary Kay says:

    Bart Stupak and Sr. Carol Keehan both publicly said abortion was unacceptable and both then acted otherwise. I find that much more difficult than those who were openly pro-aborts.

  16. Jack Hughes says:

    Insanity……………..

  17. Gail F says:

    NETWORK has a web site. They’re a lobbying group. Here’s a link to their “We Made Healthcare Reform Happen!” action alert, which you can use to send a “thank you” to your representative:
    http://capwiz.com/networklobby/issues/alert/?alertid=14842636&type=CO

    The website says they represent more than 100,000 people and are dedicated to “social justice.” It was founded in 1971 by 47 Catholic sisters, and most of their BOD is Catholic sisters. I have written to them asking for a clarification on their position.

  18. Maltese says:

    Fortunately the clucking hens who use religious orders to launch Woodstock agendas are being replaced (albeit slowly) by the real thing:

    Of the new priests and nuns who recently joined religious orders, two-thirds chose orders that wear a habit all the time or regularly during prayer or ministry

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/11/us/11nun.html

  19. lux_perpetua says:

    i was so struck by something in the Gospel today.

    “49. Then one of them, named Caiaphas, since he was the high priest that year, said to them: “You do not understand anything.
    50. Nor do you realize that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the entire nation should not perish.””

    It seems like these sisters have fallen into the same egregious error: isn’t it better that we pass this “life-affirming” bill because it benefits so many compared to the relative few that will die from abortion?

    Lord have mercy.

  20. TNCath says:

    Rachel: “I admit that I don’t trust our bishops and very few priests. I don’t think anything will be done.”

    TonyC: “how much longer can the bishops ignore these people?”

    Rachel, I had to say this, but I tend to agree with you. While there are individual bishops who are trustworthy, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that the bishops of the United States are pretty controlled by Archbishop Sambi, the Apostolic Nuncio; Cardinal Rigali, the senior American on the Congregation for Bishops; and Cardinal George, president of the USCCB. For some reason, they are reluctant to boldly step in and prefer a more diplomatic and nuanced way of handling things. Ultimately, this strategy will never work and the day is going to come where they will eventually realize, like Neville Chamberlain at the beginning of World War II, that negotiation and appeasement will never ultimately work in a world of good vs. evil.

    TonyC, the bishops aren’t going to do a THING to challenge the Sisters. They are going to hide behind the Apostolic Visitation and the CDF’s investigation of the LCWR, which may or may not do anything substantive. That remains to be seen.

  21. jfk03 says:

    Grrrrr! Need to go to confession!

  22. Glen M says:

    We should pray for these nuns as they know better and yet still side with the devil. God will judge them accordingly. The next generation of bishops need to return to the tradition of strong and decisive leadership, not condoning abortionists, pedophiles, liturgical saboteurs, and all the other destructive forces we are up against.

  23. Randii says:

    I suspect nothing will be done. And frankly it’s too late. The bishops have allowed parallel groups to emerge in the US and compete for “authority” as authentic Catholic spokepeople. And for a huge Catholic bureaucracy to emerge that is basically an extension of the Democratic party.

    Already the bishops and the nuns are back together trying to force an immigration bill that will give amnesty to millions.

    Many of the LCWR congregations are outright refusing to co-operate in the visitation/investigation. They seem to be getting away with it.

    The American church some say is in de-facto schism or at the very least effectively independent from Rome. At this stage Rome probably can’t do anything major without causing a schism.

    When the decision comes, as it will, that Catholic hospitals have to provide abortions or lose their participation in the national health care plan I bet a majority of the hospitals agree to do abortions.

    But the fault lies with Rome for refusing to act despite having had orthodox Popes for decades now. The US church is seeing many conversions to EO by orthodox Catholics. These folks are not being fed at their local parish and see the ongoing scandals.

    In fact a number of evangelical converts to Catholcism end up after a brief stay crossing over to Constantinople. The editor of the Dallas newspaper – Dryer (sp?) caused a big stir after his conversion to Rome was followed not too long later by conversion to EO. he has written poignantly on it.

  24. Aaron says:

    It’s funny how on the pro-life side, people sat around and argued over whether the bill would fund abortion or not, as if it were really hard to determine that. Many claimed that it wouldn’t fund abortion at all, and that those who opposed it were only using that as an excuse, and were really lapdogs for the GOP who wanted poor sick people to die or something.

    Yet Planned Parenthood never had the slightest doubt what the bill would give them: “significantly increased coverage of reproductive health care.” Obama said that would be his #1 priority, and they trusted him, and he delivered.

  25. PostCatholic says:

    I don’t get you. You got what you want: no Federal money being spent on abortion. The Hyde Amendment already illegalizes the spending of Federal funds, and the President of the United States issued “Executive Order — Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s Consistency with Longstanding Restrictions on the Use of Federal Funds for Abortion” on March 24th. You can read what it says on the White House website.

    You just didn’t win the lottery and use the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act to completely illegalize abortion. Doerflinger took a dangerous gamble that he could use this bill as a piggyback vehicle to accomplish that, and he lost.

    And I don’t understand your point here, but you seem to be engaging in a guilt by association ad hominem. I went to high school with a man who starred in a movie (well, he’s starred in several, but I mean one particularly) that Kim Jong-Il made some very nice public statements. Does that make my classmate a totalitarian communist? It does not. Likewise, Planned Parenthood’s letter does not make the CHA a proponent or ally in pro-abortion politics.

  26. Randii says:

    Aaron makes a good point. It was all smoke and mirrors.

    Sadly my local Catholic paper has a piece this week and Cardinal George basically praises the bill but says we still have to be vigilante that it doesn’t increase abortion coverage. Like come on. Who’s kidding whom here.

  27. chironomo says:

    Among those who have also praised the Health Care Bill and endorsed it in the past few days are Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. It should truly worry us when all of the world’s renowned Socialist/Communist leaders endorse the actions of our government….

  28. Wayne NYC says:

    Hey POST catholic,
    Did you really go to high school?

  29. By their friends you shall know them.

  30. PostCatholic says:

    Yes, Wayne. I really did. And to university and to graduate school.

  31. TJerome says:

    I’m starting to wonder if the bishops suffer from “I want to be loved syndrome” or worse, if we actually act like Catholic bishops, egads, people might quit the Church and our donations will go down. Too bad. You’re either with Christ or against Christ. Your choice bishops.

  32. Aaron says:

    PostCatholic, anything on the White House web site is worth the paper it’s written on. If the bill really prevents funding for abortion, then why is Planned Parenthood celebrating it? Why do they say it “significantly increased coverage of reproductive health care”? Are they stupid? Naive? Abortion pays their bills and puts food on their plates; I’ll trust them to know what they’re talking about.

  33. PostCatholic says:

    I can’t speak for them, Aaron, but I would hazard a guess that Planned Parenthood sees “Significantly increased coverage of reproductive health care” in things like pre- and neo-natal care, the treatment of venereal and sexually transmitted disease, gynecological care, the end gender discrimination by insurers, and so on. I also think they’re happy coverage for contraceptive prophylaxis prescriptions, but I would doubt the CHA is with them there.

    And I also am not so naive as to they will make an effort to agitate for more, but in the passage of the act I think we’ve clearly seen that the political will to expand access to abortion is not there.

  34. Mary Kay says:

    I think we’ve clearly seen that the political will to expand access to abortion is not there.

    Definitely the statement of someone supporting the lib agenda.

    Obama has a hugely pro-abortion record himself and his cabinet does also.

  35. PostCatholic says:

    I agree that the administration has a pro-abortion record, Mary Kay. If I could expand on my statement, I mean to say that in the contentious atmosphere of the debate, we saw that an attempt to make taxpayer funds pay for abortions would be very widely unpopular and virtual political suicide. Whatever else you may think of the president, I hope you can at least concede that above all things he’s a clever politician interested in the next election.

    As to your characterization of me: Much like my approach to Catholicism, I’m on the cafeteria plan with liberal agenda. Some of it I support, some of it I do not.

  36. bookworm says:

    Shouldn’t this say “The HEAD of Planned Parenthood thanks the liberal nuns”?

    Once a proofreader, always a proofreader….

    On another note:

    “In the contentious atmosphere of the debate, we saw that an attempt to make taxpayer funds pay for abortions would be very widely unpopular and virtual political suicide.”

    Interestingly enough, none other than Democratic pollster Pat Caddell predicted almost two weeks ago before the Obamacare vote that if it passed — given the high level of public opposition to the entire plan (not just the abortion provisions, of course) — it would prove to be a “Jonestown moment” for Democrats in Congress… a mass electoral suicide at the behest of their “cult” leader.

    We’ll see in November whether Caddell is right.

  37. Peter in Canberra says:

    These sisters have been, are, a tragedy. Yet for many of the old sisters I suspect they have been brow-beaten over 40 years to ‘convert’ by a minority in their congregations. Eventually though the abnormal innovations have become the familiar normality for them.

    I note the various comments alluding to the parallel ‘Catholic’ voice and that the bishops have done nothing to stop this. I agree 100%

    However the bishops have strangled with vigour, and many (most?) still do, movements attached to tradition. I guess its easy to be tough when you know your opponent can’t, or won’t fight back.

    In Australia we term such persons ‘gutless wonders’. And we have our fair share sitting in the same seats.

  38. Maltese says:

    Randii: The US church is seeing many conversions to EO by orthodox Catholics. These folks are not being fed at their local parish and see the ongoing scandals.

    That’s an understatement, but the liberal contracepting “Catholic” majority is perfectly happy in their Kerryesque churches.

    We recently lost this fine once-Catholic man:

    http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2006/10/orthodoxy-and-me.html

  39. Wayne NYC says:

    Hey POST catholic,
    Seeing how you went to University
    do you know what a “seminar caller” is?

    Oh and by the way,
    the cafeteria is closed.

  40. Charivari Rob says:

    TJerome – “Next time your liberal parish asks for donations for the “Nuns retirement fund” think of these traitors and act accordingly.”

    “Act accordingly”? “Traitors”? Exactly what do you mean?

    Consider that those sisters most affected by those “Retired Religious Fund” collections are the ones –

    - Who really are retired.

    - Who are 75/80/90/100something years-old.

    - Who never gave up on their vows 40 years ago.

    - Who worked and scrimped to provide for the care of the generations of sisters before them.

    - Who don’t have many doing the same for them now because their Orders don’t attract as many new vocations (partly due to factors within their control, partly factors beyond their control).

    - Who don’t have the practical power to direct the behavior of those who have done the things that raise your ire.

    - Who never earned much more than a pittance in money or social security.

    - Who live in decades-old motherhouses and provincehouses that require money to keep up to modern standards of accessibility, functionality, and services.

    Are they “traitors”? That’s painting with a mighty broad brush.

    Will witholding support from such a collection actually accomplish anything constructive – or will it merely indulge a fit of pique, punishing them for the sins of others?

    If someone don’t trust the judgement of their local/diocesan collection because of uncertainty where the funds might end up – fine! I’m sure you can find an Order and arrange a direct donation earmarked for some real and uncontroversial need – durable medical equipment, remodeling the chapel pews to make room for wheelchairs, converting a bathroom to a roll-in shower, maintaining an elevator, funding a lift van…

    By the way… “”There are 793 religious communities in the United States,” Sr. Walsh said.”

    I appreciate this quote from Sister Walsh. I’ve seen it in several places. I am curious, though… Can anybody suggest a reference source to back up (or expand upon) the number? 793 communities? Is she saying that there are 793 separate Orders present in the USA? That seems a bit high. That would be an average of nearly 16 unique Orders per State! Or – is she distinguishing them by provinces, or perhaps by separate places for the cloistered orders?

  41. Aaron says:

    Whatever else you may think of the president, I hope you can at least concede that above all things he’s a clever politician interested in the next election.”

    I’d say the opposite. Bill Clinton was a clever politician interested in the next election. When his attempts to rush through a nationalized health care plan with a lot of question marks ran into public resistance, he backed down and switched to popular issues like signing onto welfare reform, and got reelected rather easily despite all his scandals.

    Barack Obama seems to be too much of a true believer to compromise his vision that way. Sure, he wants to get reelected, but he wouldn’t (and probably couldn’t) pretend to be a centrist to accomplish it. Maybe he thinks he won’t need the middle class private sector in 2012 as long as he can raise the number of natural Democrats enough through immigration amnesty and nationalizing industries. Maybe he’s right.

    Anyway, on the original topic, I was just reading that the president gave one of the signing pens from this bill to the head of the CHA. Groups like the CHA and LCWR didn’t support the bill warily for the sake of affordable health care for the poor, expressing serious reservations along the way. They were charging right out in front all along, long before anyone had any real idea what sort of things it would fund — so much so that Obama picked them as one of the half-dozen groups to thank!

  42. gloriainexcelsis says:

    However we disagree with PostCatholic’s views, I think the ongoing discourse is not useful and an exercise in futility at this point. These things quickly degenerate, and soon the subject at hand becomes a sidelight to personal argument.

  43. catholicmidwest says:

    Charivari Rob,

    Don’t agree. I, for one, think that we should stop funding any drives that aren’t excruciatingly specific about where all money goes, including “retired religious” drives.

    Somebody paid for this crap. Money doesn’t grow on trees. If nuns who can still do it want to teach math at secular universities and such, I expect they can pay for this healthcare/abortion stuff out of their own pockets–and support their own orders in the bargain. But if they’re going to take donations under the guise of being Catholic, then by golly, they’d better act like Catholics and knock this crap off.

  44. catholicmidwest says:

    BTW, I’ve been asking for a while now:

    What do nuns do nowdays??? I guess now I know.

    Tell me again: why does the church still need them? They don’t teach school. They don’t work in hospitals. They don’t teach the truth as the church teaches it.

  45. Jordanes says:

    “This brave and important move, demonstrating that they cared as much about the health care of families in America as they did about church hierarchy, was a critical demonstration of support.”

    Did you all catch that? She said those nuns don’t care about the health care of families in America? She knows how much respect one should give to turncoats and traitors, “thanking” the nuns for their help while insulting them, saying they care just as much about the health care of American families as they care for the Church’s hierarchy. They have shown that they care not at all for the hierarchy, and they have shown through their support for the health care deform that they don’t care for American families’ health care either.

  46. catholicmidwest says:

    Jordanes, either:
    a) the phrase was written by someone in the media who doesn’t have a clue or
    b) it does say something quite real about the situation or
    c) a combination of the two.

    I opt for c).

    It was really all about politics.

  47. Maltese says:

    Aaron: I was just reading that the president gave one of the signing pens from this bill to the head of the CHA.

    I guess since he got an “honorary law degree,” probably the highest honor a college can give, from AmChurch Notre Dame, he can give something back to the AmChurch which so proudly supports him! (Btw, while in the Senate, Obama was THE most pro-abortion senator, good thing AmChurch is so behind him!)

  48. PostCatholic says:

    Wayne, I am enjoying my participation in the discussions held here. I realize I don’t agree with the viewpoint of conservative Catholicism, but hopefully what I have to say at least provokes some thought. I covenant to treat you with worth and dignity; it would make it easier on me to do that if you would stop trying to insult me.

    Aaron, you make interesting points. It will be an interesting election to observe. The CHA did play a part in the passage of the act at a critical moment. It would be poor manners if the President had not thanked them regardless of when they entered the fray, right?

  49. mikew says:

    … and certain orders of religious wonder why their orders are dying from lack of new vocations. It is really no surprise at all. When orders do not follow the teachings of the Church they will certainly cease to exist. Orders which are orthodox and follow the teachings of the Church are flourishing today… just look at the FSSP…although not an order but a fraternity… has no problems filling its seminary. In fact, the FSSP is turning men away due to being full. When orders do not follow the teachings of the Church they are not blessed and the result is not favorable to them. In due time unorthodox orders will fade away and new, orthodox orders and religious communities will take their place, blessed by the grace of the Lord to carry on the teachings of the Church. All the Church asks is that we become good at plagiarism… the teachings are already there… learn and repeat them. We need not be geniuses… just faithful to the teachings of the Church and to the Magisterium. These nuns have much to learn. Is it that difficult?… I don’t think so.

  50. Maltese says:

    I mentioned Dreher, supra, and his conversion to Orthodoxy. I’d like to rejoinder this quote (as much as I admire Dreher):

    I hope also that my own example will encourage others — Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant — to look seriously into their hearts, and detach themselves from both idolizing the Church in the place of Christ.

    This reflects Paul’s prayer at Paul Outside the Walls at the inauguration of Vatican II, when he did a Kumbaya with protestants.

    Protestants worship the Christ they manufacture (or is comfort-fitting, to their 75,000 variations; or place all their hope in a Bible, though Divine as it is, is a historical document.) Catholics also believe in Tradition and the Magisterium. Sola Scriptura-ites think you can know everything by sticking your nose between the two covers of the Bible; but in this you get Appalachia snake-handlers and funny Fundamentalists.

    But, if you get into the fundamentals of what Catholicism was, until the Oath was abolished, it was (and still sometimes is) at Holy Mass, the Unbloody Sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ:

    “[T]he altar of sacrifice in the Jewish Temple represented God, just as the Christian altar represents Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. The blood of the victim was said to contain its life, and when poured upon the altar it had been returned to God in Whom that life originated.?….?The Christian religion has only one sacrifice, the sacrifice that was once offered when Our Lord Jesus Christ, acting both as priest and victim, shed His Blood for us upon the Cross. Every type and every purpose of Old Testament sacrifice was fulfilled to perfection on Calvary. Holocaust, peace offering, sin offering were all merely types, shadows, figures of that one perfect sacrifice on the first Good Friday when God the Son made Man reconciled all tings unto Himself, ‘making peace through the Blood of His Cross, both as to the things that are on earth and the things that are in heaven’ (Col. 1:20). Michael Davies

    http://hospitallers.blogspot.com/2008/09/holy-sacrifice.html

  51. Randii says:

    Thnaks Maltese for posting the link. I had the spelling wrong – it’s Dreher. His coversion from evangelical Christianity to Catholcism was a big deal but his subsequent conversion to Orthodoxy caused a bigger stir.

    It’s a cliche but the EO parishes in my area (there are not a lot to begin with) are bursting at the seams and it’s said about 20% of congregants are former Catholics.

    If you’ve ever read The Traditionalist there is a running series of articles by Mosebach regarding the Eastern Orthodox liturgies, devotion and such. Many think this traditionalist Catholic is on his way to conversion to Orthodoxy also. That would be huge as he is so well known.

    His last 2 articles have been increasingly critical of the Catholic church and he took the side of the Orthodox re: icons and religious art. Not choosing sides based on the art today but but that the Orthodox were right as regards the original ancient controversy.

    He ended by praising all the new Orthodox churches rising in Germany and other parts of Western Europe.

  52. With the new “health care”, it seems like these old liberal hippies have an even shorter time, since rationing can be used on the old “useless eaters” as marxists would call them. Satan always eats his children.

  53. Maltese says:

    remember, FSSPX is still part of the Church. The Church may seem sunk at times, but there is this life-boat out there. I sure love those souls, as imperfect as they are….

  54. TNCath says:

    Charivari Rob: “Consider that those sisters most affected by those “Retired Religious Fund” collections are the ones –

    – Who really are retired.
    – Who are 75/80/90/100something years-old.
    – Who never gave up on their vows 40 years ago.
    – Who worked and scrimped to provide for the care of the generations of sisters before them.
    – Who don’t have many doing the same for them now because their Orders don’t attract as many new vocations (partly due to factors within their control, partly factors beyond their control).
    – Who don’t have the practical power to direct the behavior of those who have done the things that raise your ire.
    – Who never earned much more than a pittance in money or social security.
    – Who live in decades-old motherhouses and provincehouses that require money to keep up to modern standards of accessibility, functionality, and services.

    Are they “traitors”? That’s painting with a mighty broad brush.”

    Many of these sisters suffer in silence while their communities have turned their backs of the very reasons for their existence in the first place. Many of those who are living in retirement at their motherhouses or in nursing homes who “drank the Kool-Aid” and fell for the schemes of their superiors were simply following what they thought was what the Church wanted them to do. Only later did they find that they were duped and sold a bill of goods as worthless as the polyester pant suits and Tennessee house dresses they later donned.

    Within 10-15 years, the last of these poor old souls will have gone to God. I just hope they are able to die as Sisters and not as non-canonical nonentities, which is quite possible after the Apostolic Visitation is completed.

  55. Geoffrey says:

    “…FSSPX is still part of the Church…”

    Maybe, maybe not… but I’ll stick with those able to legitimately absolve sins in the confessional!

  56. Denise says:

    Seeing all the sisters who were supporting new age pagan rituals was the last straw for me. I quit donating to the retired religious fund and now donate directly to orders I know are faithful to the Magisterium. I also donate to the local retirement home for priests. Pray, pray, pray for vocations!

  57. kat says:

    You may take this comment for whatever you think it is worth, but I heard this story often enough that I know my aunts believe it thoroughly anyway:

    My aunt was a Sister of St. Joseph, in Michigan. Born in the 1920′s, I believe. We have plenty of home movies showing her in the complete full habit when visiting at home, always with 1-2 other Sisters with her, as they were not at that time allowed to travel home alone, etc. She was a teaching Sister also.

    Anyway, shortly after Vatican II, her sisters, (my aunts) tell me that their sister, the nun, was sent on some kind of “retreat.” When she returned from it, she literally had removed her habit, had many strange ideas, and from that moment on became what many here would consider “liberal.” I never remember her wearing a full habit; although when she came home during my lifetime (she died in 1997, RIP), she always wore a blue skirt, white blouse, and veil on her hair, because my other aunts would give her heck if she did not. I loved her dearly…but this story, as I say, take it as you want…well, it’s kind of frightening. What DID happen on that one “retreat” (or was it “retraining?”) that made her change so quickly? And how many of these other older nuns perhaps went through something similar?

    I’m just askin’.

  58. Aaron says:

    Kat, the book Sisters, by John J. Fialka, talks a bit about what they went through (my emphases, Fr. Z. style):

    In the summer of 1967, while still answering questions from Rome about the first visitation, Mother Humiliata began yet another experiment. She had learned that the head of the Western Behavioral Sciences Institute, a psychologist named Carl Rogers, had received foundation grants for an ambitious experiment. He was looking for an entire school system that would agree to try his brand of group “encounter therapy.”

    The institute, based in La Jolla, California, had developed a technique of “nondirective psychotherapy” using sessions designed to get people to describe their inner feelings. Dr. Rogers, who had originally developed it to treat neurotics, thought it might be a way to improve communications in a large institution.

    It was part Freud, part California, part sixties and part disaster, according to Dr. William Coulson, the leader of the institute’s project with the IHMs [Immaculate Heart of Mary]. Another psychologist, Dr. Coulson helped train fifty-eight “facilitators” to conduct the sessions with the sisters and their students. About half of the freshly trained facilitators were priests or sisters from other orders. They, too, were eager to experiment with ways that might “liberate” people’s thinking in the coming new age.

    “I thought I was helping to make them [the sisters] more virtuous,” explained Dr. Coulson, who used the fact that he was a Catholic and a University of Notre Dame graduate to sell the IHMs on the experiment. He found that the technique helped break down what structure remained in the IHMs. It attacked the notion of faith and quiet self-sacrifice that had made the order such a fixture in Los Angeles in the first place.

    But evidence that this grand-scale experiment might be dangerous to the order came in only gradually. “Yeah, we attacked their faith,” he admits in an interview, “but only in terms of a deeper faith, a Freudian faith if you will.”

  59. catholicmidwest says:

    Fr Marie-Paul, you said,”With the new “health care”, it seems like these old liberal hippies have an even shorter time, since rationing can be used on the old “useless eaters” as marxists would call them. Satan always eats his children.”

    Nobody ever accused baby boomers of having too many brains. They’re still, overall, the stupid lot they always were, with a few very very frightened more intelligent exceptions lost in the crowd.

    This constitutes a death wish for some of them, and they don’t even realize it. Sometimes I wonder how many of my age-mates still smoke pot on the side. I’m serious.

  60. catholicmidwest says:

    Denise,

    I don’t donate to any of the above. I’ve seen the ravages of one religious order for women up close (the very same Sisters of St. Joseph, kat) and I won’t contribute to it.
    I’ve also been a member of a third order, and trust me, they’re no better off.

    Religious orders, particularly those for women, are in very, very tenuous shape and until they find their charism and reason for existing once again, they’re off my mental map. I don’t donate and I don’t want anything to do with any of them til they shape up.

    PS, there are some exceptions: The Hawthorne Dominicans, etc. but most of the religious orders are in terrible shape: the Franciscans, the Discalced Carmelites, etc. and hordes of the more minor womens orders. Achhhh. No thanks.

  61. TJerome says:

    charivari rob, don’ make me laugh. I’ve had a lot of experience with these “neopagans” aka nuns from liberal orders who worship earth mother, don’t go to Mass because it is sexist because, egads, a “Man” is the celebrant, etc. However, these same neopagans will trot out a picture of an old nun in a habit when they want money. Talk about disengenuous and perfidious behavior. The worst of these nuns are in their 70s and 80s and many hold positions of influence still because they refuse to let go. “Sister” Chittester is in hers 70s, for one example. The Catholic Church will be in far better shape when these old ladies go to their eternal reward, whatever that will be. The young women of Faith are joining orders where the Pope, habits, traditional ministries, etc., are not dirty words. I contribute directly to them.

  62. catholicmidwest says:

    Exactly. TJerome is 100% correct.

    When some of these orders want something, they trot out the rosaries, the habits and the obligation we owe them as “schoolteachers of the past”. But when it comes to teaching school now, they wouldn’t stoop so low. They’re liturgical specialists, progressive “spiritual consultants” and eco-farmers, dontcha know. Check. No money from me.

    The only way to tell if you should donate or not is really word of mouth from people you trust, or direct experience with a religious order. Sad, but true. There’s a LOT of FRAUD out there.

  63. catholicmidwest says:

    PS, you should see the hilarious mailings I used to get from the Jesuits. But their hubris & naivety surprised me. The postal cards were return postage guaranteed. =)

  64. TNCath says:

    kat wrote: “What DID happen on that one “retreat” (or was it “retraining?”) that made her change so quickly? And how many of these other older nuns perhaps went through something similar?”

    To get a pretty accurate portrayal of what happened to your dear aunt and her religious community, here are two books I can recommend for you to read:

    Sisters in Crisis: The Tragic Unraveling of Women’s Religious Communities by Ann Carey

    Ungodly Rage: The Hidden Face of Catholic Feminism by Donna Steichen

  65. catholicmidwest says:

    A reprint of an article that appeared in Latin Mass magazine about Carl Rogers and the IHM: http://www.ewtn.com/library/PRIESTS/LATINM.TXT

    As you can see it’s on EWTN’s server. It’s not the complete story, but there’s enough there to give you the basic plot of what happened, kat.

    Since then non-directive encounter groups have become routine in many situations, and particularly in some work vocations. Teachers, social workers and other socially-engaged personnel, in particular, have to negotiate these minefields to this day. It’s an interesting dynamic, but I think it only works in the modernist world–ie. you have to accept some things for this to work as secular humanists designed it.

  66. JordanH says:

    We need to prepare ourselves for an attempt to wrest control of many of Catholic Institutions from The Church and give them over to these people who “courageously” break with the Bishops and Rome.

    Courage, of course, would be standing against the social pressure and standing with the Bishops.

    Do we have any doubt that Institutions like many of the “Catholic” Universities would be more than willing to associate themselves with a new church in the US, Catholic in name and outward appearance, but not submitting themselves to the authority of the successors to the Apostles? Many Bishops would join them, of course, giving them additional cover.

    Likewise, many “Catholic” Hospitals, “Catholic” parishes and “Catholic” Orders in every area would be glad to disassociate from the backward, Sexist, Homophobic Church of Rome.

    This will be very difficult for many. It will pit family members against each other and cause great hardships to remain faithful. Often, the easy thing to do will be to submit and pretend to receive the Sacraments in one of the New Churches.

    I predict that even after such a Schism, there will remain those who attend the faithful Church who will still push for reform and liberalization. Such a Schism would not be the end of our problems with these wolves in sheep’s clothes, only the beginning.

    Observe that Christopher Hitchens is calling for the arrest of the Pope. Eventually, it might only be legal to be in the New Church and your livelihood would be threatened if you were to remain faithful.

    I pray that I’m wrong, but I see more signs all the time.

    Let’s say some prayers for these Sisters and the Stupak Democrats.

  67. kat says:

    Then I muse and wonder (that means the same thing, doesn’t it?)…
    How guilty would some of these Sisters be, if they were actually “brainwashed” in those sessions? Of course, it’s not for any of us to judge; it’s a rhetorical question.
    Father, forgive them, especially those who know not what they do/did.

  68. catholicmidwest says:

    Pretty guilty. You have to be complicit for this to succeed, even if many people do buy in during encounter sessions. They don’t make you do anything; they make you *think* you have to do things.

  69. catholicmidwest says:

    Or rather, get you to think you have to do things. “Make” isn’t exactly the right word. They use ideas you’re fond of to convince you to think you have to do things—sort of like advertising toothpaste but up close and personal.

    And of course, there’s peer pressure. That’s a huge tool in encounter groups. Some people are very easy to convince of anything with peer pressure.