Condom-promoting Nun v. U.S. Catholic Bishops. The Magisterium of Nuns is still shrill.

On we find this. There is a backstory which the article will explain:

There’s good news and national news at RecycleForce, the Eastside non-profit that provides jobs and re-entry assistance to ex-offenders.

Less than a month after having $20,000 in grant money yanked away by the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, the organization has made up the loss, thanks mainly to a local foundation and a Catholic businessman.

Meanwhile, there’s a larger story, told by The New York Times last week. RecycleForce was listed as one of nine recipients of Catholic Campaign funds that have been cut off in the face of pressure from conservative Catholic groups opposed to contraception, abortion and gay rights. [Note the stress on “rights”, as if conservatives want to deny “rights” to people.  Conservatives want to uphold natural law.]

Merely being associated with a disapproved entity could bring the axe. RecycleForce is such a case. It hosted AmeriCorps personnel for health tutorials, which included distribution of condoms to prevent AIDS and other disease, a common scourge of ex-convicts. Learning of the service, the Catholic Campaign refused to pay the final half of a sorely needed $40,000 grant, even after RecycleForce agreed to banish the condoms.

As has happened elsewhere, RecycleForce found rescuers, including Catholics, who were outraged by what they saw as dogmatic rigidity overriding common sense.  [The classic liberal pitting of intellect against authority, reason against faith, as if they are not to be reconciled.]

The Health Foundation of Greater Indianapolis, funder of the AmeriCorps project, gave $10,000. A man who asked to remain anonymous, citing his deep involvement in Catholic charities, gave a like amount. He and Betty Wilson, executive director of the foundation, both saw a vital good deed — an indirect deed at that — being punished.  [Conservatives are mean.]

Concurring is Barbara Battista, a Catholic nun and president of the Indiana Academy of Physician Assistants.  [Get those elements?  Now she will place herself OVER the bishops.  She is an expositrix of the Magisterium of Nuns.]

“Please, let’s ask the Hoosiers, not our bishops, [!] what we want RecycleForce to do,” she said by email.”I bet that condom bowl will be put back out! I am a health-care provider gratefully working in a public facility.We happily have free condoms in our exam rooms.

Thomas Gray, [“whipped” minion and] vice president of RecycleForce, submits that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which runs the Campaign, has become “trapped” in cultural politics.


The rest is available there.  It is slimy.

UPDATE 12 April 17:50 GMT:

More about the Nun Who Pushes Condoms, HERE.

And some of her compatriots, HERE.  An excerpt, just so you know which crowd of women religious she runs in…


Since I ordinarily live on the south side of Chicago and am a registered Democrat, I have been an ardent supporter of Barack Obama. I remember when he was a member of the Illinois State Legislator [Legislature]. He supported the Illinois Hunger Coalition on several of our legislative endeavors including universal school breakfast and summer feeding programs.  [He also actively promoted direct infanticide.]



About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Dogs and Fleas, One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity, Religious Liberty, The Drill, The future and our choices, The Last Acceptable Prejudice, Throwing a Nutty and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. poohbear says:

    Can nuns be removed? Not sure what to call it, defrocked? Can entire orders be barred from a diocese?

  2. Sister H. says:

    Google “Sister Barbara Battista”. Somehow (sadly!) this is not surprising! :(

  3. ContraMundum says:

    Note the stress on “rights”, as if conservatives want to deny “rights” to people. Conservatives want to uphold natural law.

    I will also ask you one thing. Answer me: The right to abortion, is it from heaven, or of men?

    But they thought within themselves, saying: If we shall say, From heaven: he will say: How then does it contradict the Natural Law, and Sacred Tradition, and the Magesterium of the Church? But if we say, of men: he will say: What rights men can grant, men can also revoke.

    And they answered that they knew not whence it was.

  4. Charles E Flynn says:

    “Expositrix of the Magisterium of Nuns” fits on a mug, but I suspect it has extremely limited market value.

  5. HyacinthClare says:

    Bravo, ContraMundum.

  6. Ditto! Deserves post of the day. (Let’s hope Fr. Z sees it.)

  7. LisaP. says:

    This is my favorite part:

    “to prevent AIDS and other disease, a common scourge of ex-convicts”.

    Used to be venereal disease, then it became sexually transmitted diseases, then I think sexually transmitted infections, now it’s just “other disease”.
    And I would like to know if they looked up stats and studies on whether STDs are a “common” scourge for ex-convicts — seems a rather broad statement to me — I’m thinking asssumption cliche.

    I hadn’t considered it until now, but seeing that the sister is a health care provider I wonder — so many Catholic nuns work in education or in health care. Both those fields have become infused with progressive ideology, and both are pretty heavy handed with any members who dissent at all. I wonder how many Catholics find they are in the position of obeying the authority of the Church, or the authority of the lockstep aristocracy of the education or medical system. In that case, a nurse surrounded by medical conformists in a society that defers to medical conformists with little backing from or interaction with strong orthodox influences. . . .? It would not be hard to buckle to a kind of Stockholm Syndrome, I’d think.

  8. Atra Dicenda, Rubra Agenda says:

    “…It’s silly. And counterproductive,” says James Salt, executive director of Catholics United, a progressive group based in Washington, D.C. that’s helping expelled grant recipients raise replacement funds. “The bishops of today,” Salt declared, “are unrecognizable to the Catholic leadership that inspired me to dedicate my life to fighting poverty and violence 15 years ago.”

    Deo gratias!

  9. frjim4321 says:

    I wondered what the position of the CDC is on the role of condoms in preventing STI’s and saving lives so I went to the website and found and easy-to-find fact sheet. It seems incontrovertible that when condoms are used consistently and correctly they are effective in preventing the spread of disease. That seems like a rather inexpensive way to save untold millions of dollars in medical treatment.

  10. ContraMundum says:

    That seems like a rather inexpensive way to save untold millions of dollars in medical treatment.

    This only makes sense if you believe that the solution to Russian roulette is to use a gun with more chambers.

  11. Centristian says:

    Right, frjim4321, because when two drunken, hormonal persons are all revved up and raring to go and neither has a condom on him/her, they’re going to stop everything, get dressed and run to the drug store to “responsibly” purchase condoms. Same thing’s going to happen in alleyways, seedy sex clubs, and the back seats of cars.

    Condoms are not a solution to the prevention of sexually-transmitted disease. They’re just one means of contraception.

  12. frjim4321 says:

    Centristian, hi. I don’t know if your supposition is supported by the data. But I think your reference to the “drunken, hormonal” situation is the reason why in certain venues public health agencies and NGO’s provide condoms. I don’t know of any costs benefit analyses being published (that would be interesting) but I would assume that the livelong treatment of an person living with HIV/AIDS is immense compared to the cost of prevention.

  13. CarpeNoctem says:

    So, frjim4321, are you saying, then, that the ends justify the means?

  14. frjim4321 says:

    CN, I don’t think I’m saying that, but I think that under the principle of double effect a person can intend the prevention of disease without directly intending to engage in an act of contraception; and interestingly in the case MSM’s there is no possibility of conception, thus there is no act of contraception in those cases which in the West are the most likely to involve transmission of STI’s according to the CDC fact sheet references above.

  15. LisaP. says:

    If you’re truly interested, frjim, check into the history of educating women on HPV and cervical cancer. The CDC is not an impartial science-based organization, it is dangerously untrustworthy and political.

  16. frjim4321 says:

    Lisa, I was reading some of the HVP information on the CDC website.

    If you have any references substantiating the allegation that the CDC is not impartial or science-based I would appreciate any links.

    Generally speaking I find that we are living in a so-called modern age, but science is despised and distrusted more so than in any recently previous generation, such as is seen by the large percentage of the population that does not accept the scientific explanations of global warming.

  17. muledog says:

    Judging from Sister Battista’s Twitter account, she’s an ardent supporter of NARAL.

  18. “…science is despised and distrusted more so than in any recently previous generation, such as is seen by the large percentage of the population that does not accept the scientific explanations of global warming.”

    How do you explain the multiple NASA veteran astronauts, scientists, & engineers who took their agency to task recently?

  19. EXCHIEF says:

    The rationale about the intent being to prevent disease rather than to contracept is as bogus as a $3 bill. Want to solve both problems? Just refrain altogether. Too simple for ya huh?

  20. Cavaliere says:

    such as is seen by the large percentage of the population that does not accept the scientific explanations of global warming.

    And what is the scientific explanation for the global warming that took place prior to the industrial revolution?

  21. ArtND76 says:

    frjim4321: Perhaps you and others should also pay attention to the effects that providing condoms have to those involved in risky behavior. I think the CDC information on the effectiveness of condoms fails to take into account significant secondary effects. While condom usage does indeed reduce risk per exposure, it appears it can also lead to increased rate of exposure to the point that the overall risk of infection can actually be greater.

    Here is a paste of the conclusion to a British medical journal article about the subject titled “Condoms and seat belts: the parallels and the lessons”:

    Seat belts have not delivered all the safety benefits that were originally expected of them. A theory of risk compensation may explain why the obvious benefits of seat belts do not necessarily translate into benefits when they are used by whole populations. If safety interventions engender compensatory changes of risk behaviour among drivers, it is highly probable that interventions to reduce sexual health risks could also change risk behaviour.
    There is much preliminary evidence that sexual behaviour does respond in this way. We believe that those who plan and implement interventions in sexual health should actively look for this phenomenon and deal with it. We should ask why condom promotion is apparently not having much effect in most developing countries. We should ask whether we have the right balance between messages about condom promotion and partner reduction or selection.

    Indeed. What may appear obvious and “scientific” may not at all be the whole picture. This is what happens when we – flawed beings with limited knowledge – presume we know more than an all knowing and loving God speaking to us as He promised through His church’s magisterium.

    Do we address the sinful behavior, or do we “give up” on addressing the sinful behavior and merely try – try – to reduce the consequences – at least those that we can observe – of that behavior?

  22. AnAmericanMother says:

    On the contrary, the refusal to accept the quasi-religious insistence on global warming shows that Americans respect ethical science but are suspicious of soviet-style attempts to pervert it. (which recently included an administration member’s suggestion that those who refuse to accept AGW should be referred for mental health treatment).

  23. Pingback: rick santorum mel gibson hate jews judah maccabee |

  24. frjim4321 says:

    The rationale about the intent being to prevent disease rather than to contracept is as bogus as a $3 bill. Want to solve both problems? Just refrain altogether. Too simple for ya huh?

    Unfortunately is it not a simple matter. With the exception of those who are motivated by strong religious sentiments sexual behavior is a part of human activity whether we approve or disapprove.

    Since this is clearly an area of prudential judgement undoubtedly there will continue to be disagreements about this subject of whether or not condoms should be supplied for free by public health and other organizations in the interest of preventing disease.

  25. antmcos says:

    In medicine, we used to teach a concept called primary prevention; avoid exposure to the agent causing illness or disease. For example, don’t smoke if you want to avoid lung cancer and other smoking related diseases, don’t use illicit drugs, etc. For sexually transmitted diseases, that would mean abstinence. Condoms are secondary prevention, there is still risk exposure. It would be as if to say, go ahead and smoke or take drugs, we’ll give you a pill to avoid, some,but not all disease, and we can’t guarantee anything. That is ludicrous and we don’t do that for anything else in medicine except for anything sexually related because sexual freedom is the right that trumps all other rights, our holy grail. Our entire society revolves around this right. Why can we expect people change their behavior on other things and not this?
    Oh, and frjim, since we’re talking about health, what about the health of their souls? How does handing out condoms help their souls? Helping the poor and sick is one thing, but encouraging them in their sin? How do you justify that?

  26. Andrew says:


    Is there a subclass of individuals for whom Gospel values do not apply? Can we encourage others to fornicate? Is there a subclass of human beings whom we regard as morally bankrupt and beyond redemption? “Hey guys, you’re lost, so let us give you a piece of latex so at least you don’t catch an infection since we can do nothing about your moral depravity.” Nice! How is this a Christian approach? I am baffled!

  27. albizzi says:

    Evidences are piling up since years that the cause of global warming is NOT the anthropic CO2 (or at least not the MAIN cause), but the high priests of UN funded organizations are clinging to their religion despite the fact that many TRUE climate pundits have left them.
    Don’t be so assured and try to make an opinion by yourself instead of swallowing the media’s predigested twaddles.

  28. frjim4321 says:

    So, when Christian missionaries go into the mission lands they don’t feed, clothe, bath or treat the population until they are first baptized?

  29. Sissy says:

    frjim4321: Speaking as a former missionary, I can tell you that it is not an “either/or” situation. We do, indeed, food, clothe, bathe, and treat people who are unbaptized. But you are conflating “treatment” with facilitating sin that leads to illness in the first place. Providing condoms does not “treat” or even prevent illness. Only providing genuine education and the truth about dangerous behaviors can do that.

  30. Panterina says:

    “pressure from conservative Catholic groups opposed to contraception, abortion and gay rights.”

    Of course, “pressure from orthodox Catholic groups opposed to fornication, infanticide and sodomy” would have a totally different ring to it, wouldn’t it?

  31. paladin says:

    frjim4321 wrote:

    CN, I don’t think I’m saying that, but I think that under the principle of double effect a person can intend the prevention of disease without directly intending to engage in an act of contraception;

    Er… Father, you ARE aware of the fact that the principle of double-effect requires that the “good end” cannot be the direct result of the evil effect… and that there must be sufficiently grave reason to tolerate the evil effect at all (i.e. there must be no other more morally acceptable options available)?

    Not only is the “good effect” (i.e. trying to prevent the spread of disease… though even that idea is logically flawed, given the fact that the illusory “feeling of safety” encourages less care in the individuals who partake of it, and encourages more sex) caused by the deliberate interference in the marital act, but there remains an utterly superior option available to the couple in question: ABSTAIN.

    Forgive me if I’ve misunderstood you, but: you seem to be of the “worldly/pragmatic” opinion that “they’re going to have sex anyway, so let’s give them condoms to reduce the incidence of disease”. With all due respect, Father, this idea is flawed for at least three reasons:

    1) In taking that view, you neutralise the human dignity of the very people whom you seek to protect, in that you treat them as mere dumb animals, ruled by sheer impulse, rather than free moral agents with immortal souls who are accountable to God.

    2) Again, even abstracting from morality: you assume that “condoms = less disease”… but even if condoms were to be used perfectly in every such instance (which is a bizarre and invalid assumption), the increased frequency of sex when condoms are available (or at least the lack of decreased frequency, otherwise) will allow more “trials” (in the probability sense of the word) in which infection can spread. (Suppose the chance of contracting HIV in any given sexual encounter is 20% for condom-less sex and 5% for condom-using sex; if the number of sexual encounters with condoms is at least four times the frequency as would have been the case without condoms [where fear of disease, etc., would restrain, at least a bit], then your “advantage” evaporates!)

    3) You apparently (and mistakenly) assume that earthly suffering and death (from disease, or from the exertion necessary in sexual abstinence, etc.) is the worst thing that can happen to people; not so. Those who are “seared in conscience” through the scandal of condom-promoters (no matter how good-hearted they might be), and who become inured to the idea not only of fornication (i.e. sex outside of marriage), but of contracepted sex, will be crippled in their spiritual formation… and they will be wide open to sins and influences which could jeopardise their eternal salvation (which is the whole point of our existence, after all).

  32. Ioannes Andreades says:

    I’m conservative and I believe in gay rights. I believe that unmarried gay and lesbian adults have the same right to marry one adult, unmarried, unrelated human being of the opposite sex that heterosexuals enjoy. I don’t see a problem here.

  33. irishgirl says:

    Ioannes-there is no such thing as ‘marriage’ for homosexuals (I refuse to use the word ‘gay’).
    It is unnatural, sterile, and most importantly, immoral.
    And no one has a ‘right’ to get married, anyway.

  34. frjim4321 says:

    “Providing condoms does not “treat” or even prevent illness.”

    I am open to revisiting this, however everything I’ve read previously leads me to the assumption that condoms save lives. I believe this is considered incontrovertible by many in the medical community.

  35. Andy Lucy says:

    frjim, as a student of medical history, I can attest that there have been MANY ideas held to be incontrovertible by the medical community, which were later found to be not so much true as unbelievably incorrect.

    As to the efficacy of condoms, I found this examination very interesting…

  36. AnAmericanMother says:

    I was about to point to the resounding success of abstinence in Uganda, when AndyLucy posted the article above – which outlines the basic facts:

    In 1986, President Yoweri Museveni took office and immediately started an intensive campaign to change the widespread incidence of risky sexual behavior in Uganda.

    In 1991, Uganda had one of the highest adult HIV infection rates in the world. Fifteen percent of all adults in the country were infected. Ten years later, Uganda had cut its HIV infection rate by two-thirds, to only five percent. It was the only nation in Africa that cut its HIV infection rate during this time period, and its decline in HIV prevalence was the greatest of any country in the world.

    The key to this tremendous decline was an approach that other nations declined to embrace: The ABC Program, or Abstain from sex until marriage, Be faithful to your partner, and use Condoms if you do not practice abstinence or fidelity. The entire focus of the message was not simply to “condomize” the population, but to reduce risky sexual behavior.

    The consistent broadcasting of the ABC message through all governmental, educational, religious and communications networks, in time, built up what researchers called a “highly effective social vaccine against HIV,” or a massive behavioral change among the people of the nation. The 2000-2001 Ugandan Demographic and Health Survey found that 93 percent of Ugandans had changed their sexual behavior to avoid HIV/AIDS.

  37. Bryan Boyle says:

    Could you imagine this stuff going un-noticed by, say, Francis Cardinal Spellman? Or Bp. “Dagger John” Hughes. Say what you want…you did NOT step out of line. Or any of the other real men that have been burdened with the responsibilities of actually having to exercise their authority as shepherds as opposed to what is all too often the example of milquetoast leadership that’s afraid to ‘offend sensibilities’ and ‘dialogue’?

    How about, for a start, take away her three hots and a cot, cushy lifestyle, guaranteed retirement pay and living arrangements, and title of respect? Publicly slapping the hand that is feeding you (and probably paid for whatever miserable education you managed to scam off your order) in the real world (versus the la-la land that these airheads live in, wherever that is…) gets you quick-stepped to the front door with a ‘don’t let the door hit you on your ….. on the way out’.

    Time for the shepherds to stop wringing their manicured hands and acting like a bunch of old crones. Hell’s minions do it because they know (up to now) that they can get away with it with NO repercussions. Well…time to start percussing.

  38. wmeyer says:

    I recall that in the early 1950s, there was widespread belief in the medical community that pre-frontal lobotomies were a miracle cure for some mental aberrations.

  39. Ralph says:

    “Thomas Gray, [“whipped” minion and] vice president of RecycleForce, submits that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which runs the Campaign, has become “trapped” in cultural politics.”

    There is some truth to this statement. Many of our bishops have allowed themselves to become politicians in the last decades. Rather than shepherding souls, they have managed sound bytes and avoided asking and answering the difficult questions. Although I think we are starting to see a shift back to more active bishops, the damage has been done. Now when they speak , many in the “mainstream” see them as politicians working an “angle” rather than clergymen who truly care about the souls of human beings.

  40. benedetta says:

    Strange though how with the widespread availability in places such as NYC, for instance, with the free distribution in public schools, and inexpensive rates in stores, still abortion rates are way, way, way up. Those are a lot of lives that matter that have been lost, flushed away like nothing. Could it be that the crass approach to sexuality has generated a coarsening of our general respect for human life?

  41. Centristian says:


    “Centristian, hi. I don’t know if your supposition is supported by the data. But I think your reference to the “drunken, hormonal” situation is the reason why in certain venues public health agencies and NGO’s provide condoms. I don’t know of any costs benefit analyses being published (that would be interesting) but I would assume that the livelong treatment of an person living with HIV/AIDS is immense compared to the cost of prevention.”

    Frjim, it’s nevertheless a fact that condoms, despite being widely available, are often disregarded and that some people will still continue to take risks even when a condom is within arm’s reach (because a condom impedes pleasure, and when sex is regarded as existing for pleasure alone, the condom gets in the way of the objective). The endless distribution of condoms, therefore, will not bring an end to the spread of sexually-transmitted diseases. The problem is human selfishness and stupidity resultant of sin. Condoms, therefore, are a non-solution crafted upon the idea that sex is for entertainment and furthermore with the naive idea in mind that sexually-charged human beings (including drunken youth) who indulge in sex as a form of self-gratification are all going to behave in a (naturally speaking) responsible manner all the time, in a spirit of great care for their own health and for the physical well-being of their sexual partners.

    Condoms not being a solution, therefore, it cannot be denied that adherence to the Gospel message is, and the fact that a Catholic nun should be a proponent of the condom solution over the Gospel solution is, to me, mind boggling. Well, not utterly mind-boggling, I suppose considering what so many nuns actually are these days: sexually-inexperienced social workers who make themselves redundant (and absurd) by not being…well…nuns. This sort of nun hasn’t got a point, and furthermore hasn’t got a clue.

  42. Supertradmum says:

    Hubris leading to rebellion has created these weird ladies, who are in great danger, more so than us lowly lay people, as they have actually taken vows, which in this case, they are not upholding…

  43. mwa says:

    @irishgirl–I think you read Ioannes a little too quickly. Look again; he’s OK.

  44. benedetta says:

    If you buy into the notion that advocating condom use is particularly “pastoral” then you must also necessarily believe that the millions of lives lost to gravely increased recourse to abortion amount to chump change. At this point it is just a denial of the reality to pretend that widespread access to condoms and greatly increased abortion are not linked irretrievably. I notice that while the advocate of condoms above has much to say about the goodness of condoms as a general matter he remains silent when it comes to this most indicting evidence. Could it be that the coarsening of our regard for sexuality has directly impacted a throw away attitude toward innocent lives?

  45. jflare says:

    Um, regarding the debate that frjim seems to have begun:
    I thought we had direction to be Catholic first, and fill occupations second?

    I have little doubt the CDC has ample evidence declaring that condom use prevents the spread of disease. If you attempted to point to the increased use of condoms as aiding in the astronomical increase in incidence of abortion, divorce, and unwed motherhood, they’d almost certainly ignore you. You’d be reminded that those concerns relate to moral matters, matters they can’t address because they’re concerned about preventing disease. You might also get a five-second lecture on the Separation of Church and State.

    In other words, Sr.’s case related to condom use as defended by the CDC may well be quite legitimate. ..So long as you assume that Sr can simply ignore her first duty to be a practicing Catholic and witness to faith in her professional life.

    It appears to me she’s not entirely interested in that last part.

  46. Gail F says:

    frjim4321: Condoms are available almost everywhere, for almost nothing, and are given away a lot of places for free. We should have no AIDS then, right?
    You can argue what ought to be true all you want. But the facts tell a different story from what you would like to be true, and the facts kill people.

  47. eulogos says:

    You cannot give unmarried people (I think that is who we are talking about in this ministry to prisoners) free condoms without saying something about your attitudes towards the actions in which the condoms are used. By leaving out a bowel of condoms you are, or the agency is, saying “We expect you to fornicate/commit sodomy, and we don’t think that is bad enough that we would try to stop you. We will just make it safer for you to do it.” You are telling them that either 1. you don’t think these actions are harmful to their souls, or 2. you don’t care one whit about their souls, you just don’t want them to contract a disease which will be expensive for the taxpayers.
    The government can do this, in the system we live under. Other private groups can do it. The Church cannot.
    Fr.Jim-you are always civil here and I appreciate that. But I submit that you are putting the wrong values first.
    Susan Peterson

  48. eulogos says:

    OK, a *bowl* of condems, not a bowel of condoms. We aren’t talking about drug mules….

  49. Panterina says:

    benedetta is right, it’s a snow-ball effect: One of the main reasons why people use condoms is to prevent a pregnancy. When the condom fails, then the next logical step is to contemplate abortion. Unfortunately, many go through with the decision to abort. So, no to condoms because it’s a gateway to sin.

  50. benedetta says:

    And what to make of that famous study by oh so secular Harvard with support from the medical community that states that throwing condoms at the AIDS crisis in Africa is not, from a public health standpoint, the ideal way to go, no moralizing, purely secular with respect to AIDS prevention.

  51. muledog says:

    After reading this article, my biggest concern is that Sister Barbara Battista, a Catholic religious, is openly dissenting from Church teaching, and is proud of it. Her public Twitter account links to several pro-abortion groups, include:

    ChoiceUSA: “Leadership for a Pro-Choice Future”

    Not Under The Bus: (Women’s Media Center). Actively advocates to keep abortion legal

    National Women’s Law Center: According to website, one of it’s primary missions is to “ensure that women have access to abortion care by protecting and advancing this fundamental right.”

    SisterSong – Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective: Last year’s national conference posted their own weblogs called “” and “”.

    Catholics For Choice: A dissenting group of marginal Catholics who support legalized abortion and contraception.

    This is not just sad, it’s disgusting. When I went to college in Terre Haute back in the ’80’s, I cringed when visiting their campus at Saint-Mary-of-the-Woods. Apparently, things aren’t getting any better.

  52. Kathleen10 says:

    I am utterly embarrassed that anyone would continue to use the phrase “thankful to have an intelligent and articulate African-American as president”. I don’t think I can adequately convey how really racist that statement is, and why do so many white people make it? As if there is a dearth of black people who are intelligent and articulate? It is the bigots left-handed compliment. Ugh.

    But that is a side order of fries compared to the big old side of beef that is a NUN approving of contraception and other socialistic-liberal-secular-humanist type of ideology. In my unknowing and somewhat simple mind, this is a contradiction in terms. Nuns, are loving if tough, and called to serve. But serve who, and serve them what? No nun could be serving Jesus and the Catholic church and her people by telling them such lies and helping them to sin, can she?
    The nuns of yesterday, the ones I see occasionally, black habit and all, take my breath away. When I do see them, my eyes literally open wider, and they have my full attention. I’m not sure I do breathe, they totally capture me. It is their physical identity, the fact they devote their entire life to prayer and service to God and His people. Utterly…amazing. At those moments I long to be one of them, but I could not. I could never sacrifice to the degree they do, they are made of better stuff. But whatever, they are inspiring.
    I don’t know how nuns who have only socially progressive notions in their heads possibly keep it up. It is a completely different situation from a nun who lives an authentically Catholic life of service. I only hope the “socially progressive” orders are shrinking, ever shrinking, and the more traditional orders are at least maintaining.
    How any nun could support a senator or president who denies a child not successfully killed during an abortion even a bit of human kindness as they die, who has taken the most radical position on abortion of any president, by supporting partial birth abortion, is a question that cannot be answered without asking again, who or what is she serving?

  53. Sister H. says:

    Muledog & Kathleen10, THANK YOU!!
    This is the big, glaring fact for me, as well. How can someone stand for such disgusting, anti-human, anti-Catholic things yet still find it appropriate to refer to oneself as a member of the Church and, worse yet, remain a Catholic religious?! Be honest & go where you are happy and where your beliefs match those of the organization.
    Why is this allowed to happen? She is certainly NOT an isolated case, sadly! The apostolic visitation was such a sign of great hope for so many wonderful, devoted, Christ-serving, Church-loving Sisters who are busy about the things of Christ & His Church. Hope has been smashed by the new people who replaced Cardinal Rode. Sister Barbara is NOT part of a small minority in religious life in the U.S. – she is but one of MANY…mostly the people who lead congregations and those in positions of power & authority, but, sadly, many of the members as well (who have been infected by this type of nonsense being shoved down their throats and into their heads for 40-plus years). The good Sisters suffer in silence or simply count the nonsense as something they have to deal with in order to live their own faithful religious lives.
    When will this garbage stop? Who will help?

  54. Kathleen10 says:

    Sister H., you have said it exactly. Why does one not go to a church that better aligns with one’s personal belief system? It must be because they find enough support where they are. I consider them pitiable, because they lead the sheep astray. What a terrible responsibility! Only God knows the consequence of this, but it is fearful to consider.
    When the religious is obviously living out their Catholic life, it is a witness to everyone, before they even say a word. It must be grace, because isn’t it not only detectable, it is palpable. What an awesome witness they give. What rewards in heaven await those who remain faithful to Jesus and His Church! THEY are the ones who will hear “Well done, good and faithful servant…” The words we all long to hear!
    We are all just passing through, pilgrims on the way. Very soon we will stand before God, and hopefully, enter into the Kingdom! There will be no aggravating dissenters there, only happiness, light, and peace. :) There, the faithful religious, like Fr. Z., and you if you are a sister, will be among the most happy! God is so good, and he is just.

  55. irishgirl says:

    Bryan Boyle @ 10:23 am: Hear, Hear! Amen to what you said!
    ‘Well….time to start percussing’. Good for you!
    mwa: No, I am not backing down from what I said. Homosexual ‘marriage’ is NOT OKAY. It is against the laws of God and the laws of nature. It is sterile by its very nature. And it IS IMMORAL. Can I make it any clearer than that?

  56. Sister H. says:

    Thanks, kathleen10!
    I am indeed a Catholic Religious Sister.
    Sometimes it gets really discouraging (sad…anger inducing, etc.) to know of all of the wonderful faithful women over our history AND today, then to know of all of the craziness that is allowed & even celebrated. It is sad to know of the silent struggle of many amazing Sisters.

  57. mwa says:

    but Ioannes’s point was that SSA people have the same “right” as heterosexuals to marry someone of the OPPOSITE sex. There was no advocating for unnatural facsimiles of marriage.

Comments are closed.