More about the organization of ‘c’atholic dissidents (hint: Fishwrap)

In the last few days I electronically printed a couple posts (HERE and HERE) in which I talked about how the highly-organized, spiderweb-like Left, uses networks of small front groups to mask the activity of larger initiatives.  I applied that to a splinter group of truly weird sisters in a dissident group called NCAN.  They say openly what the LCWR would like to say openly.  It doesn’t matter whether or not the arrangement is formal or informal. This is how the Left thinks and works.

In those posts I used what seems on the surface to be a far-out analogy to make my point.  NCAN is something like a faction of the Viet Cong who fronted for a larger Communist political initiative.  The Viet Cong were the true radicals who could do what the political party couldn’t do.  The VC also opened up the Ho Chi Minh Trail (MSNBC, the lefty-MSM) to provide supplies, arms, personnel for their projects in the south.  A stretch?  Sure.  But not so much of a stretch as one might think.

Today at the National Schismatic Reporter (aka Fishwrap) I found a piece by none other than Janice Sevre-Duszynska, she of the famous Ordination Tambourine. The NSR proudly accepts her claim that she is a “Roman Catholic Womanpriest”.   She wrote about a talk given by a seriously radical nun, Sr. Teresa Forcades, from what I can tell pretty much a Communist.  You can read the NSR article to get a sense of the rhetoric and her now cliché code.  For example:

Francis has denounced the “idolatry of money” and implored world leaders to assure all people “dignified work, education and healthcare.” In a way, Forcades takes it further by advocating that the state must be challenged from the bottom up. The people must be the agents of change. [Get it?  Review Paolo Feire and Pedagogy of the Oppressed, strongly influenced by Marxism and which, in turn dovetail with Liberation Theology and Black Liberation Theology.]

“When I talk about church, we talk about how the Gospel inspired us. There are many kinds of church, [What sort of ecclesiology is that, exactly?] and I identify with the people at the bottom, at the base. [So, it’s “class struggle”.] Many people have a hope that the Catholic church might change because of the pope, but if you look at history, change comes from bottom up, not from top down,” Forcades said to a room overflowing with “local radical activists” invited to her March 18 talk at Baltimore’s Red Emma’s, a bookstore coffeehouse.

The NSR piece is full of this stuff.

What emerges, however, when you start drilling, is a web of connections between Women’s Ordination, Communism, Liberation Theology, health-care reform, workers cooperatives,  Communist terror groups, the Black Panthers…

Think I am making this up?

I direct your attention back to the venue for this talk for “radicals”: Red Emma’s in Baltimore.  The name itself took me to their site to explore for a while.

What sort of people are the excommunicated Janice, the Fishwrap, and the radical-Lefty sister in with?

Go crawl around in the Red Emma site for a while.  Take a look at their “about us” and see who their patron saint “Red Emma” was.  She “was among the first international observers to condemn the bureaucratic authoritarianism which would smother the initial promise of the Soviet experiment. Emma always understood that a revolution needed to be nutured [sic] by revolutionary culture….”

Moreover, they admit that they are anarchists and Communists, though they say they are “radicals”:

“At Red Emma’s, we’ve decided to call ourselves a “radical” project, rather than an “anarchist” or “communist” one. This doesn’t mean that we think anarchism and communism have nothing to offer as ways of thinking about what’s fundamentally wrong with the current world, and how to go about fixing it. But as a space that’s intended to welcome both people who have been in the struggle for decades and people just getting their feet wet for the first time, we felt that committing ourselves to a label and a specific ideological tradition was unecessarily [sic] limiting. The people working on the project may be anarchists or communists, but the space is both and neither, or something else entirely.”

The cafe/bookstore hosts lots of talks.  Recently they have had presentations (I think these are more practica, “how to” talks, rather than merely historically informative) about The Red Army Faction (aka Baader-Meinhof Group), and the Black Panthers, which keep popping up in their presentations and blog posts.

Looking at the bottom menu of Red Emma’s site you find links to the Industrial Workers of the World and US Federation of Worker Cooperatives.

Moreover, the websites just mentioned, and Red Emma’s itself are pretty spiffy. They are not slapped together by amateurs.

What’s going on?

This is more than just “birds of a feather”.  This is positive cooperation.  All these ideas and speakers and events at places like Red Emma’s are integrated.

The National catholic Reporter reported positively about this event for this radical left-leaning nun, written up by an excommunicated women who attempted ordination.

Posted in Liberals, Linking Back, Pò sì jiù, The Coming Storm, The Drill, The future and our choices, You must be joking! | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,
20 Comments

Nuns Gone Mad… Nuns Gone Wild… take your pick

I have written now a couple times about the whacky fringe group of nuns, NCAN, led by the pro-abortion Sinsinawa Dominican Sr. Donna Quinn.  HERE and HERE

Now I see at the National Catholic Register that Anne Carey, whose book I have promoted, Sisters in Crisis Revisited: From Unraveling to Reform and Renewal, has gotten into the fray.

I was amused to see the title of her piece: ‘Nuns’ Gone Mad.

I wonder if she was subliminally channeling my Nuns Gone Wild. A must read.

In any event, GMTA.  (I like my title better, if you get my drift.)

Carey’s book is worth the time, if you are interested in what went wrong with the sisters in these USA.

Reminder: I think the ultra-looney NCAN, pro-abortion, contraception, women’s ordination, etc., is doing and saying openly what the LCWR would like to be doing and saying, but can’t.  NCAN serves as a front group for the LCWR.

Posted in Liberals, Magisterium of Nuns, Women Religious | Tagged , , , , ,
5 Comments

Ursuline sisters wows an audience

Half the people on Earth are writing to me about this.  Let’s file this under “Lighter Fare”?

An Ursuline sister sings on one of those “who has a talent?” TV shows in Italy.

YouTube thumbnailYouTube icon

Since half the planet is writing about this, I post.   If you have snarky blah blah about sisters not singing on TV shows, just keep it to yourself, unless you can think of something original and interesting and less bilious than I expect.

Posted in Lighter fare | Tagged , ,
48 Comments

Aequinoctium!

BTW… in the North, which is where most of you readers are, it is the first day of Spring, the Vernal Equinox, today.  We are interested in this day especially because we date Easter as the first Sunday after the first full Moon on or after the Vernal Equinox.

 

Posted in Just Too Cool, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Look! Up in the sky! | Tagged , ,
9 Comments

Tensions in the Catholic blogosphere. Wherein Fr. Z opines.

Some discussion is arising in the Catholic blogosphere about, well, the Catholic blogosphere.   This week, for example, the UK’s still best Catholic weekly, The Catholic Herald, has an opinion column: Bishops and bloggers: there is a way out of this impasse.

There is some tension.  Okay, fine!  Is this a surprise?  When hasn’t there been tension?  Answer: before the snake slithered into the tree.

Some ways to alleviate the tension are available, though all them will require patience and humility on both sides.

I’ve been thinking about this for a long time, since I have been at this for a long time, just about longer than anyone else out there, as a matter of fact, and on a wider scale to boot.

I started at the top with a mention of The Catholic Herald.  It is slightly ironic that I had an op-ed piece about this same matter in the same Catholic Herald back in November 2009.

What did I write then?

Let’s review:

In his 2002 Message on Social Communication our late Holy Father John Paul II wrote about the internet:

For the Church the new world of cyberspace is a summons to the great adventure of using its potential to proclaim the Gospel message. This challenge is at the heart of what it means at the beginning of the millennium to follow the Lord’s command to “put out into the deep”: Duc in altum! (Lk 5:4).

In all ages of the Church’s mission to preach the Good News, Catholics consistently made use of the best available tools of social communication. The Apostles wrote letters which were in turn read aloud and recopied for wider distribution. The Emperor Constantine let bishops use the imperial postal system and they so over-taxed it that it nearly collapsed. Monks copied manuscripts.  When people learned to make thin soaring walls of stone, stained-glass illuminated the literate and unlettered alike with the mysteries of the faith.  We made use of the printing press. We had one of the first significant radio stations. There was a Catholic-friendly film industry.  For decades Servant of God Fulton Sheen’s broadcasts were vastly popular in the United States.  A simple woman religious named Angelica built a global satellite network.

We are nearly a decade into this millennium.  We have fumbled badly when it comes to the internet.

In late October Pope Benedict XVI, addressing the plenary meeting of the Pontifical Council for Social Communication, reoriented of the state of the question.  He morphed the perennial image of “the public square” into a technologically current “digital continent”.

It is cliché to speak of the internet’s potential for evangelization and catechesis.  But we must seriously examine what we have done and what we have failed to do in this regard.  We are in a fight for our lives as Catholics in the public square.  We must stop dithering.

Pope Benedict is trying to revitalize our Catholic identity so that we can have a positive influence in the world as Catholics.   We have something indispensable to contribute in the public square, the digital continent.  But we will have little to say, as Catholics, if we don’t know who we are and if we don’t communicate well.  The burning social questions of our day require a Catholic response.  Do we have something to contribute or not?  How will we do it?

When I reflect on the burning questions of our day, I often approach them from the angles ad extra (considered from without) and ad intra (considered from within).  The ad intra angle regards who we are as Catholics amongst ourselves, while the ad extra regards how we, as Catholics, shape the world around us and are influenced by it.  Holy Church has a teaching office, given to her by Christ.  Returning to our cliché, less cliché now perhaps, the internet indeed has potential for teaching ad intra (catechesis) and ad extra (evangelization).

A growing number of people today like the interactive aspects of learning on the internet. Young people learn more willingly from screens, on desks and in their hands, than they do from books. Bishops must seize their opportunity and make up for their omission regarding cable/satellite TV.  A poor nun with leg braces and crutches, without their power and resources, did what they couldn’t be bothered to do.

We must move with determination into cyberspace.

Every diocese ought to have a Vicar for Online Ministry and a plan.

Catholics intuitively look for leadership from priests, to be sure, but in a special way from diocesan bishops.  I have met only a handful of bishops who actually grasp that there is an internet. Few take it seriously.  On the live internet stream of the November meeting of the USCCB a bishop observed that, while he appreciated reducing paper consumption by giving him a CD-ROM disk, he didn’t know how to use it.   I met a prelate in Rome, working in social communications, who didn’t know how to turn on his computer.  An American Cardinal quizzed me about my footprint in cyberspace and mused, “More people read you in a day than read me in a week in our newspaper.”  As a new generation of bishops emerges, episcopal savvy about modern tools of communication will improve.  Nevertheless, bishops can’t themselves be the point men for a diocese’s online ministry.

Vicars for Online Ministry don’t have to exert control over the Catholic internet space – as if that were possible.  Rather, they should take advantage of a natural desire on the part of Catholics for official leadership in all areas of communication and education.

Dioceses have to fill in the vacuum that now exists in terms of information channeling and interpretation. They do this usually, and not always well, through “official spokesmen”.

An alternative media has its important role, but bloggers are at risk to become the sole free flowing channel of news and information both about what is going on in the Church as well as what current events mean.

If anyone doubts the universal effects of Original Sin, let him watch an intersection with a four-way stop sign for a while, or read the combox of an interactive website.  You Brits have those roundabouts … but I’ll bet the analogy holds.

Since the early 90’s I have been involved in online ministry.  I often feel like the Sheriff of Deadwood.  When I exert myself to exercise leadership, discussion can be focused and fruitful.  When I fail in leadership or charity, the results can be chaotic and disappointing.  Efforts for online ministry need guidance and support.

In same address I mentioned above, Pope Benedict cited John Paul II’s encyclical Redemptoris missio:

“… the very evangelization of modern culture depends to a great extent on the influence of the media.”  He went on: “It is not enough to use the media simply to spread the Christian message and the Church’s authentic teaching. It is also necessary to integrate that message into the ‘new culture’ created by modern communications.”

I have used this example for years now: Our Lord asked to be let out on the water in a little boat at the end of a line so that He could address a much larger crowd on the shore.  He thereby gave us the first example of “on-line ministry” (cf. Mark 4).  He used technology to address a wider audience.

We must contribute not merely more of the same to the digital pulse of this age.  We must find ways to adjust the very frequency of that digital pulse.  We need what Pope Benedict called a “‘diaconate of culture’ on today’s ‘digital continent’”.

I chuckled at that “pulse” image at the end.  Back when I wrote this I still had the domain “Catholic Pulse”.  Someone else has it now and good luck to them.

Since I wrote that plenty of water has flowed under the you know what.   I am now more scarred and a lot wearier than I was then.  I stick to what I proposed.

I will add this codicil for the bishops who read this: Don’t wait to reach out to bloggers, especially your clerical bloggers.  With the exception of the fringe, they are not your enemies.  Give them a little water and sunlight and see what happens.  Make a move.

And remember: The squishy middle is not your best course to tack, nor will its denizens be your allies.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Our Catholic Identity, The Drill, The Olympian Middle, Wherein Fr. Z Rants | Tagged , , ,
29 Comments

ASK FATHER: I still wonder if my first marriage was “real”.

Life is messy, my dear readers.  We make mistakes.  We get get up.  We go forward, living with the consequences as best we may.  God sees clearly the whole truth and cannot be fooled about anything.  We, on the other hand, have to struggle along, working things through as best we can in the tangle of our minds – and hearts – with the help of the authority of the Church which God graciously gave us.

From a reader:

I was married at age 22 – I was not Catholic but my husband was and we were married in the Catholic church by a priest. The marriage lasted 5 years. I went to counseling when we started having problems, but he refused to go.

The one time he did go, he just sat there and refused to participate. It felt like a one-sided marriage and so we divorced relatively amicably. I tried for several years afterward to reconcile with him, but he was not interested. When he started dating again, I rushed into a marriage to someone else out of frustration and retaliation. It was doomed from the start and when he started sleeping around on me in the first 4 months, I divorced him. Several years later I was living with a man that was Catholic and we wanted to get married and so I converted to Catholicism and started the process to get married in the Church by having my first two marriages annulled.

It took over a year for the annulments to be granted, and in the meantime we broke up. In order to finalize the annulments, I had to pay a large sum of money which I did not have, so I didn’t do anything about it. I lost faith in the Catholic church for many years and started going to a non-denominational mega church where I met and married a wonderful Protestant man. After 6 years of marriage, I came back to the Catholic church. I paid the fee to have my annulments finalized and my husband and I had our marriage convalidated by my priest. So technically I am in full communion with the church. But I still somehow think that my first marriage is still my “real” marriage and that I am still living in sin. What is your opinion?

First things first. Don’t be unduly troubled in your conscience. You followed the prescriptions of the Church’s law.  It took a while, but you eventually followed them.  Your current marriage is now recognized by the Church as a valid and binding sacramental marriage. Hopefully, there is evidence of grace active in your marriage.  You and your spouse are growing closer to each other and closer to Christ.  I hope you pray together.  Keep constantly before your mind’s eye, your sacred obligation to do everything you can to get each other into heaven.

In life we often are beset by regrets and “what ifs” about our pasts.  For the most part, these are temptations put in our way by Satan to confuse, to befuddle, to lead us away from our lives in the hic et nunc, the here and now.  Make a regular confession and receive the Blessed Sacrament regularly.  That’s the best prescription for the “what ifs”.

That said, note carefully that “for the most part”, above.  Sometimes our regrets are legitimate. Deep down, only God and the individual know for certain.

Were you completely honest when providing your testimony for the marriage nullity cases?  What are the reasons you still think of your first attempt at marriage as “real”?  [Don’t answer that here, of course.]  The staff at a marriage tribunal can only judge a case based on the evidence provided.  If important evidence was withheld, some testimony unduly slanted, it is possible that an incorrect decision was made.  The Church does not invest its tribunals with infallibility.

So, if after all this, you still truly plagued by doubts, the best thing to do would be to sit down with a good, experienced priest, ideally a canonist (that is, trained in canon law), though that is not a deal breaker.  Say a prayer to the Holy Spirit before you meet with him.  Explain your concerns, your doubts, and your thoughts. Lay it all out before him.  Answer honestly the questions he may ask.  Then, trust what he has to say. If he says, “Don’t worry.  You’ve done everything correctly.  You can rest easy in the validity of your current marriage,” then, whenever those doubts come creeping back, you can banish them with a clear conscience.

(The combox moderation queue is on.)

Posted in ASK FATHER Question Box, One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity | Tagged ,
4 Comments

The Tablet’s Sourpuss – POLL BELOW!

I wrote HERE about the interview that Archbp. Gänswein gave to German TV in which he spoke, inter alia, about Francis asking Benedict for comments on one of his interviews.  I wrote that the interview reinforces my view that Pope Francis, through Gänswein, is shaping the role of Pope Emeritus.

Now I see that in The Bitter Pill (aka RU-486 aka The Tablet) deputy editrix Elena Curti has had a little spittle-flecked nutty about the Gänswein TV interview.  Channeling her inner Red Queen, she wants Gänswein sidelined.

We all know the facts of what Archbp. Gänswein has been doing. He is open. He is frank and conducts interviews. He would not be giving interviews and talking about Pope Francis and about Benedict XVI if either of them didn’t want him to. He is an old hand. He understands (unlike some prelates) discretion with the press. He understands what damage the wrong information in interviews can cause.

Pill‘s Curti watched Archbp. Gänswein’s interview and came to a different conclusion. She thinks that Gänswein is sour about Benedict’s renunciation of the papacy. Watch the interview and then ask yourself who is being sour.  I suspect Curti is indulging in a bit of projection.

She goes on to suggest that by choosing to live at Santa Marta rather than in the Apostolic Palace, Francis is keeping Gänswein “at arm’s length”. Is she dreaming? If Francis wants to remove him he knows how to do it. Extraordinary.

For a nano-second while watching the interview I too wondered if Archbp. Gänswein had some agenda that was not in keeping with both Francis and Benedict. Then I dismissed that goofy notion as absurd and moved on to reality.

I included a link that should take you to the German interview.  Watch it yourself and see if the Archbishop is “sour”.  I think not.

So he said that he was surprised that Bergoglio was elected and that he wasn’t his own choice.  Big deal!  Who thought Card. Bergoglio was going to be elected?  Everyone had their choices.  And how does that amount to Gänswein being in any way disloyal to Francis?

Liberals are binary creatures.  They can’t fathom that one can have a preference and then, nevertheless, submit and be obedient.

What Curti’s piece does is reveal her own sour animus for Benedict and everything he stands for, and that he still has influence.

Be careful, Ms. Curti! You don’t want to end up a “sourpuss”!

Cf Evangelii gaudium 85.

Furthermore,

The Tablet: Bitter Pill or Sour?

View Results

UPDATE 1801 GMT:

HA!  Pill‘s Curti chirrups.

Since when can calumny be debated in a healthful manner?

Posted in Liberals, Lighter fare, Linking Back, Throwing a Nutty, What are they REALLY saying?, You must be joking! | Tagged , , , , ,
17 Comments

“OTT Dog, getchyer OTT Dog right here!”

As seen in Rome today.

I think with the “hot dog and ketchup” you also receive a complimentary copy of the classic Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott.

Click to enjoy.

Posted in Lighter fare | Tagged ,
13 Comments

Italian historian goes to the zoo about Francis and “resistance”.

I don’t know what Riccardi is smoking, but it ain’t maduro.

From Vatican Insider.  This is a few days old.  I am just getting to it now.

Riccardi: “Here’s who’s standing up to Pope Francis”

“Vatican Insider” interviews Italian historian Andrea Riccardi: [He is the fellow who started up the Sant’Egidio initiative in Rome.  Liberals are nuts for him and dream of his Nobel Prize.] “The famous honeymoon period has not ended, a sign that the relationship between Francis and faithful is more than just a passing attraction. But there is defiance from bishops and the clergy” [There is?]

ANDREA TORNIELLI
VATICAN CITY
Never before in the 20th century has a Pope faced so much resistance as Francis has[?!?] and “the fact that there is so much resistance shows that the Pope really is changing the Church.” These strong and in some ways surprising words came from Professor of Church history, Andrea Riccardi, in his latest commentary published in Italian weekly magazine Famiglia Cristiana. Vatican Insider asked him some questions about his above remarks.

You wrote that no Pope in the last century has faced so much resistance as Francis. Don’t you think that’s a bit of an exaggeration?
“I made these observations as a historian. Francis is facing internal opposition from within ecclesiastical bodies, the episcopates and the clergy. [Is he psychic? Where is this resistance?] But his alliance with the people is clearly strong.”

What about the opposition to Paul VI and the recent and famous opposition faced by Benedict XVI?
“The only Pope who faced strong opposition was Paul VI, that’s true. [?!?] But the Church and also society at the time were going through a period of general protest. In the case of Benedict XVI, which you rightly mentioned, the opposition came form the outside, from the international public, than it did from the inside. As I said, the resistance Francis is facing is stronger and it’s coming from within the Church.”  [This is absurd on the face of it. Popes John Paul and Benedict faced far greater, far more deeply entrenched resistance FROM LIBERALS than Francis is facing from conservatives or traditionalists.   Faithful Catholics tend to love their Popes.  Only a few cranks on the fringes openly attack Francis, and they are in no way able to offer “resistance”.]

Could you give some examples?
“Some resistance has been public, whilst in other cases it has been muttered or not expressed at all, [ahhhh…. yes… secret resistance.  The sort of resistance that is never openly expressed.  Now I get it.] if not through silence and detachment. There are some who can’t stand it when papal preaching insists even slightly on ethical issues. [D’ya think?] But then there’s Francis’ pastoral approach which calls bishops’ method of leadership into question as they hear people asking: “Why don’t you do as the Pope does?” I don’t want to generalise too much but I am certain that there is resistance. [No, please!  Don’t generalize too much.  And if you are “certain“… well!  That’s that, then.] Francis laid down his thoughts and the areas that needed to be worked on and changed, in the first six months of his pontificate. Unlike Paul VI who was a man of many words and tried to make balanced statements. Resistance comes from those who don’t want to be questioned and are averse to change.”

[…]

This is ludicrous.  Only in Italy do you find this sort of thing.

Posted in Francis, You must be joking! |
15 Comments

Of the Viet Cong and Radical Feminist Nuns

I’ll bet that some of you younger readers don’t know who the Viet Cong were and what they did.

They started as a tiny groups or cadres of committed Communists, insurgents, in the south of Vietnam, after the end of the Indo-China War in 1954.  Communist front-groups formed, such as the Saigon-Cholon Peace Committee, the Executive Committee of the Fatherland Front, the Vietnam-Cambodian Buddhist Association,  the Alliance of National, Democratic, and Peace Forces. These front groups gave cover for and organized Communist insurgents and guerrillas, masking the activities of their community organizers.  The Viet Cong was the conglomeration of groups would be called, became the military arm of the National Liberation Front.  The VCs embarked in savage assassination campaigns, committed horrible atrocities to intimidate opposition, developed a political branch, opened up the Ho Chi Minh Trail, etc.  Their various units wore no insignia.  They were ideological guerrillas, insurgents, terrorists.

The Viet Cong are fascinating.  They are yet another of history’s examples of how small groups engaged in unrestricted asymetrical tactics can bring a large and well-supplied organized military machine to a grinding blood-stained halt.

What’s this about?

The other day I posted How tiny liberal loon crank groups provide cover and distraction for larger, more dangerous initiatives.

In that post I pointed out how someone whom, for good reason, no one has heard of (Patricia Miller), editor of something no one has heard of (“Conscience magazine, the leading journal of pro-choice Catholic thought”), put out a blog opinion piece about an obscure group of weird radical nuns (the National Coalition of American Nuns – NCAN -which campaigns for women’s ordination, headed up by abortion-promotress Sr. Donna Quinn of the Sinsinawa Dominicans, who makes parody redundant).

NCAN supports the Obama administration’s efforts to impose the pro-contraception, pro-abortion HHS Mandate on religious institutions such as the Little Sisters of the Poor and Hobby Lobby.

NCAN says openly what the leaders of the LCWR can’t say openly. Consider NCAN a front group.

Now I see that the Ho Chi Minh Trail of cable news, MSNBC, picked up the story.

Somebody no one has ever heard of, Irin Carmon picked up in the insignificant news about the nun splinter group. What are the other things Irin has written about?

  • Anita Hill answers your questions
  • Inside the newest faction of the anti-abortion movement
  • California’s quiet reproductive rights revolution
  • Meet the rebels of the anti-abortion movement
  • Big leap for morning after pill access? Not so fast
  • Should it be easier to get emergency contraception?
  • Women in 2014: Eloise Gomez Reyes
  • Hillary Clinton counts on women’s rights
  • Do you think Wendy Davis’s abortion comments hurt her campaign?
  • Wendy Davis falls into abortion question trap

Irin seems to be obsessed with abortion and others matters uterine.

So, from Irin at MSNBC we find:

Nuns take sides as contraception fight heads to the Supreme Court

[…]

The Catholic Church formally opposes contraception, [“formally?  What does that mean?  That the Church can then “formally” change its position, as if opposition is a mere “policy”?  “Formally” as in the Church turns a blind eye? ] and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in particular has taken an active role in criticizing the contraceptive coverage mandate in Obamacare. [“taken an active role”…. and… so?  No, wait.  The point is, no one is permitted to critize what Obama does, much less be a ring-leader in criticism.  But there’s more…] But this isn’t the first time nuns have shown independence on an issue. [Hurray!  Nuns showing “independence” is a good thing!  “Independence” is good, right?] In 2012, a Vatican group rebuked [LOL!  The CDF is a “Vatican group”, now.  The ignorance here is a hoot.  And, remember, “rebuking” is bad, especially when women are the rebuke-ees.] the Leadership Conference of Women Religious for espousing ”radical feminist themes incompatible with the Catholic faith.”  [More on the LCWR and NCAN, below.]

That prompted one commentator to reach for the b-word [This is misdirection… read on.] in a rather different context. ”Women are not capable, in the Vatican’s mind, [“the Vatican’s mind”?!?  Who’s writing this garbage?] of governing others or even themselves,” wrote Gary Wills [Him again?  Embittered anti-Catholic.] in the New York Review of Books. “Is it any wonder so many nuns have left the orders or avoided joining them? Who wants to be bullied?”  [That’s the “b-word” Irin meant, not the other one.  And women are joining communities of traditional sisters, communities which don’t belong to the LCWR or subscribe to its radical feminist tenets.]

Supporters of the contraceptive coverage provisions plan to rally outside the Court on March 25, the day oral arguments are heard in the Hobby Lobby case.  [That’s an advertisement, btw.]

As I watch this unfold, what pops into my head are Alinsky-style Chicago-based community organizers, the Viet Cong and the Ho Chi Minh Trail.

Again, as I wrote the other day, liberals have coalitions of myriad groups. They front for other, much larger groups.  The small groups provide cover and distraction and coordination for what the larger groups are really up to.  This is a common feature of the Left’s activity.  They work together, cover each other’s tracks, carry each other’s water, present a united front.

Not from an opening ceremony of an LCWR meeting.

 UPDATE:

At Newsbusters I found THIS.

Posted in Liberals, Magisterium of Nuns, Pò sì jiù, Religious Liberty, The Drill, Women Religious | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,
20 Comments