Tuesday, May 1, 2012

SMOKE SCREEN WARNING, THE GOOD SISTERS AND LCWR!

This sister can smell something afoul in the LCRW but she doesn't condemn all her sisters, just the smelly things that the LCWR promote which oppose the Magisterium and that's not everything!
Out of about 70 million Catholics in this country of which about 20 percent go to Mass on Sunday, about 50,000 people have signed a petition in praise of Catholic sisters and opposed to the mean old men in the hierarchy that are questioning some of the heterodox of the umbrella organization of sisters called the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR).

I would have expected millions more to sign the petition! Who in their right mind wouldn't support the sisters who in their grassroots ministries and apostolate in pre-Vatican II and post-Vatican II time have done such good and have touched so many Catholics and others?

But who in the world has been touched by LCWR? Is this group a "religious order?" Have they taught our children?
Have they been in our parishes? No, LCWR is a professional organization, a "think tank" if you will that allows the various religious orders to network, share ideas, and communicate. It's an organization that is not above critique especially when it sets itself up as some kind of parallel magisterium, and proposes post-Catholic ideas as it concerns natural law, same sex marriage and women priests. This group is not above being critiqued and called to reform in the areas that need reform.

If we've learned anything from the sex abuse scandal it is that bishops have to have oversight over the Church beginning first with the clergy, then with consecrated life and ultimately with the laity since the clergy and religious life are called to build up the kingdom and seek members from the laity to serve the Church.

Our parish has a pastoral council, a finance council and a stewardship council. They are umbrella groups that represent the entire parish. But do they represent every single parishioner? Hell no! (I'm sorry for the hyperbole).

Does LCWR represent rank and file women religious in all things, especially pro-abortion politics, same sex marriage and women priests? Hell no! Give me that petition to sign supporting women religious. I suspect even Pope Benedict would sign it. But in reality, I couldn't care less about LCWR. If it were replaced by another group with better statutes, how many of the 70 million Catholics which about 20% go to Mass on Sunday would notice or even care?

10 comments:

Gene W. (formerly Pin) said...

Well, now, I notice that one of our diocesan Priests (who shall remain Ignotus) is using Margaret Nutcase Ralph's book for his Bible study. Margaret says that the only reason that women are not priests is because the Church has misread the Bible. How 'bout that...2000 years of Magisterium and good ol' Margaret has the answer.
She also says that the disciples and apostles "read things back into" the Gospels and that Paul was pretty much a creature of his time and place and so cannot be taken too seriously. Yep, good ol' Margaret (remember that from Dennis the Menace?). Oh, she is on all the "Women Can Be Priests" sites on the net. She's their real darling, doncha know? LOL! Now, most pastors I know would not let someone like good ol' Margaret get within shouting distance of their parishioners, especially when there are far better Biblical scholars and theologians that are easily available. But, I'm sure this Priest wants to disabuse his good flock of their unenlightened reading of Holy Scripture.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Those who make editing comments to me are very much greatly appreciated; I do this all by my lonesome, no editor involved!

Anonymous said...

This Sunday's theme of the Good Shepherd breaking legs of the sheep to keep them in the fold until they come to their senses is interesting. I have heard it before, but not so pronounced. Does the Vatican put out 'talking points'? I wonder if this is an explanation of the recent crack downs. And did they ever break a noisy sheep's jaw?

rcg

Anonymous said...

It may not have been Pater Ignotus' idea to use that book.
Perhaps he was trying to be pastoral by allowing it, before he realized the can of worms he had opened.

Gene W. (formerly Pin) said...

These women, and the people who support them, are not sheep. They are wolves in sheep's clothing and dangerous. They seek to subvert the Church and lead people into error simply because they want attention and power. They do not belong in the sheep fold.

Gene W. (formerly Pin) said...

Anonymous, I doubt it. Knowing Ignotus, I expect it was a studied decision. Besides, what pastor is not aware of, or does not at least review, the materials being used for Bible study in his own Church?

Gene W. (formerly Pin) said...

Not to mention the fact that the pastor is leading the study...

Anonymous said...

I am not sure why any of us even care about this. This group will soon disappear as they natural order of life takes over. These sisters are old and of a different time. If the Vatican needs to censor them, let them do it and be done with it. Giving them too much attention only gives them more forum to voice their dissent and foolishness.
As you say Fr "who cares or even knows about them" I didn't even know they exited before all this.

Gene W. (formerly Pin) said...

Well Anonymous, I would agree with you except that these people do have powerful allies in secular government, the present administration, and in academia. In academia, of course, they have wide access to young minds (and often bodies) to despoil for the future minions of Satan. We didn't worry about Muslims because there were only a few; we didn't worry about Nazis in the early '30's (except for Churchill) because there were only a few, and we didn't worry about the dissident rabble in the 60's because there were only a few...now, look where we are. I worry more than you do while hoping you are correct.

Carol H. said...

I have to agree with you, Gene. Many have forgotten the old cliche that one bad apple spoils the whole bunch- probably because it is not poitically correct. That doesn't change the truth of the matter, though.