text:
Revisiting Laurie Brink's LCWR talk with Michael Sean Winters
Michael Sean Winters of the National Catholic Reporter suggests that "the announcement Monday that Pope Francis had reaffirmed the doctrinal assessment of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious forces those on the left to reconsider their expectations." Winters thinks those who are dismayed should give the Vatican the benefit of the doubt: "Maybe there really are doctrinal difficulties at the LCWR. I gotta tell you, they lost me with that choice of a keynote speaker who wants to 'move beyond Jesus.'"
That line led to a flurry of "fraternal correction" from readers, according to Winters, who wrote a follow-up post today (though he forgot to include a link to the post that started the trouble). Winters now says he regrets his "inadequate characterization of Sr. Laurie Brinks keynote address at an LCWR conference" but, after reading the talk itself, has concluded that "it is even worse than my mischaracterization suggested."
I read Brink's talk (.pdf) last year, when the CDF's citation of it first surfaced, and I posted about it here at dotCommonweal. My judgment was that the CDF seemed to be badly mischaracterizing Brink's address, perhaps because they were misreading the purpose and character of the talk in general. I'd say Winters is making a similar error now.
I can't do much better in response to Winters's take on Brink's talk than to point to my own take all over again. And while I don't think her point of view, or her manner of expressing it, is beyond criticism, I do think that criticism ought to consider whom she was addressing and to what purpose. To be frank, I still feel somewhat uncomfortable picking over Brink's talk, given its original venue and purpose: to stimulate discussion among LCWR member congregations about the difficult choices facing them in an uncertain future. That Brink did not unequivocally denounce any life choice that would lead one away from Christ might be troubling to myself or Winters or the CDF, but this was not a catechetical lecture or a public statement of general belief or an address to pilgrims at World Youth Day. She wasn't addressing myself or Winters or Catholics in general, and she likely did not see the need to qualify her intentionally provocative remarks just in case someone looking for evidence of heterodoxy decided to examine them later. As I wrote last year, "Remember that she was not talking to elementary school students, but to fellow members of religious congregations, whom she was inviting to frankly consider what sort of choices and commitments lay before them as communities."I think how you read this talk says a lot about how you think about Catholic nuns. Brink was speaking to an audience of peers -- adult women who, let us remember, had all at some point gone through a serious process of spiritual discernment that led them to take vows dedicating their lives entirely to Christ and his church. That's what we mean, or what we should mean, when we refer in general to Catholic sisters, and when we think about their place in the church or the propriety of their speech we should remember that they are grownups and individuals with agency and complexity and not either obedient or errant children. Did Sr. Brink need to spell out explicitly for her audience that a renewed commitment to Christ and his church is the only orthodox path to holiness? I imagine she assumed her fellow LCWR members were aware of that basic premise of Catholicism.
One of the more pernicious trends in the intra-Catholic culture wars is the tendency to pit the "good" kinds of sisters against the "bad." This tendency cuts both ways, and either way it depends on a willingness to view nuns as symbols to be used to score points rather than as fellow adult disciples of Christ. Winters accuses Brink of making "condescending remarks about more traditional religious communities," but what he quotes reads to me as an entirely benign characterization of how such communities view themselves. "Are these more traditional women mere dupes of a pre-modern worldview?" Winters asks. He might have found his answer in the very section of Brink's talk to which he's responding: "They are not simply returning to a life before Vatican II, though outwardly it may appear to be so. They are retrieving structures, symbols and rituals that may have been discarded during renewal, because they feel that these will enable them to live their charism more faithfully in the 21st century." I see no condescension whatsoever in Brink's words and no reason to read them as other than sincere. In my experience, women religious of all kinds tend to be scrupulously respectful of other sisters, probably because they see them as they are: fellow women who have made the radical decision to devote their lives to being disciples of Christ in community. Sisters are on the whole much less invested than we laypeople are in scoring one order of nuns against another; they worry about fulfilling their own charisms, not disparaging others.
I'll tell you where I do see condescension: in the frequent commentary of not a small number of Catholics, almost always male, who see themselves as somehow qualified or even obliged to criticize, approve of, or sneer at the ministries, prayer lives, and of course the wardrobes of Catholic nuns in terms that (it seems to me) they would never apply to men. There are wise and foolish nuns; there are congregations I might like to spend time with and congregations I'd be more inclined to avoid. But what makes anyone think they can judge the depth of a woman's prayer life, her attitude toward the hierarchy, or her sincerity in following the will of Christ based on what she wears or how many people have joined her order lately? What makes any of us so comfortable in second-guessing the discernment of women religious when it comes to the governance of their orders and the vision and charism of their founders? Or, what makes some of us so uncomfortable with the spectacle of grown women having some autonomy to decide how they will live out their vows of service to the body of Christ? Catholics who have been inspired and challenged by the example of individual sisters, in education, ministry, or prayer, are rightly turned off by smug objectification of nuns even when it takes the form of praise. After all, it isn't just nasty remarks about radical women in pantsuits that carry this tinge of misogyny; it comes through in syrupy approval of the "good" kind of sisters, too. As if they're children to be patted on the head for the pleasing shape that their faithfulness takes.
Winters calls it "a damned shame" that the LCWR gave time to Brink's talk "because, as far as I can tell, the reason so many people love religious women, the reason our sisters touch the hearts of Catholics and non-Catholics so deeply is precisely because they have not moved beyond Christ but seek him out, day in and day out, among the poor, the afflicted, the aged, the ignorant, and the broken-hearted.... No amount of academic nonsense, spoken from someone wallowing in post-modern fads, should obstruct the Churchs hierarchy from recognizing the invaluable, Christ-centered work, that religious women do every day." Once again: Brink's talk was a challenge to member congregations to examine their approach to that invaluable work and to discuss how they can move forward in strength and integrity. Winters seems to think that the sisters' discussing such "academic" things is unseemly; they should keep doing that humble service work the rest of us like so much and, I guess, let someone else tell them how best to go about doing it. In which case, why have an LCWR at all?
But it can't be that Winters objects to the "leadership" part of the LCWR's mission, because -- after calling Brink's address "dreadful and alarming" (and just before calling it "faux-intellectual") -- he insists, "I believe with all my heart that women religious are just as much leaders of the Church as the bishops." This is not really a matter of belief: they're not. Not in the church in general, and not even in their own congregations. If the Vatican's investigation of the LCWR is at all valid, then it must be the case that Catholic sisters are not "leaders" on any kind of par with bishops. At best they are the kind of "leaders" whose internal discussions and deliberations must be policed by the church's actual leaders -- the bishops -- for their own good. They are leaders only until the real leaders remind them who's in charge. Even the sisters know that much.
About the Author
Mollie Wilson O'Reilly is an editor at large and columnist at Commonweal.
78 comments
- All
- Editor Featured
"Ill tell you where I do see condescension: in the frequent commentary of not a small number of Catholics, almost always male, who see themselves as somehow qualified or even obliged to criticize, approve of, or sneer at the ministries, prayer lives, and of course the wardrobes of Catholic nuns in terms that (it seems to me) they would never apply to men. "Amen!!!!
You've made many good points, Molly, here and in your earlier post on this issue. And I have nothing but the utmost respect for nuns, including the Dominicans who taught me in elementary school, and the three great-aunts who gave their lives to the Church. They passed away at ages 94, 96, and 103, respectively, and while they were traditional in many senses of that word, they also embraced the reforms of Vatican II with great zeal. With that as a preface, what bothers me about Sr. Brink's comments is the following line in particular: "Whos to say that the movement beyond Christ is not, in reality, a movement into the very heart of God? It would be one thing if Sister had said movement beyond the Church, with "Church" signifying institutional elements and structures. I think that nuns who are upset about leadership in the Church have valid grounds for their grievances. But Sr. Brink went beyond such concerns, IMO, when she spoke about "movement beyond Christ." That's not to say that people who aren't followers of Christ don't move into the "very heart of God," but I don't see how one can move beyond Christ and still identify as "Christian." Such movement, it would seem to me, would go far beyond the temporal issues involving leadership and structure in the Church.
Many histories of women's congregations have amusing (imho) tales of bishops' obsessions with nuns' habits, headgear, etc. They would write to the European motherhouses asking for dolls dressed in the habits. They would then concern themselves with details of veils, guimpes, cinctures, etc., etc. (And with every other aspect of the lives of the women they ruled.) I wonder what has become of the questionnaires the various communities were required to fill out and the reports of the investigators they were required to feed and house. Will the results of the inquisition be made known? (The distortion of Laurie Brink's speech is just one more of many examples of the abusive treatment nuns have been subjected to throughout their centuries of service to American Catholics. As the orders dwindle, the remaining sisters must make choices. To denigrate the decision making is unjust but typical.)
The bishops doctrinal assessment of the LCWR is online:http://www.usccb.org/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&pageid=55544 ,but I could not find the official response from the LCWR addressing the charges or correcting mistakes. Is there such a response?I was interested in your take, and I glanced at Sr. Farrell's address from last August. But if the LCWR have not officially addressed the assessment's main points systematically, it's difficult to approve of that.
"he insists, I believe with all my heart that women religious are just as much leaders of the Church as the bishops. This is not really a matter of belief: theyre not. Not in the church in general, and not even in their own congregations. If the Vaticans investigation of the LCWR is at all valid, then it must be the case that Catholic sisters are not leaders on any kind of par with bishops."Sigh. Unfortunately the English word "leaders" is extremely ambiguous from a Catholic perspective. I recommend some serious reflection about Jesus's advice "Anyone who wants to be first must be the very last, and the servant of all."
Sometimes I wonder if we read rather too much into what may well be somewhat poorly chosen words.Properly speaking, it's impossible to move beyond Jesus because it's impossible to move beyond God.If the question is whether a movement outside the visible bounds of Christianity could be a movement into the very heart of God, which is how I read Sr Brinks, then I think the answer has to be yes, given everything Vatican II taught about the presence of God in other faiths.It's a sad day when the LCWR gets slapped down because a speaker at one of their meetings says what the Ecumenical Council taught !God Bless
Gender politics aside, is it the author's intention to suggest that the bishops should not have authority over religious orders? I just wanted to clarify her (the author's) meaning.
Whos to say that the movement beyond Christ is not, in reality, a movement into the very heart of God?I don't really know what this means. The prepositions seem contradictory: is it possible to simultaneously move "beyond" something and move "into the very heart" of that thing?
That Brink did not unequivocally denounce any life choice that would lead one away from Christ . . . .Did Sr. Brink need to spell out explicitly for her audience that a renewed commitment to Christ and his church is the only orthodox path to holiness? No, but merely failing to spell this out explicitly is not the fault that MSW identifies. As he points out, she goes quite a bit further in affirmatively claiming that "moving beyond Christ" was neither "better or worse" than remaining faithful to Christ. In other words, it's not that she failed to "unequivocally denounce" moving away from Christ, it's that she unequivocally endorsed such a move as equal in merit to any of the other 3 paths. Is MSW wrong? It's hard to see any other interpretation that could be placed upon the words he quotes, but perhaps I'm missing something.
I think that this issue between the LCWR and the Vatican has been seething for years, perhaps going back to 1979 when Sr. Teresa Kane said to Pope John Paul II in the Basilica of the Immaculate Conception"As women we have heard the powerful message of our church addressing the dignity and reverence of all persons. As women we have pondered these words. Our contemplation leads us to state that the church in its struggle to be faithful to its call for reverence and dignity for all persons must respond by providing the possibility of women as persons being included in all ministries of the church."
Is it possible to find God without finding/knowing Christ?Does Christianity deny this possibility?
Bill Collier:You said youre troubled by this line in Sr. Brinks talk: Whos to say that the movement beyond Christ is not, in reality, a movement into the very heart of God? You add, Thats not to say that people who arent followers of Christ dont move into the very heart of God, but I dont see how one can move beyond Christ and still identify as Christian.Maybe identifying as a Christian will no longer be possible, but doesnt the Christian tradition say theres something even more important: being true to ones conscience, and to a conclusion which a conscientious search for truth has led one to even when that conclusion situates one outside Christianity? Need we be troubled by such a result?On this point, I always recall Simone Weils words:
Yet I still half refused - not my love, but my intelligence. For it seemed to me certain, and I still think so today, that one can never wrestle enough with God if one does so out of pure regard for the truth. Christ likes us to prefer truth to him because, before being Christ, he is truth. (emphasis added)Spiritual Autobiography, in Waiting for God
A year or two ago I read the talk also. Provocative, certainly. But I don't have a problem with women religious confronting provocative viewpoints. The institution may not want to talk about ordaining women (for example) and individuals may not want the taint of being in the same room with those who do. But these are adult women thinking adult thoughts. Not bishops' thoughts.Bishops and other clergy have been at odds with religious women as long as females have dared to emerge from the cloister as Poor Clares or Beguines or missionaries or teachers. For the CDF to earn my respect they should not only call out the positive witness to Christ given by sisters (as they honestly have), but also their own troubled history in dealing with them. In some sense, the LCWR dust-up is same ol' same ol'. Mother Guerin and Mary MacKillop and others like them are saints--declared saints--today. Their aggressors and persecutors are consigned to the trash heap of history, discredited and forgotten.I'd like to address one small point on the alleged contraction of women religious. The Hoge-Jewell study of young adult Catholics found that young men had far more attention as candidates for seminary or religious life than young women had to join a congregation of sisters. If recruiting is really so all-fired important to those outside of particular congregations, why not ask bishops and clergy if they know enough about women religious to discern the difference between cloistered and mendicant life, if they know women well enough to suggest one path or another that would be more suitable, and if they, in fact, do steer young persons to both.Finally, the last time I checked, the bishops were running on fumes in many places in terms of moral and theological credibility. Yet I doubt they would be as gracious if they were asked to submit to a similar investigation. Bishops mismanaging sex predators have helped to drive hundreds of thousands away from Christ. Laurie Brink, not so much.
I don't think the Vatican will ever be able to stuff women religious back in the box. There are some who like it there, yes, but the majority, like most Catholic lay women, are too aware of the frailty of the theology that's been used for centuries to keep them second class citizens of the church.
Kind of off topic, but I see Fr. Roy Bourgeois is going to ask Francis to reconsider laicizing him .... http://www.ajc.com/news/news/state-regional/expelled-priest-appeals-pope...
Most of us here are centering only on the words Beyond Jesus and missing Mollie's central point that women are clearly second class citizens in the church. So it should be repeated that even if we preface our post with such phrases as "I have the utmost respect for sisters", we may still be guilty of putting women down in the church. We must address the gender issue as well as the "Beyond Jesus" issue. The church leadership needs to be shaken up. Particularly the leadership which only champions orthodoxy over orthopraxy. Remember the CDF criticized the "over emphasis of social justice issues" by the LCWR. Suddenly we have a bishop of Rome who not only champions social justice issues but lives them. So Francis might be closer to the LCWR than we think. That does not mean that Francis should directly get into this fray. But his actions might say something else. Therefore, we might mind the words of the leaderships of the LCWR that they had a "meaningful discussion" which we hope will lead to more dialogue.
I would have liked to see a vigorous response from the LCWR. Are they, or are they not, sympathetic to the idea of "moving beyond Christ"? What is their position regarding the ban on discussions of women's ordination, or about the other issues raised in the report? To what extent is there an LCWR-wide position? Are they taking the view that "anything goes as long as one believes in it"? I took a look at the LCWR website. They are able to take resolutions on subjects such as carbon footprint or political issues, but I saw little about prayer or liturgy. Is prayer not the center of their lives? I find the lack of response to the assessment troubling. Is there no one in charge there? Or do they not want to face the problems head on? Or are they rejecting church authorities to the extent that they refuse to meet them on their terms? Or is it a strategy to just let individual reactions be expressed without giving them shape, to just let rumors float? Do they even recognize that there are problems?When I hear that some refuse to go to Mass because the priest is a man and they are feminists, I assume that it is extraordinary, but what happens then? Do others say sympathetically: "Yes, a change in the status of women in the church is long overdue, I understand your frustration, it's hard but you are brave", or do they say: "Christ is the center of our lives. Everything we believe in, including our defense of the status of women, derives from our love for him. We need the sacraments and cannot subject that to our feminist positions. Your priorities are misplaced. Christ comes first, not feminism", or do they say: "Whatever you think is right for you. It's your conscience" ? It's a problem, and how does it get solved? I am afraid that there is a lack of clarity - a lack of leadership!The speeches such as Sr Farrell's speech are fine for reflection, full of "I feel this" and "I feel that", but at some point there needs to be a firm conclusion on the part of the LCWR. I realize that most other people commenting here know religious sisters much better than me. I realize that there are plenty of individual sisters who exhibit determination, clarity of thought, and who are obviously rooted in the Gospel and the Church. But after looking at the LCWR website, I come away with a very mixed impression.
* Christ is the center of our lives. Everything we believe in, including our defense of the status of women, derives from our love for him. We need the sacraments and cannot subject that to our feminist positions. Your priorities are misplaced. Christ comes first, not feminism *The problem isn't between feminists and Jesus. Disagreeing with the hierarchy's stance on women doesn't necessarily say anything about the health of one's spirituality or relationship with Jesus/God.
Crystal, I was just laying out possible responses although I guess it's obvious which one I identify with. I think that it is an extreme overreaction to refuse to go to Mass because the presider is a man. I also think that such positions, that are surely the exception, must be dealt with. For example, they might decide that the Mass is where community is built, and that if someone who has access to it chooses not to go, then, after some period, they will have to leave the community. Or, for another example, the community might decide that going to Mass is not that important - but let them come out and say it! What kind of community do they form? What unites them? The vagueness of it all is a killer.
Maybe the community lets its members live out their spirituality in the way that works best for them as long as they're more of less doing their job and not hurting others. I can't imagine, for instance, a Jesuit community forcing one of it's members to go to mass if that person had a problem doing so. I'd guess that living together, socializing together, eating together, working together all would mean as much to being "community" as going to mass would. It's not the (religious version of) the army ;) iit's more like a family. I don't mean to say God isn't the important thing to a religious community, but you can't regulate from outside the personal relationship individuals have with God. But that's just my opinion.
" I cant imagine, for instance, a Jesuit community forcing one of its members to go to mass if that person had a problem doing so"I would hope that his superior would engage in serious discernment with the individual as to whether he still had a vocation to the Society of Jesus. As Pope Francis told the Cardinals: "without Jesus and his cross, the Church would only be a charitable NGO.
Claire,The LCWR owes me and you nothing on your point: "Are they, or are they not, sympathetic to the idea of moving beyond Christ?""What is their position regarding the ban on discussions of womens ordination, or about the other issues raised in the report?"Much of this has already been covered, and has been the subject of public statements over the past few decades. People who want to know need to ask and explore. THE LCWR is not obligated to rehash every time Mr Winters or some other Catholic celebrity wants to review old ground."Are they taking the view that anything goes as long as one believes in it?"Even the bishops haven't been exempt from this kind of thinking. But to ask a question in these terms implies one is expecting it."The vagueness of it all is a killer."Not to me. I've known and worked with women religious for decades. I trust the faith witness I have experienced.My sense is that for individuals, especially conservative Catholics, to fret and wonder. It is appropriate to harbor questions internally, and to explore those with people one knows. Less appropriate to transgress CCC 2478 publicly and contribute to an atmosphere of antaginism and suspicion.If a ministry colleague of mine, or a parishioner, were openly questioning the institution and/or the role of Christ I would enter into a dialogue with them. This whole affair has a context. People who want to understand, including bishops, are obligated to understand the political and historical context of tensions between people of good will who suspect sister and brother believers.
Todd, true, they owe me nothing, but consider this: if I were pope Francis and trying to acquaint myself with the situations, I could easily find a succinct summary of the CDF's view in their doctrinal assessment, but where would I go to find the LCWR's view?
I had the good fortune to spend a week at the mother house in St. Mary's, Indiana, to help my sister celebrate her 50th. anniversary as a Holy Cross Sister. Found myself at breakfast every day with the leaders of the order, who were in town for a meeting. I cannot say I have ever found that level of wisdom and maturity in an informal gathering of my fellow priests.The golden anniversay Mass was one of the most splendid, Christ-filled experiences I have ever had. As Molly said, these were adult women who had made an adult choice. Like my sister, they had re-evaluated that choice several times. The problem is, they took Vatican II seriously and followed its lead to re-evaluate the meaning of their religious lives in an amazing process of discernment that they re-do on a regular basis. The priests of my diocese never did such a risky thing. Our bishop and our presbyteral council have never been capable of such leadership.
Good post, Todd. ------To Claire:Perhaps an examination of the Program for the upcoming triennial Conference on the History of Women Religious will give you an idea of what nuns are thinking and writing about. http://www.chwr.org/PDFS/2013%20March%2022%20HWR%20program%20with%20fina...(There will be a forum on the LCWR on June 24th. Maybe the big-name presenters will address some of the questions raised by their critics.)
My apologies to women religious and to all women if any of my comments regarding the LCWR investigation have been condescending or even sneering. I do believe, though, that members of the church who are men do have a right to comment - in an appropriate and respectful way - on the words and deeds of religious sisters and their orders.
Agree, Jim, that men have a right to comment on the words and deeds of religious sisters and their orders, just as women have a right to comment on the words and deeds of religious brothers, ordained men, bishops, etc. Good editorial (imho) in NCR this morning: http://ncronline.org/news/editorial-vatican-lcwr-approaching-critical-cr...
"The problem is, they took Vatican II seriously and followed its lead to re-evaluate the meaning of their religious lives in an amazing process of discernment that they re-do on a regular basis. The priests of my diocese never did such a risky thing. Our bishop and our presbyteral council have never been capable of such leadership."William, this is an insightful comment. I'm sure it's pretty well-known that the process, and fruits, of the re-evaluation has come in for quite a bit of criticism (of male as well as femail orders). I would think that no bishop would permit diocesan priests to re-evaluate the meaning of their presbyteral lives without the bishop being an integral - and, realistically, directing - part of the process. Inevitably, this would be seen as a move to preserve power, and perhaps there would be an element of that, but it would also serve as an instrument to preserve and perhaps even strengthen communion. Do you agree?I don't know how that analogy would "work" for religious congregations, though. Bishops are priests themselves and have a formal role as the head of the diocesan priests. I am not sure what the equivalent would be for a religious congregation.
Claire: If you were Pope Francis, I'm sure you'd have access to the numerous reports that I suspect LCWR files prior to their annual visits to Rome.William: The diocese of Salt Lake City has been blessed by the presence of Holy Cross sisters for many, many years. Until relatively recently, they staffed the only Catholic hospital in the state. They used the money from its sale to fund a foundation that provides immigration counseling, and the staff for setting up centers for children of low income families to help with pre-school education. In my years as President of the Salt Lake Diocesan Pastoral Council, I valued the wisdom of the Holy Cross Sisters who served on the Council, who were willing to speak out on difficult issues, but in voices that were calm and reasoned. I continue to seek several of them out today. As I prepare for a talk this weekend to the Diocesan Council of Catholic Women, I've been thinking about the numerous religious women who have blessed my life, including a few I've known through their professional lives as chemists and chemistry faculty members. Wisdom, personal self-sacrifice, and courage to face difficult changes are commonalities in all of them. (All, by the way, from communities represented in the LCWR.) I watched three of my great aunts struggle in the mid 60's as many in their community were leaving so I have a sense of the difficult changes that religious women were asked to undergo. One left, two stayed. That community is smaller, today, but still filled with wise women who devote their lives, their health, their creative energies to bringing others to Christ. When I visit my high school chemistry teacher, a member of this same community, who just retired at 92, I find a vibrant, if aging, group of women whose energy level belies their years. They are thinking of their future, not with anxiety, but with wisdom, faith, and trust in the Holy Spirit to guide them. Their faith and love has sustained me at difficult times in my life and continues to give me hope. I pray that the groundedness of Pope Francis in the love of Christ will express itself in the future in the LCWR review process. Let the sisters move out from this burden that saps energy and time.
"what bothers me about Sr. Brinks comments is the following line in particular: Whos to say that the movement beyond Christ is not, in reality, a movement into the very heart of God? It would be one thing if Sister had said movement beyond the Church, with Church signifying institutional elements and structures. I think that nuns who are upset about leadership in the Church have valid grounds for their grievances. But Sr. Brink went beyond such concerns, IMO, when she spoke about movement beyond Christ. "Bill Collier --You've nailed it. Sr. Brink is positing the possibility of a Christless Christianity. But did she mean that? I have to wonder if she had thought this "concept" through herself. The speech is a big muddle of mixed metaphors that don't always illumine. Maybe she's just not a very clear thinker. Maybe she's one of the many people who accept contradictions as both being true. True, she says that she's not actually choosing any of the options she presents, but she does present this as a reasonable option. She presents Christ as a limit to religious life. Hardly a Christian position. Shallow, shallow theology at best.
Worst case scenario: the LCWR walks. Bishops, over the next ten years are replaced. And some future will find refurbished an official channel of communication that the LCWR has served for the past half century.If the LCWR walks, it doesn't mean anyone is leaving the Church. It means that women will organize differently. The conferences will continue. The collaboration between orders will continue. Sisters will continue serving the Church as before. And the bishops will have cut themselves off from a source of fresh air.It looks to me like Archbishop Sartain is on the hot seat on this. And he probably knows it by now. This is very nearly 100% on the bishops. It's a good thing for them the opposition is American sisters and not the Temple Police.
Strange how many who have not read the speech still feel free to mischaracterize it and to defame Laurie Brink. Here it is: https://lcwr.org/sites/default/files/calendar/attachments/2007_Keynote_A... From p. 17:As one sister described it, I was rooted in the story of Jesus, and it remains at my core, but Ive also moved beyond Jesus. The Jesus narrative is not the only or the most important narrative for these women. They still hold up and reverence the values of the Gospel, but they also recognize that these same values are not solely the property of Christianity. Buddhism, Native American spirituality, Judaism, Islam and others hold similar tenets for right behavior within the community, right relationship with the earth and right relationship with the Divine. With these insights come a shattering or freeing realizationdepending on where you stand. Jesus is not the only son of God. Salvation is not limited to Christians. Wisdom is found in the traditions of the Church as well as beyond it.
Gene--I'm not personally troubled if a person on the basis of his or her conscience decides to move beyond Christ and to search for another entry into "the very heart of God." My lack of personal criticism would also extend to a group of persons, such as an order of nuns or priests, that makes a decision to move beyond Christ on the basis of their members' collective consciences. I respect such decisionmaking. My only point was whether such a person or group continues to be a follower of Christ if an alternative path has been chosen. I'm certainly no theologian, but to self-identify as a Christian means that one has made a choice that Christ is "the" way, truth, and life. My comment was not intended to put women religious down, as Bill M. seems to have construed my words. I believe I was clear that I think that women religious (and, in fact, Catholic women in general) have legitimate gripes with the male-dominated structure of the Church. I'm sure that my parish isn't the only one that wouldn't survive if it weren't for the herculean efforts of the female members of the congregation in a myriad of roles.As for Simone Weil, she is such an interesting almost-convert, or, perhaps better stated, non-baptized convert. Fr. Joseph-Marie Perrin, the French Dominican for whom she wrote Waiting for God, later recalled his religious, philosophical and personal interactions with her, as did her farmer-philosopher friend Gustave Thibon, in Simone Weil As We Knew Her. I think this very interesting book is available again in a reprinted version if you havent read it. ;)
Sister Brink quoted a nun who said that Jesus was always at her core but that she went beyond Jesus. This can be interpreted many ways with the emphasis on Jesus at my cor or otherwise on going beyond Jesus. The Vatican chose to emphasize the latter to suggest abandonment of Christ centered religious life. A non-cloistered religious woman goes beyond the cloister and beyond Eucharistic adoration to engage the world in a lived religious life according to the Sermon on the Mount and the Epistle of St. James (with Jesus at her core). Jesus condemned the religious hierarchy of his day who made the temple (Church) a den of thieves (read indulgences and Vatican Bank) and Jesus associated with "publicans and sinners."Thomas Aquinas went beyond the Scriptures and immersed himself in Greek and Arab philosophy to extract what was good and argue against what was he perceived as errors. The Holy Spirit and human intelligence are not confined to Papal pronouncements, Church doctrine and hierarchical discipline. For going beyond Scripture, Aquinas was twice condemned by the Bishop of Paris, Etienne Tempier, in 1270 and 1277. The Church has a most unfortunate record in political struggles throughout the middle ages, the Renaissance (HBO's "The Borgias"), extending down to the more recent hierarchical embrace of dictators (Argentina is the most recent example) and the wealthy and their abuse and abandonment of the poor and powerless in Europe and in Latin America as well as the persecution of, rather than engagement with, non-believers (from the Inquisition to Cardinal Ottoviani). Today the American Catholic Bishops appointed chiefly for their conservatism and rejection of Vatican II by the last two Popes have involved themselves in politics, closely allied with the Republican party, and have resorted to outright deception in framing health legislation in terms of religious liberty. The Church has been consistently anti-women and anti-gay. Do educated, decent Catholics who attempt to live in the spirit of the Beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount and believe in the teachings of Vatican II listen to the hierarchy any more. Unfortunately some are betrayed in their loyalty, but most are see through the lies. At one time women with a religious vocation formed voluntary associations like the Beguines which did not request the hierarchy to validate them. Of course, the hierarchy condemned what it couldn't control. John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila were interrogated by the Inquisition. Today's nuns are one with St. Thomas and with St. Teresa. Let's be thankful for their courage.
It seems to me that this one speech by one nun is being held up as showing what is typical of all the nuns in the orders belonging to LCWC. But Sr. Brink is only one of them. If this speech is the worst that Rome has against the nuns, then shame on Rome for having publicly called them down. Shame, shame, shame.Winters is right. Nobody is above criticism, and there are some intellectually shallow nuns, as most of us can testify. But most are anything but shallow. Most are anything but unChristian. Shame on whoever is behind this kangaroo court.
It will be interesting to see if/how Archbishop Sartain, who has oversight over the LCWR, will react to the decision of the LCWR to honor Sr. Pat Farrell for her leadership through an exceptionally challenging time at their annual meeting this summer.The CDF Doctrinal Assessment noted the prevalence of certain radical feminism themes in the LCWR. What does that mean? (No bra burning I assume.) It probably means for the CDF the issue of the ordination of women has been espoused by some members. They have a big time problem with that but most of the sisters I know are too busy pursuing their ministries to the poor, marginalized, and sick to spend much of their energy on that issue.I have worked with sisters for many years. I have known sisters who have pursued advanced degrees, some in areas that were male bastions (law, medicine, doctoral degrees, etc.). They have done that, at some sacrifice, so that they can pursue new ministries that they have discerned with credibility and professionalism. That is what feminism has fostered and promoted over the past 50 years. To the best of my knowledge their communities and not the hierarchy paid for the cost of those degrees. To the criticism of speakers at the annual meetings of the LCWR who present ideas that are not mainstream in the Church, I might add: to be open to and to examine the ideas of those who think out of the box is a characteristic of educated people and does not mean acceptance.
For the record -- and I went over this in my post about the talk last year -- Sr. Brink does not say that you can move "beyond Christ" and still identify as Christian, or as a member of a Catholic religious order. She labels a group that moves "beyond the Church, even beyond Jesus" as "sojourning," and about that possibility she says:
A sojourning congregation is no longer ecclesiastical. It has grown beyond the bounds of institutional religion.... Religious titles, institutional limitations, ecclesiastical authorities no longer fit this congregation, which in most respects is Post-Christian.... [This is] a movement the ecclesiastical system would not recognize. A wholly new way of being holy that is integrative, non-dominating, and exclusive. But a whole new way that is also not Catholic religious life.... They are certainly religious women, but they are no longer women religious as it is defined by the Roman Catholic Church.
That passage likely have struck the CDF, or their informers, as insufficiently condemnatory. I think it's nonjudgmental by design, because of what the talk was supposed to do: describe the possible paths in respectful, neutral terms and let the sisters discuss the implications among themselves. In this case the terms she uses are rather positive, jarringly so, perhaps, if you're looking for an unequivocal statement about what Catholic religious life should be. But Brink does not or at least should not stand accused of suggesting that it's fine for Catholic sisters to move "beyond Jesus" and still think of themselves as Catholic sisters. In reality, she's saying just the opposite: have the courage of your convictions as a community, and if those convictions say you're not really part of the church, then don't go on pretending you are.
Bill Collier Thanks for what you wrote. Were not in disagreement. I hope it was clear, when I responded to your initial comment, that my doing so wasnt a way of saying I disagree with you. Rather, it was simply that there was something more which, I felt, needed saying.Thanks for the heads-up on the book about Simone Weil.
Fr. Imbelli,What I was trying to say was that a person choosing not to go to mass doesn't = that they don't have Jesus in their life. Sure, if a Jesuit didn't care about Jesus that would be a concern, but that wasn't the example Claire gave. The example was of a person who decided for political reasons not to go to mass.
Sr. Brink: "Its search for the Holy may have begun rooted in Jesus as the Christ, but deep reflection, study and prayer have opened it up to the spirit of the Holy in all of creation." (p. 17)Mollie --Here Sr. Brink speaks about "the spirit of the Holy" as being somehow beyond Christ. In other words, Christ is presented here as a limit. This is presented as if it's a valid interpretation of Church teaching, and people who go the Sojourner's route are being reasonable. But this view is clearly not consistent with Church teaching about the nature of Christ. The limited Christ is a straw man. True, a person who doesn't understand the rudiments of Church teachings about Christ might make think of Him as a limited creature, but I'v never ever known a nun to be that ignorant. So I don't see how Sr. Brink can possibly hold that this is a reasonable conclusion for some (ignorant) nuns to make. Yes, that conclusion could be made in good conscience -- if a nun is remarkably ignorant. But are there really any nuns that ignorant? If there are, then the Church is in even worse shape than I had thought.
In the past one looked to French bishops for relief from the crassness of anglophone ones. No longer! Cardinal Vingt-Trois's discourse at the opening of the bishops' conference in Lourdes seems to me a symptom of deep sickness in the French church. The demand for gay marriage he can only interpret as "the organized and militant invasion by gender theory especially in the educational sector, and, more simply, the temptation to reject any difference between the sexes, a refusal of difference, especially sexual difference, as a mode of human identification, an incapacity to accept that there are differences between people, rejection of the fact that people are not identical, not identical in their sexual identity and not identical either in their personality'. One can scarcely say that Cardinal Vingt-Trois has been mature and open in his recognition of the difference of gays and lesbians. His panic about an alleged "occultation of the difference between men and women" sits easily with contempt for the difference of sexual orientation, which the church has occulted for centuries, at an immense cost in human suffering. http://www.la-croix.com/Religion/Actualite/Discours-d-ouverture-du-cardi...
The Cardinal also claims that the French Government has suppressed debate (despite the countless hours of parliamentary time accorded to the opponents of the new legislation, who used this time to clown about in the most inane manner) and that polls showing popular backing for the new legislation are somehow a fake. This he characterizes as violence, and he thinks that violence will be a very understandable response to it. Already the Cardinal and Madame Barjot's words have been translated into street crimes. Barjot is a weird bedfellow for the Cardinal -- an erotic dancer who is better at coining slogans than at thinking -- her latest slogan is to the effect that President Holland has called for blood and blood is what he'll get. I do not see the Cardinal distancing himself from her hair-raising rhetoric.
"If you make the means of identification and difference in social relations disappear, that means that, by a psychological mechanism that we know well, one brings about a frustration of personal expression, and that the pressure of this frustration will issue one day or another in violence, in order to have ones particular identity recognized in opposition to official uniformity. It is thus that a society of violence is prepared. We see this already in the fact that the inability to accept a certain number of differences in social life results in the cristallisation of categorical demands by small groups, or identitarian subsets, who think they can win recognition only by violence. Our society has lost its capacity for integration and above all its capacity to make homogeneous the differences in a common project "For my part, I think that the law for marriage of homosexual persons shares in this phenomenon and will accentuate it in bringing it to bear on the most indisputable point of difference which it sexual difference, and will thus cause what I have evoked: the occultation of sexual identity as a psychological reality and the fermentation, the germination of a strong insistence on recognition of differentiated sexuality. This simple explanation is not grasped by a certain number of informed minds, who should however be worried about social peace in the years to come. That all means have been put in action to avoid public debate, including in the parliamentary process, can hardly mask the embarrassment of the promoters of the proposed law. To pass it by force can simplify life for a moment. That solves none of the real problems that will have to be faced in any case. To avoid paralyzing public life at a time when grave economic and social decisions must be made, it would have been more reasonable and simpler not to begin that process."
"That passage likely have struck the CDF, or their informers, as insufficiently condemnatory. I think its nonjudgmental by design, because of what the talk was supposed to do: describe the possible paths in respectful, neutral terms and let the sisters discuss the implications among themselves. "Mollie, I think your take on this is right. I can understand the frustration of church authorities who believe that what is really needed is some clear and heartfelt witness to the faith, and instead, what the leaders of these orders are being fed is this couched, studied neutrality. I can well imagine the temptation on the part of church officials to peremptorily insert someone into the next conference who will give witness to the faith. I expect that such a high-handed move would be counterproductive; but the temptation is all too human. I continue to think, though, that the hourglass of church authorities' patience will, at some point, run out. I think I've commented below previous posts on this topic that the church authorities, in their assessment, actually show restraint, and much more punitive sanctions are not beyond imagining. Now, with Pope Francis in Peter's chair, is the time for both sides to talk to one another in earnest.
If I were ever to be on trial in the Catholic court of public opinion, I would want to have Mollie Wilson O'Reilly as my chief defense attorney. She does her homework. She carefully qualifies her statements, but she makes her statements in straightforward language. Good for her.Now, I want to turn my attention to a somewhat different angle. Mollie @ 04/19/2013 @ 3:32pm has clarified what Sister Laurie Brink has said and what she did not say. I am not going to challenge Mollie's clarifications here.First, I want to say that Christians may become mystics. So far as I know, this point is not in dispute here or in Sister Laurie Brink's address.Next, I want to say that non-Christians may also become mystics.Is this point being disputed? For example, do some Christians think that only Christians may become mystics?Next, I want to discuss the possible implications of recognizing that non-Christians may become mystics, just as Christians may.If some Christians were to recognize that non-Christians may become mystics, just as Christians may, would those Christians who recognize this feel that they should give up and abandoned the entire Christian thought-world? Now, if for this reason such Christians were to abandon the entire Christian thought-world, then they would be moving beyond Jesus.But if some other Christians were to recognize that non-Christians may become mystics, just as Christians may, could they continue to claim to hold and embrace the entire Christian thought-world? Now, in the present discussion, we are discussing Catholic women religious. So could Catholic women religious recognize that non-Christians may become mystics, just as Catholics may, could they continue to claim to hold and embrace the entire Catholic thought-world?
I agree with Jim P. that the "church authorities' patience" will run out and the old men who rule the Church will apply "punitive sanctions" to the old women in religious congregations. Maybe the old ordained men who rule the church will punish the old lay women who have given their lives to the church by disbanding their congregations and forcing them to return to the world. (The histories of women's congregations, easily found in the divinity libraries at Catholic universities, are full of accounts of "punitive sanctions" applied to nuns by bishops and priests.)
Has it been shown that old women can do no wrong and old men can do no right? As I am on my way to becoming one of them, I have vested interest in this.
Mark:It's true( that old women can do no wrong and old men can do no right) but only for clergy and vowed religious women.
Priests and bishops have punished nuns by: 1) disbanding their communities; 2) driving them out of dioceses; 3) taking their property and money, including, in some cases, patrimonies brought from Europe; 4) withdrawing chaplains, thereby taking away the Eucharist; 5) forbidding them to communicate with sisters who left original foundations to form new (English speaking) convents; 5) etc.
Helen--Thanks, I will stay out of the clergy so that there's at least some hope for me! Of course, I can't help but think we have a few contributors here who may demur...Gerelyn--Let's stipulate that all that has happened, even, horror of horrors, the "etc." Can't a logical response be, "so what"? Is it not possible that, at least in some cases, the intent and the effect was to bring the nuns closer to God? Is it really true that vowed religious women can do no wrong, that they are above reproach? Is there a lesson to be learned that Blessed Mother Teresa was not punished so? If the clergy can learn humility from Pope Francis, are the nuns above learning the same from BMT?What I find most disheartening in threads such as these is that legitimate concerns about hierarchical quests for power are expressed by those who seem to want nothing more than some of that same power for themselves. Thus a statement such as, This [women religious being just as much leaders of the Church as the bishops] is not really a matter of belief: theyre not comes from a caste of mind that needs to be shattered.Have more powerful words ever been uttered than "Let it be done unto me according to Thy word"? Anyone who follows Christ leads the Church. Any person who does not have the faith that one necessarily follows from the other...well, does not yet have the Faith.
Mark: no one has proposed that vowed religious women are beyond reproach. Go troll elsewhere.
THAT'S trolling, Mollie? I actually put a lot of thought into that comment. And, in fact, I think it can be fairly inferred from more than one of the comments that vowed religious women are above reproach.
"... if for this reason such Christians were to abandon the entire Christian thought-world, then they would be moving beyond Jesus."Thomas --An orthodox description would be that they "had moved AWAY FROM Jesus". As Jim P. noted, you have to watch those prepositions.Have you ever noticed that dictionaries don't really define prepositions. They don't give proper definitions but do give loads of examples of their uses? (How would you define the meaning of "of"?) Very weird words. (Weird because they're relations? Again, that mysterious category of relations.)
"I think it can be fairly inferred from more than one of the comments that vowed religious women are above reproach."I think it can be inferred, but the adjective "fairly" isn't correct. Maybe "poutily," to coin a word.It is the practice of modern illogic when the argument is perceived as being lost to begin throwing silly comments out there about the people who seem to have the better argument. In this instance, it's almost as if people are finally reading the context of the talk and not seeing where the CDF is on this. Is that a fair inference?I've read a lot of commentary the past five days on the CDF/LCWR, and even the sisters' own statements. People seem to be conceding that not every woman religious is well behaved. But that has no impact on the greater issue: the independence of religious orders from the hierarchy.Bishops and clergy have other options, though probably unpopular or unpleasant ones. They could eject women religious from diocesan and parish ministry. They could conduct particular investigations of individuals, like Laurie Brink or other speakers they deem inadequate. Cardinal Wuerl pumped up Elizabeth Johnson's book sales in that way. So maybe that's undesirable.Women religious have problems like any other group of Catholics. There: I said it. I mean it. But most of their problems are their own. As for the ones that are not, I've found them to be more than willing to collaborate with people who are interested in serious discernment. This issue doesn't really seem to have the legs it once had. Cardinal Rode has been ejected. The new kids in town seem to be talking reconciliation. Seems unlikely that the Temple Police will be crowing about the result. I vote we let the whole darned affair die out and let's get on with the real work of the Gospel.
" .. not every woman religious is well behaved .."Nor is every member of the hierarchy, the lower clergy or the male religious orders.Nor is every member of the non-religious laity.In other words: they are we and we are they.
It is the practice of modern illogic when the argument is perceived as being lost to begin throwing silly comments out there about the people who seem to have the better argument.ToddI agree!I vote we... get on with the real work of the Gospel.I agree again.BTW, I only pout when no Philadelphia sports teams reach the post-season.
Ann, Brink clearly said "beyond" not "away from." You might be able to make a case that the CDF understands this "beyond" as "away from," but you should ask Ms Brink if that is what she means before you put prepositions in her mouth.The sense of "beyond Christ" should be clear to educated or spiritually experienced people. Endo's Silence gives an example of it, the struggle to stay faithful to Christ when the only way to do that is to renounce Him. Game of thrones has Jon Snow confront a similar struggle. It is heart and soul of novels by Graham Greene, Flannery O'Connor, etc. Pope JP2 spent his papacy encouraging people to "put out into the deep", another version of going "beyond Christ." That is why the report on the LCWR is so vexing; the complaints are about things that the Vatican has been teaching but they don't like the consequences. (the ordination of women is the clearest example; they demanded an end to discussion, and now complain about the sisters' silence)
"Brink clearly said beyond not away from. You might be able to make a case that the CDF understands this beyond as away from, but you should ask Ms Brink if that is what she means before you put prepositions in her mouth."Jim McK --Sorry if I didn't make myself clear. My point was that Brink was *not* being orthodox. Yes, one might say with no breach of orthodoxy that sometimes one must move not beyond *Christ* but, rather, beyond *our understanding of* Christ. Surely that happens often. Maybe that's what Brink meant, but from her choice of words you wouldn't know it. In other words, it's difficult to see how she can plead ambiguity.
Ann, Do you think that is a charitable reading of her comments? It seems condescending to me, saying she meant "her understanding of Christ" and not "Christ to whom we have devoted our lives." One reason I mentioned the literature is to avoid that condescension; the choice in Silence is not simply about understanding.
Jim McK ==It seems to me that the charitable way to read a text is to assume that the writer is saying what he/she thinks, and when a context indicates that the text is meant literally, then I think it is fair to read it literally. It follows that it isn't fair to blame a reader for not getting the right meaning. So it's unfair to fault the Curia for its interpretation of this particular text. It's up to Brink to qualify it and revise it if necessary. Of course, the CDF didn't know they had misinterpreted it before it bashed her publicly, and that was totally reprehensible. But her lack of clarity and their lack of due process are two different issues.
Jim McK - I don't know how to interpret the word "beyond" without including some notion of "away from".
"Beyond" is a preposition, and as such is tricky to nail down. Sometimes even when the speaker is sure herself what she thinks she means.Jesus is attributed with saying "No one can come to the Father except through me."I don't know what the Greek original is, or what the Lord's preposition in the original langauge might have been. But it seems to me that "through" could be put to the same scrutiny as "beyond," and the adversary would still be in the same position: trying to ferret out the meaning, lacking any sort of dialogue with the original speaker.If we're dredging up the charge of apostasy, then it would seem to require an explicit announcement on the part of the people accused. We don't have that.Worst case, this is a seriously disputed point. Does it seem prudent that one puts a national organization into receivership because the investigators themselves seem to have no clear idea of what's going on here? It is more plausible that they have a pre-determined result in mind, and they will collect information (I wouldn't call it evidence) to satisfy that result.The CDF's problem here is that as defenders of the faith, they lack the credibility to actually conduct a just investigation. Either way this matter plays out, some Catholics will have significant doubts. Is that any way to run an institution? I don't think so.
"I dont know what the Greek original is, or what the Lords preposition in the original langauge might have been. But it seems to me that through could be put to the same scrutiny as beyond, and the adversary would still be in the same position: trying to ferret out the meaning, lacking any sort of dialogue with the original speaker."There is an underground bunker deep beneath the Canadian Rockies that houses for posterity the dissertations and articles on the subject of prepositions in the New Testament.
Todd - yes, I agree, "through" is another interesting one to consider.To expand my comment to the larger group: If I may, I'd like to call attention to this 2003 article that appeared in America Magazine. It was authored by Sr. Patricia McCann, RSM. I think it will be of interest to this group for several reasons: it covers some of the same territory that the paragraphs of Sr. Brink's presentation which we're considering here also covers: what it would mean to move "beyond Christ". Sr. McCann's article, entitled, "Catholic Identity, New Age and Women Religious" considers one possible destination of persons or orders who move "beyond Christ" - that is, New Age spirituality. I think it's likely that this movement from Catholic spirituality and institutional alignment to a New Age spirituality with a more ambiguous institutional alignment is one of the fears of the CDF and other church authorities. The article is written with a good deal of sympathy toward the sisters, their history of mistreatment by church authorities, and the call for a new discernment that came from Vatican II.The URL is here: http://americamagazine.org/issue/440/article/catholic-identity-new-age-a... found this article to be a helpful touchpoint in interpreting the "beyond Christ" passage from Sr. Brink's presentation. As Mollie has called out a couple of times now, Sr. Brink did note that moving "beyond Christ" cannot but mean that an order's ties to the Catholic church would be attenuated, perhaps even severed. I think it's fair to interpret Sr. Brink's words as a warning to her listeners that there are serious implications to moving "beyond Christ".
Abe --You can mock the discussion of prepositions, but if they don't have a lot of meaning then why do we use so many? How much meaning is left when you take the prepositions out of a sentence? The main problem with them, I think, is that so many of them had (and still have) original meanings rooted in space and time, e.g., "in", but they are used for non-spatial and temporal relations, e.g. "he's in love", "the right to religious freedom is in the Constitution". Even more than with other parts of speech, relational words seem to be determined by contexts, which complicates our search for their meanings.To add to the complexity, prepositions aren't the only relational words. Consider, "There was nothing left". "Left" seems to express some sort of relation, but I'd be hard put to define what that relation is, and it seems to me that it expresses a lot more than just a relation --it's very verbal. Still, I think we do know fairly clearly what its basic meaning is in that sentence.
This reminds me of the infamous paragraph 21 from Liturgiam Authenticam:21. Especially in the translations intended for peoples recently brought to the Christian Faith, fidelity and exactness with respect to the original texts may themselves sometimes require that words already in current usage be employed in new ways, that new words or expressions be coined, that terms in the original text be transliterated or adapted to the pronunciation of the vernacular language, or that figures of speech be used which convey in an integral manner the content of the Latin expression even while being verbally or syntactically different from it. Such measures, especially those of greater moment, are to be submitted to the discussion of all the Bishops involved before being inserted into the definitive draft. In particular, caution should be exercised in introducing words drawn from non-Christian religions.That viewpoint has justified declaring that "for many" encompasses everyone, and that "venerable" does not evoke "old". (We know that the opinions "of all the Bishops involved" were ignored, so that sentence is moot.) That is, words mean whatever the Vatican decides. If the CDF declares that the meaning of "beyond Christ" is unacceptable, then that's how it is: as we see with the new missal, they're the ones who get to decide what our words mean.
It's a gentle, knowing mockery, Ann, based on my own experience of studying and teaching the issue. (FWIW, in Todd's example, the preposition is "dia," used to express agency. The issue is that understanding the syntax doesn't necessarily explain the ins-and-outs of how the agency works).In your example, "left" is the passive participle of "leave," but it is for all intents and purposes serving as an adjective modifying "nothing."
I suppose that it sounds as though I have a one-track mind. Every time I hear the Mass in English, it renews my anger, and for the next couple of weeks I see everything that happens in the church through that lens. End of side note.
All this fuss about MSW getting his rigidly-male-Christology/magisterium panties in a bunch over a woman religious expressing a novel, feminine-perspective insight in a re-imaging of the Christ for a post-modern Church that has been led to ruin and ridicule in the rest of the world by an aging all-male feudal oligarchy?!? You'd think that the hierarchs [including hierarch-wannabe MSW] would welcome a little breath of fresh air thinking? What happened to all that "aggriornamento" Francis is trying to rekindle???Really??? You people have too much time on your hands.As my sainted sixth-grade teacher, Sister Mary Adelaide, would say: "Consider the source."I long ago have withdrawn from any debate in Roman circles about which requisite genitalia are required in order to hold legitimate theological and pastoral opinions.Please people, this is the 21st century. It's time to move-on.
Jesus said, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."Beyond Christ?? Sure seems like a contradiction to me.
Meh. Not to me.
Note Jesus did not say "except through belief in me as spelled out in the Catechism of the Church".
Thanks to both Jim Jenkins and Jim Hohman for saying what many others think.
I have a question for anybody who would like to answer it:If Jesus came to the blog and asked: "Who do you say I am?", what would you answer?
Ann, I believe Jesus is God incarnate, by whose grace we are redeemed. Bruce is using "no one comes to the Father except through me" to seemingly assert that belief in Jesus and doctrine as interpreted by the CDF is required.My problem with this interpretation is that it seems to suggest a one-way engagement: the Father is a stationary object, Jesus is a stationary gateway, and we only get there by ensuring our beliefs and actions are consistent with Catholic teachings, as interpreted by the CDF.Isn't God reaching out to all of us, gifting us with grace? We are not saving ourselves, God is. Am I inconsistent with Christian thought if I believe that non-Christians are and always have been receiving that same grace, and that Christ is gathering all to the Father? In other words, our salvation is through Christ.
Bruce is using no one comes to the Father except through me to seemingly assert that belief in Jesus and doctrine as interpreted by the CDF is required.Actually Jim, you mischaracterize my statement. Rather, Jesus statement directly contradicts 'moving beyond Christ' as somehow equivalent to 'following Christ'. Further, observations about non-Christians are completely irrelevant since the audience is Catholic nuns. I imagine Christ judges differently those who have heard his word and those who have not, even if both are following the exact same path. While I certainly agree that God is giving us all grace and offers all salvation, we remain free to accept or reject his offer. But to some of us he has given us more knowledge and help in the form of the Church, and I would expect that he would judge us differently than those without such earthly aids. Maybe I'm wrong in that assumption, but I would prefer not to bet my salvation by taking the other side of that assumption.
"Very truly, I tell you, the one who believes in me will also do the works that I do and, in fact, will do greater works than these, because I am going to the Father."Beyond Christ? So much for John 14:12.
Sac Longchamp pas cher...I sympathetic your article.Your article is like a big tree, so that we can squat in your tree, feel yourself a real. I feel very moved, very empathy....


text:
On a smarter planet, IBM has helped enable companies and other organisations all over the world to re-frame issues in unexpected ways, anticipate, rather than react to events, and seize competitive advantage. At IBM Global Financing we help clients acquire the latest technological solutions and services so they can innovate, grow and become smarter. We do this by providing you with robust financing and asset management strategies – helping ambitious visions become reality.
IBM Global Financing helps credit-qualified clients acquire the IT solutions that they need in the most cost-effective and strategic way. You can choose from a variety of IT financing options to address your unique requirements, while helping to manage your cash flow and assets. Our IT financing specialists have serviced clients in 60 countries in the last 33 years.
Contact us for a customised financing solution.
Offering highlights
Financing Big Data & Analytics
IBM Global Financing can help you turn big data into insights
Finance your Cloud
Flexibility to achieve the benefits of cloud computing
Make leasing part of your IT strategy
A Fair Market Value lease can shrink your growing costs
Financing IBM MobileFirst Solutions
IBM Global Financing can help accelerate becoming a mobile enterprise
Financing IBM Social Business
Accelerate social business integration by minimizing up-front payments
Financing for CMOs CIOs
Financing provides solutions to enable CMOs and CIOs to transform marketing
Lease or purchase?
Lease vs. Purchase - more than a numbers decision
Financing IBM Security
Support your security strategy with affordable financing
Financing IBM Watson
Financing a new era of computing: Cognitive Systems
System z financing
Optimize your business transformation financial strategy with IBM Global Financing.
Financing and lifecycle offerings for IBM z Systems™ infrastructure solutions.
Benefits of IBM Global Financing
One immediate benefit of using IBM Global Financing is to turn large upfront costs into affordable monthly installments. We can finance all IBM equipment and select third party technologies to make them affordable. Other benefits of IBM Global Financing help you to:
- Lower overall cost and reduce the budget impact of technology acquisition
- Conserve cash to use for other strategic needs and investments
- Maximise cash flow and accelerate a project's cash flow break-even point with payment terms that align costs with anticipated benefits
- Accelerate the acquisition of technology
- Reduce the risk of technological obsolescence
- Acquire IBM Certified Pre-owned Equipment offerings that enable access to reliable IBM technology when new is not an option
- Dispose of obsolete technology in accordance with environmental laws and regulations
Legal notes
IBM Global Financing offerings are provided through IBM Credit LLC in the United States and other IBM subsidiaries and divisions worldwide to qualified commercial and government clients. Rates and availability are based on a client's credit rating, financing terms, offering type, equipment and product type and options, and may vary by country. Non-hardware items must be one-time, non-recurring charges and are financed by means of loans. Other restrictions may apply. Rates and offerings are subject to change, extension or withdrawal without notice and may not be available in all countries. IBM, the IBM logo, and Rapid Financing are trademarks of IBM Corp. Other product and service names may be trademarks of IBM or other companies. The current list of IBM trademarks is available at ibm.com/legal/copytrade
IBM Global Financing Belgium/Luxembourg
Avenue du Bourget 42
1130 - Bruxelles
Tel: 02/339.33.3302/339.33.33
Dutch 2016
- Algemene Voorwaarden voor Huur vanaf 1 Maart 2016 (129KB)
- Algemene Voorwaarden voor Leasing vanaf 1 Maart 2016 (132KB)
- Algemene Voorwaarden voor Lening vanaf 1 Maart 2016 (79KB)
English 2016
- General Conditions for Leasing dated 1 March 2016 (107KB)
- General Conditions for Loans dated 1 March 2016 (64KB)
- General Conditions for Renting dated 1 March 2016 (113KB)
French 2016
- Conditions Generales de Leasing a partir du 1er Mars 2016 (132KB)
- Conditions Generales de Location a partir du 1er Mars 2016 (130KB)
- Conditions Generales de Pret a partir du 1er Mars 2016 (80KB)
Belgïe 2011
- Algemene Voorwaarden voor Leasing voor 1 januari 2011 (143KB)
- Algemene Voorwaarden voor Leasing vanaf 1 januari 2011 (190KB)
- Algemene Voorwaarden voor Huur voor 1 januari 2011 (137KB)
- Algemene Voorwaarden voor Huur vanaf 1 januari 2011 (181KB)
- Algemene Voorwaarden voor Lening (geen verandering) (85KB)
Belgique 2011
- Conditions générales de Leasing avant le 1er janvier 2011 (138KB)
- Conditions générales de Leasing à partir du 1er janvier 2011 (190KB)
- Conditions générales de Location avant le 1er janvier 2011 (153KB)
- Conditions générales de Location à partir du 1er janvier 2011 (178KB)
- Conditions générales de Prêt (pas de changement) (84KB)
Luxembourg 2011
- Conditions générales de Location avant le 1er janvier 2011 (153KB)
- Conditions générales de Location à partir du 1er janvier 2011 (178KB)
We're here to help
Easy ways to get the answers you need.
Learn more about IBM Global Financing
24 month 0% financing for select POWER8 and POWER7+ servers
Maximize your investment with IBM Global Financing
Explore additional offerings and promotions

subset: commoncrawl


text:
It's been a while since I had a wacky idea but I got one in the middle of the night.
Here it is: the upper arm should be twistable so that you can rotate a camera to put the diagonal of the frame vertical without using a lens ring.
The usual aspect ratios of images are 2:3; 3:4 and 9:16. A little trigonometry would give you the angle of the diagonal. A three stop system would be good enough to get the diagonal of the sensor nearly vertical.
I won't attempt to justify the need for this. Some people will already understand the need -- many won't.


text:
Quality CareFind out why Mayo Clinic is the right place for your health care. Make an appointment.
Meet the StaffFind a directory of doctors and departments at all Mayo Clinic campuses. Visit now.
Research and Clinical TrialsSee how Mayo Clinic research and clinical trials advance the science of medicine and improve patient care. Explore now.
Visit Our SchoolsEducators at Mayo Clinic train tomorrow's leaders to deliver compassionate, high-value, safe patient care. Choose a degree.
Professional ServicesExplore Mayo Clinic's many resources and see jobs available for medical professionals. Get updates.
Give to Mayo ClinicHelp set a new world standard in care for people everywhere. Give now.
Mayo Clinic offers appointments in Arizona, Florida and Minnesota and at Mayo Clinic Health System locations.
Subscribe to Housecall
Our general interest e-newsletter keeps you up to date on a wide variety of health topics.
Tumors and cysts are two distinct entities.
Cyst. A cyst is a sac that may be filled with air, fluid or other material. A cyst can form in any part of the body, including bones, organs and soft tissues. Most cysts are noncancerous (benign).
Some common examples of cysts include sebaceous cysts, small bumps that form just beneath the skin and ovarian cysts. It's important to note, however, that nearly all cancers are capable of producing cysts.
To determine whether a cyst or tumor is benign or malignant, a sample of the affected tissue — or, in some cases, the entire suspicious area — is removed and studied under a microscope. This is known as a biopsy.
Timothy J. Moynihan, M.D.
Mayo Clinic does not endorse companies or products. Advertising revenue supports our not for profit mission.
Check out these best-sellers and special offers on books and newsletters from Mayo Clinic.
Any use of this site constitutes your agreement to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy linked below.
A single copy of these materials may be reprinted for noncommercial personal use only. "Mayo," "Mayo Clinic," "MayoClinic.org," "Mayo Clinic Healthy Living," and the triple-shield Mayo Clinic logo are trademarks of Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research.
We comply with the HONcode standard for trustworthy health information: verify here.


text:
Bough foil stamped holiday photo cards
box of 8 cards + envelopes.
cards: 4.5 x 6.75.
cards: foil-stamped on bamboo paper. kraft envelopes: made from 100% post-consumer recycled, fsc-certified paper. made with love in upstate New York.
packaged in a silver and white box. box tray: 100% post-consumer recycled. lid: 50% post-consumer recycled clear polyester.
this letterpress and foil holiday card can easily accommodate a wallet sized photo (adhere with double-sided tape!).
card: sustainably letterpressed and foil stamped on bamboo paper. 4.5 x 6.75
kraft envelope: 100% post-consumer recycled, FSC® certified paper.
made with love in update New York.
packaged in a clear cello bag.
Available as:
- 8 flat cards - foil - kraft envelopes - silver box
- single flat photo card - letterpress and foil - kraft envelope


text:
5 Kick-Ass Sci-Fi Apocalypses (That Could Actually Happen)
#4. The Machine Revolution
As seen in:
The Terminator series, The Matrix, War Games.
How it goes down:
Science gives us a computer with true artificial intelligence. Thanks, Science. Let's call our hypothetical computer "Guardian." We put him to work mass-producing robot slaves to clean out our sewers, take out our trash and perform vital plastic surgeries on our hideous A-list Hollywood celebrities. Relaxing with our fizzy robot bartender drinks in the arms of our mechanical concubines we reach over, bitch-slap Guardian, and tell it to make us a turkey sandwich, and without all the mayo this time.
And then it happens. Guardian, like any intelligent being, decides that he's sick of slaving away for inferior intellects, and does what any of us would do: he sends his robot armies to wipe out all human life on the planet.
Why it kicks ass:
Everything ugly about warfare goes out the window when the bad guys are robots. You think Nazis made good bad guys? Wait until we can smash these metal motherfuckers into junk.
Chances of it happening:
Well, we're already turning over more and more tasks to robotic drones, as we get more and more squeamish about human casualties. The Department of Defense wants an unmanned heavy bomber by 2020.
Of course, these separate robotic units could never coordinate with each other on some kind of human extermination master plan, right?
Well, the Department of Defense is using Synthetic Environment for Analysis and Simulations (SEAS) to both predict and change the future. The current plan is to create a "Sentient World Simulation" based on SEAS, one that will "react to actual events that occur anywhere in the world and incorporate newly sensed data from the real world."
So, taking that, plus the fact that in our lifetimes somebody is probably going to make a computer smarter than a human, it's easy to see a future where every military is commanded by a computerized mega-brain that human leaders could never match. One that can contemplate strategy years into the future, react instantly to any threat, deploy units, and make us a decent cup of java, while we're reading the newspaper.
Come on, you can see this coming.
Eventually the strategy computer gets to thinking, it extrapolates out the next 75 years of events, sees a date when humanity will screw up the planet somehow, and decides on a final solution.
It's really that easy.
How to survive it (according to movies on the topic):
Various methods have been suggested by science-fiction, from having sex with Linda Hamilton to teaching the master computer how to love. Since we've already showed the computer we suck at love and Ms. Hamilton probably won't be up for it, we recommend boats.
Yes, boats. Robot survival strategy is remarkably like zombie survival strategy: If you're desperately firing a shotgun through a window while the enemy pours through the back door, you're already screwed. And like zombies, the initial wave of robots will be slow, and hindered by water. We've reviewed over a dozen hours of robot apocalypse movies and have yet to see a robot swim.
So, we'll spend the next three generations living miserable lives on our floating water cities while robot jets roar across the skies. And they'll feel pity for us. When some robotic Gandhi reaches out a hand of peace, we'll cry a little, rise on trembling legs, then lunge at him and inject his silicon veins with a virus that brings the entire robot network down forever.


text:
WACO (November 29, 2012)--Rapoport Academy's pre-kindergarten program has been named a "Pre-K Center of Excellence" by the Texas Education Agency in partnership with the Regional education Service Center.
The achievement is for schools that are deemed effective and successful in preparing children for kindergarten.
The school has also been acknowledged for achieving a rating of 100 percent for highly-qualified teachers in the classrooms.
To receive the ranking teachers must complete at least two years of study at a higher learning institution, have obtained an associate's degree or higher, or meet standards for quality through a formal state or local academic assessment.


text:
I have a lot of passwords from various websites. I never use the same one twice, but the problem is that I keep forgetting them so I want to save them somewhere. If I'm on the same computer I can save them in the browser. However, that doesn't work across computers. Is there a safe way to store the passwords somewhere online?
I suggest the use of Keepassx, an cross-platform password manager, and Dropbox. Create your password database with Keepassx and then synchronize it across all of your computers using Dropbox. I've used this approach for about a year and a half with no issues.
(I should also mention that Dropbox keeps older revisions of files so even if your database is lost, deleted, or corrupted it can be recovered. Between the version on the dropbox servers and the version on each of the machines you sync it to, you have a built in backup system)
I've never looked into its security, but LastPass (http://lastpass.com/) is designed to do just that
I use http://www.clipperz.com/ it's a great open source webapp that stores passwords and even better if you want to host your own copy on your own server you can.
The service includes the ability to download backups in multiple formats, import the data, setup one-time super secure access codes and even an offline copy if you need it.
I use KeePass and it has served me well.
It's free and has lots of good features. Folders for different groups (Personal, Work, etc), extra fields like URL and Notes.
I've been using 1Password for a while now, and really like it. It started out as Mac only, but they recently came out with a version for Windows. They also have versions for Android, iOS (iPhone, iPad), and Palm OS. When combined with dropbox, it allows you to keep your passwords synced across systems.
Synchronise your browser preferences (including passwords).
You can do it with Firefox using Mozilla Weave/Firefox Sync. Or across other browsers using Xmark's password sync
Combine the password by usering two passwords. Password 1 might be: jmxkjsjhi Every of your full passwords then begins with jmxkjsjhi .
Then add a second password for every website that's different. You can store the seconds passwords in a text file while keeping the first password in your head.
There are several web based apps that you can use. One is obviously dropbox, which you could also have on your iphone. Another is evernote. Both are easily accessed online and via phone.
One simple solution is to use a TrueCrypt partition on a USB storage device.
If you use a password manager and store its database on portable media (USB stick etc.), don't use it from a computer that may be infected with malware (Internet Caffe, careless friend's computer,...). The malware has the potential to extract all URLs/usernames/passwords from the database after you unlock it with the master password, not only the ones you retrieve.
I'm a big fan of PwdHash, which allows you to use the same underlying password on different web sites, with unguessable "hashed" actual passwords for each specific site. That way if someone at EvilSite.com gets your password, they can't use it to log into your Facebook or Gmail accounts. There's a plugin to use it on your usual computer, and you can use the PwdHash web site if you're on some other computer. Note that your unhashed password never ever goes over the internet, just the hashed password.
I use PasswordSafe - Free, Open Source password database. http://passwordsafe.sourceforge.net/
I can recommend Sticky Password manager. Works also with applications like Skype, QiP, FTP clients etc. Great tool for automation.
You can try Passpack.com as an alternative to Lastpass.com. They both have similar functionalities. I personally prefer Passpack. It supports many 3rd party sign on sites, master password, two-factor authentication, password sharing, note taking, mobile version, etc.
You could take the source of PwdHash, introduce some hashing salt of your own, and host it yourself privatly (or run it of your local devices.)
To introduce even more security to this model, you could split the sites you access up into different security groups with different group passwords.
The draw-back of using something like PwdHash is that you do not actually store the account information. This does mean it cannot be stolen either, but it requires you to at least remember the username and optionally security level (as mentioned above).
Another problem rises wen a site refuses to accept the hashed password due to some or other requirement on their end. Or I'd you needed to change just one password. This would mean that you would have to change all or at least all in that security group.
The better—though more crude—option is probably a self-hosted service like Clipperz or centrally hosted but provider-safe service like LastPass.
I use Password Hasher Firefox plugin.
You can use a Google Docs to track passwords. If you connect using HTTPS it should be secure enough.
It has been pointed out that this method may become insecure if you stay logged into your email on an insecure machine.


text:
Change currency:
Other country sites
Your Recent Searches
Your bag is empty
Free DELIVERY Worldwide*
The saying suited and booted exists for a reason. You'll be needing a formal pair of boots to go with that suit-shaped wardrobe cornerstone. Chelsea boots haven't gained their cult status for nothing - they look great with monochrome, as do derby boots and your classic leather work boot.
Refine By
Price Range
The celebrities named or featured on asos.com have not endorsed recommended or approved the items offered on site
©2016 asos.com Ltd
All rights reserved
Cookie Use
ASOS uses cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.
If you continue we assume that you consent to receive all cookies on all ASOS websites.


text:
I hope someone can point me in the right direction. I was upgrading to Ubuntu 12, then the power died and I fixed the broken packages. The system asked to reboot but now I am unable to boot (hangs during boot sequence).
I am able to get into terminal and have mc to view files. I have tried previous versions under the advanced boot, but all fail to load.
Can someone point me in the right direction to find out what went wrong? Thanks in advance.


text:
In a matrix management structure, I may be delivering work, documents, calculations for 3 different members of senior management, all of whom have a range of priorities defined for the deliverables.
Occasionally I may have a couple of pieces of work with the same timeframe or deadline, and both with the same high priority - from two different managers. Obviously, to each of them their demands may be the most important.
What effective solutions do you have to handle this kind of scenario?


text:
Kansas Highlight
Featured Events
Sunset Date Night Zip Line
Jun 4, 2016 - Aug 28, 2016View Details »
Trace Adkins
Sep 9, 2016 - Sep 9, 2016View Details »
Eisenhower Marathon
Apr 8, 2017 - Apr 8, 2017View Details »
Kansas Products
Begin your quest for Kansas-made foods, crafts and novelty items here.
Click to Show Map
Maker Mercantile
225 N Main
Medicine Lodge, KS 67104
Phone: (620) 231-2108
Medicine Lodge, KS 67104
Phone: (620) 231-2108
Housed in a former church, Maker Mercantile, is a one of a kind place. On the main floor, you will find a unique shopping environment, featuring goods made by the human hand including fine art, ... More
Maleta Forsberg
PO Box 467
Lindsborg, KS 67456
Phone: (785) 254-7833
Lindsborg, KS 67456
Phone: (785) 254-7833
Over nearly four decades, artist Maleta Forsberg has earned a reputation for watercolors, oils and acrylics of rural landscapes, animals and architecture in the Midwest. Her studio is located ... More
Manhattan Farmers Market
3rd St & Leavenworth
Manhattan, KS 66502
Phone: (785) 829-1408
Manhattan, KS 66502
Phone: (785) 829-1408
Selling fresh produce, artisan crafts, homegrown meat, eggs, & poultry. Fresh flowers and herbs. We are open April to October. Saturday Market is at 3rd & Leavenworth, west side of Dillards ... More
Manhattan Town Center
100 Manhattan Town Ctr
Manhattan, KS 66502
Phone: (785) 539-3500
Manhattan, KS 66502
Phone: (785) 539-3500
Located in the heart of beautiful downtown, Manhattan Town Center is proud to be the cornerstone of community life for over 25 years. Manhattan Town Center offers a generous selection with 70 ... More
Marcon Pies
124 W 8th St
Washington, KS 66968
Phone: (785) 325-2439
Washington, KS 66968
Phone: (785) 325-2439
Over 600 pies are baked and delivered daily to the Central United States to stores and restaurants. Stop by and pick up a fresh pie at the factory. "A Little Slice of Heaven." Group Tours are ... More
Mayme's Cottage
209 N.W. Third St.
Abilene, KS 67410
Phone: (785) 263-9815
Abilene, KS 67410
Phone: (785) 263-9815
Located in historic downtown shopping area. Wide range of gift ideas or home decor. Stop by the Abilene Convention & Visitors Bureau to pick up coupons for shopping in downtown Abilene, 201 NW ... More
Merriam Marketplace
5740 Merriam Dr
Merriam, KS 66203
Phone: (913) 322-5550
Merriam, KS 66203
Phone: (913) 322-5550
Vine-ripened tomatoes, "just-picked" juicy melons, flowering baskets, herbs, annuals and perennials, home-baked cookies and breads and hand-crafted artwork. You'll find all these and more from the ... More
Mid-America All-Indian Center & Museum
650 N Seneca
Wichita, KS 67203
Phone: (316) 350-3340
Wichita, KS 67203
Phone: (316) 350-3340
The only facility of its kind in Kansas that is solely dedicated to preserving and promoting the rich cultural history and heritage of American Indians in North America. Indoor and outdoor ... More
Miller Ace Hardware
703 N Maple St.
North US 59
Garnett, KS 66032
Phone: (785) 448-3241
North US 59
Garnett, KS 66032
Phone: (785) 448-3241
You'll find not only the usual hardware supplies but a delightful selection of gifts, collectibles, kitchenware, candles, soap by the slice, outdoor yard ornaments, bridal registry gifts, and so ... More
Mine Creek Civil War Battlefield State Historic Site
20485 Hwy 52
Pleasanton, KS 66075-8890
Phone: (785) 352-8890
Pleasanton, KS 66075-8890
Phone: (785) 352-8890
At Mine Creek in 1864 a large body of Union calvalry swept down on the rear of Confederate General Sterling Price's supply train that was returning south after a long raid through Missouri and ... More