The Parts of the Body and their Callings or Purposes

[Joshua Paul]

Has anyone else seen this article?

I'm particularly concerned with this paragraph:

“I’m stunned,” said Sister Simone Campbell, executive director of Network, a Catholic social justice lobby founded by sisters. Her group was also cited in the Vatican document, along with the Leadership Conference, for focusing its work too much on poverty and economic injustice, while keeping “silent” on abortion and same-sex marriage.

I don't like that the Church would ever say that an organization focuses "too much" on poverty and economic injustice. If the people in that organization are called to serve in that capacity, who can tell them that they spend too much time doing that?

Thoughts?

[Jim Chabot]

Sounds like a red herring to me. It appears that this group has been pushing beyond what is considered settled doctrine. They got their hand slapped and they have been given time to clean up their act.

[Meghan Schoonover]

Interesting. I don't disagree when people challenge established doctrine (hey, I was raised Lutheran!), but it is surprising to me that the nuns would be surprised that the Vatican would be unhappy with them pushing the boundaries (i.e., with regards to male-only priesthood, etc). I mean, that's one of the huge strengths of the RC Church, in my opinion - unity - even if it's "forced" unity. Especially when they have a more conservative leader in charge right now. Hmmm.

[Jim Franklin]

Could be that the Vatican considers their focus to be so much more on the needy than on Christ and/or the vicar of Christ to the detriment to the authoriatarianism of the RC guidelines or agenda and therefore is a violation of some sort?

[Benjamin Burch]

Could be that the Vatican considers their focus to be so much more on the needy than on Christ and/or the vicar of Christ to the detriment to the authoriatarianism of the RC guidelines or agenda and therefore is a violation of some sort?

Jim, this makes no sense, dude.

[Meghan Schoonover]

I think Jim's saying that perhaps the Vatican is saying, "Put those women back in their place!" (i.e., focusing more on asceticism or whatnot rather than "good deeds").

[Jim Chabot]

Could be that the Vatican considers their focus to be so much more on the needy than on Christ and/or the vicar of Christ to the detriment to the authoriatarianism of the RC guidelines or agenda and therefore is a violation of some sort?

Yes this may be part of it. It appears that this group has been rather outspoken regarding things that have been settled in Rome. It's been said that this group has some "serious doctrinal problems" specifically;

members of the group, the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, had challenged church teaching on homosexuality and the male-only priesthood, and promoted “radical feminist themes incompatible with the Catholic faith.”

The sisters were also reprimanded for making public statements that “disagree with or challenge the bishops, who are the church’s authentic teachers of faith and morals.” During the debate over the health care overhaul in 2010, American bishops came out in opposition to the health plan, but dozens of sisters, many of whom belong to the Leadership Conference, signed a statement supporting it

As they would say on the peoples court............This is a case of getting too big for ones britches. Almost the same as if we had a group of Pastors or Professors postulating Nazarene Calvinism. I'm thinking that somebody up high would be moving to straighten them out or pack their bags for them.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Yes this may be part of it. It appears that this group has been rather outspoken regarding things that have been settled in Rome. It's been said that this group has some "serious doctrinal problems" specifically;



As they would say on the peoples court............This is a case of getting too big for ones britches. Almost the same as if we had a group of Pastors or Professors postulating Nazarene Calvinism. I'm thinking that somebody up high would be moving to straighten them out or pack their bags for them.

Interesting because it seems we do have a group, of lay people, doing just this.

[Jim Chabot]

Interesting because it seems we do have a group, of lay people, doing just this.

Maybe, then again maybe not. The Vatican is pretty clear on this "settled doctrine" while we aren't even close to clear as evidenced by the multitude of opinions. Hopefully we will hear from on high and decide at the GA, and perhaps settle some things. And they aren't all lay people.

[Dan Henderson]

Interesting because it seems we do have a group, of lay people, doing just this.

Not just lay people ...

[Todd Erickson]

The current pope is taking some very weird stances because Orthodoxy seems to be more important to him than Kingdom. Unlike his predecessor, who weighed very much in the other direction.

[Benjamin Burch]

The current pope is taking some very weird stances because Orthodoxy seems to be more important to him than Kingdom. Unlike his predecessor, who weighed very much in the other direction.

Joseph Ratzinger was known to be a conservative before his election. I'm not sure this should be a big surprise.

John Paul II was much more of a "liberal" if you will than Benedict XVI.
Currently, Bartholomew I is similar to John Paul in this regard in the East.

It is not all that surprising that ecumenical dialogues with the RCC have stalled since John Paul II's passing, and only gained steam in Benedict's local Germany, while in the Orthodox Church, ecumenical dialogue is at its most fruitful in their history.

I love Benedict as a theologian but, as an ecumenical patriarch, I'm not super impressed thus far.

[Jim Franklin]

Ben, just maybe you should not access my posts so that you won't feel that you are having some kind of an attack when you can't or won't understand my comments. I was trying to suggest a possible rational for the issue presented or would you rather I just absolve myself of any further connection with NazNet or do you just like knocking the old guys around. My post was just in the manner of speculation.

[Dan Henderson]

For Hans and others who wanted our GS to make a statement:

http://nazarene.org/files/docs/We%20...2004_2012.html

[Hans Deventer]

For Hans and others who wanted our GS to make a statement:

http://nazarene.org/files/docs/We%20...2004_2012.html

Good explanation, doesn't support the full inerrancy that is demanded by some.

[David Graham]

Sounds like a red herring to me. It appears that this group has been pushing beyond what is considered settled doctrine. They got their hand slapped and they have been given time to clean up their act.

Another good reminder as to why I am not part of an "Authoritarian Christian Organisation". Church Govenance is one area where I am Reformed, where freedom of conscience is allowed and power is divested in the many rather than the few.

[Jim Chabot]

Ben, just maybe you should not access my posts so that you won't feel that you are having some kind of an attack when you can't or won't understand my comments. I was trying to suggest a possible rational for the issue presented or would you rather I just absolve myself of any further connection with NazNet or do you just like knocking the old guys around. My post was just in the manner of speculation.

Stick around Mr. Franklin, you are loved and appreciated here. Ben is still very young, he needs time to develop a sense of compassion and respect for his elders. I think that it will come, we need to be patient.

[Jim Chabot]

Another good reminder as to why I am not part of an "Authoritarian Christian Organisation". Church Govenance is one area where I am Reformed, where freedom of conscience is allowed and power is divested in the many rather than the few.

Amen! Same here, the reformers did the church a great service as they forced the issue whereby we follow God rather than men. On the same token I defend the Catholic's right to authoritarian control, folks who don't like it shouldn't be Catholic. After all there are plenty of options, the authority of the pope ends at their denominational doorstep.

Over the last few weeks I've been developing a thought regarding unity and ecumenicism. The discussions on unity and the tracing of our roots always back to the Catholic church and the silly insistence that we aren't really protestants and all that. I've been thinking more and more that the diversity in doctrine and denominations are quite possibly by design. I've been thinking that the Temple system has similarities to the Tower of Babel. Man had gotten a swelled head to the point where man determined that he was the mouthpiece of God himself. Man became the intermediary, or so he thought. And just maybe, God decided to confuse our theological languages, thus no one speaks for God. God speaks to us individually, unity regarding the organized church is neither desired or possible. Rather what is important is the catholic spirit, as we worship separately while loving and appreciating each other?