Sandra Schneiders on religious life
by Richard McBrien on Mar. 16, 2010
http://ncronline.org/blogs/essays-theology/sandra-schneiders-religious-life
"Sandra Schneiders is a Sister of the Immaculate Heart of Mary (known to many as the "IHMs") and professor of New Testament Studies and Christian Spirituality at the Jesuit School of Theology of Santa Clara University, in Berkeley, California.
The current struggle between some in the Vatican and the overwhelming majority of religious communities of women is really a power struggle between those who favor the renewal and reforms promoted by the Second Vatican Council and those who do not. Women's Religious Life is "being used as a symbolic scapegoat" in this confrontation. "....
"Sisters are a particularly important target because of their sheer numbers and influence. They are also "the largest, best organized, most geographically ubiquitous, most ministerially diversified, and therefore probably most effective promoters of the vision of Vatican II."
Living Gospel Inclusivity and Empowerment Now
Bridget Mary,
ReplyDeleteIf you have read the Vatican II documents, I respectfully ask you to produce the following citations:
1) Where does Vatican II call for the ordination of women?
2) Where does Vatican II tell us we may ignore clear and direct Church teaching in favor of our Conscience?
3) Where does Vatican II give us permission to disobey our leaders?
4) Where does Vatican II call for Liturgical Dance in the Liturgy of the Church?
5) Where did Vatican II undo, reverse, or otherwise change what came before?
6) Where did Vatican II call for women religious to loose the habit, loose living life in a community, and live as though they are an average single lay person in an apartment?
Perhaps we can start there.
Just a few minor points here.
ReplyDeletePrimacy of conscience is a very old teaching of the Church. Aquinas explained it well 800 years ago.
Where is Liturgical Dance NOT permitted -- per the Documents? Meanwhile, WHY is liturgical dance permitted in some countries and some cultures but is not directly permitted in much of the USA?
Where is it written anywhere that nuns must wear habits? Recall that most habits started out as the common dress of the day. They were later modified.
Keep in mind that most women's religious orders have constitutions and constitutions can be changed.
Are you a misogynist?
Ravensbarque,
ReplyDeleteYou read Church law and documents like a typical American. Church law is positive law- meaning that if something is not not expressely allowed, it is therefore NOT permitted. Church Law tells you what you are supposed to do, therefore if it is not written, you are to presume you are not to do it.
American Law on the other hand is restrictive. In other words what is not expressedly forbidden is therefore permitted.
Consequently IF the GIRM/Vatican II documents, etc, does not expressely allow for Liturgical Dance, it is therefore assumed to be not permitted. Why is Liturgical Dance allowed in some cultures, but not the US? I don't know, but that is irrelavent. What IS relavent is that it is not permitted in the US. The issue is not other cultures, the issue is the US. I asked this before, and I respectfully ask it again: What is it with you folks and Liturgical Dance anyway?
Nuns are supposed to wear distinctive garb. Somehow that got translated to mean "Lay clothing with a small religious symbol such as a cross." Maybe the dress was originally the clothing of the day- but practice does develop. In an era where Liberal, Secular, Atheistic, Modernistic, Humanistic philosophys reign supreme, I think it important that religious (including priests) live out the idea that the Church is not of this world. The dress calls to mind the fact that the Church is an otherwordly reality, it is in the world, but not of the world. That is the whole point of religious life in a community: putting the ways of the world behind you to focus on the things of God.
But anyway, my overall point to my dear friend Bridget Mary- who is probably sick of me by now- was that she loves to talk about what Vatican II called for- yet offers no citation for anything.
As far as conscience being supreme, yes, you are right-that goes back to Aquinas. However do you think Holy Aquinas would advocate simply dismissing clear and direct Church teaching becasue "I disagree 'in conscience?'" Conscience is a judgement, not a feeling. When the church has judged something is immoral, we have the duty to form our conscience appropriately. Our conscience takes on a more immediate role when there is no clear teaching or directive- then we use the moral principles the Church has given us to reach the best decision we can.
Apologist --
ReplyDeleteActually, I read Church law more like a European than an American (though I was born and raised in the USA). I look at Church law as a series of guideposts rather than as absolutes. The American Church (and to some extent the Canadian Church too) looks at Church law as a series of absolutes.
You brush off the fact that Liturgical Dance is allowed in so many places but not in the USA. You consider this unimportant. However, I think it is very important. I really don't care about Liturgical Dance. I do care about why a rule works one place but not another. And, you are incorrect in saying that Liturgical Dance is forbidden in the USA. Many African-American and Latino parishes are permitted to use Liturgical Dance. Seems to me like that is a punishment of the American and Canadian Churches -- rather than a norm for the GIRM.
(I love that word GIRM. There is something so prophetic about it!)
You acknowledge that nuns' habits started out as the dress of the day but that they progressed. Well, if you are going to be consistent, maybe they progressed right back to the dress of the day. I think you need to deal with it.
If you are worried about Bridget Mary not citing documents, then I invite you to join the Documents of Vatican II discussion list on yahoo. The list is a bit quiet at the moment but you would be a good person to spark some exciting discussion.
Did you ever stop to think that there is a direct conflict between primacy of conscience and absolutism? Which are we -- free beings who can choose (based on careful analysis) or little kids who need to be told exactly what to do and how to think? Do you really believe that the HIERARCHY has, ipso facto, more insight than the individual member of the LOWER-ARCHY? I know quite a few men and women who are more educated, more intelligent, and more versed in what humanity is all about than are most of the clergy who try to tell us how to think.
You are correct that conscience is judgment. What bothers me is that judgment seems to be the propriety of the HIERARCHY and that the LOWER-ARCHY is deemed not capable of judgment.