|
Post by maolsheachlann on Mar 3, 2018 23:11:15 GMT
On the other hand, just because the magazine may be wrong about some things, that doesn't mean they are wrong about everything. There are some injustices which liberals are more likely to expose than conservatives, and vice versa. I'm not responding with male guilt, any more than with lay anti-clericalism. I'm just interested in decent behaviour. I didn't mean you specifically, Hibernicus. I was talking more generally.
|
|
|
Post by annie on Mar 3, 2018 23:38:22 GMT
Religious take vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. It is part of their charism to serve rather than be served. Not everyone can do it. A vocation is different from a job, a career or a profession. The end of the article in the Washington Post says that the producers of the magazine aren't paid for their work but that their contributors are. Often charities or similar bodies won't accept payments from governments because they don't want to be "bought". The poor are free. One cannot serve two masters. That lady, who is in charge of the magazine mentioned, has the saddest appearance of anyone I have ever seen. She is in urgent need of our prayers.
|
|
|
Post by annie on Mar 4, 2018 11:19:11 GMT
The truth is that we have no way of knowing how true or untrue these accusations are. They might be true. In which case, shame on the clerics taking advantage of the nuns. Or they might just be motivated by a feminist and leftist agenda. It would be interesting to know the OTHER opinions of the women making these complaints. Are they all avid readers of America magazine? (One should always be suspicious of anonymous complaints.) We have no way of knowing. We should not instinctively respond with male guilt and over-compensation...something all too common amongst Catholics. The world and the church was in a state of shock after WW2. We had worker priests in France and the beginnings of the SJW trend. People went as lay workers on the missions rather than as vowed missionary people committed for life. In the middle, we had the women's movement, then VII rebels, Mao Tse, the rejection of their elders by youth. A "Non Servium" mentality has crept in, displacing charity, civility and sound human relationships. The lady who wrote the piece is a married journalist who has argued against the value of motherhood and campaigns for women's ordination. A clericist.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Mar 4, 2018 12:08:24 GMT
Religious take vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. It is part of their charism to serve rather than be served. Not everyone can do it. A vocation is different from a job, a career or a profession. The end of the article in the Washington Post says that the producers of the magazine aren't paid for their work but that their contributors are. Often charities or similar bodies won't accept payments from governments because they don't want to be "bought". The poor are free. One cannot serve two masters. That lady, who is in charge of the magazine mentioned, has the saddest appearance of anyone I have ever seen. She is in urgent need of our prayers. In other words, they have no right to complain about how they have been treated?
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Mar 4, 2018 12:10:31 GMT
The truth is that we have no way of knowing how true or untrue these accusations are. They might be true. In which case, shame on the clerics taking advantage of the nuns. Or they might just be motivated by a feminist and leftist agenda. It would be interesting to know the OTHER opinions of the women making these complaints. Are they all avid readers of America magazine? (One should always be suspicious of anonymous complaints.) We have no way of knowing. We should not instinctively respond with male guilt and over-compensation...something all too common amongst Catholics. The world and the church was in a state of shock after WW2. We had worker priests in France and the beginnings of the SJW trend. People went as lay workers on the missions rather than as vowed missionary people committed for life. In the middle, we had the women's movement, then VII rebels, Mao Tse, the rejection of their elders by youth. A "Non Servium" mentality has crept in, displacing charity, civility and sound human relationships. The lady who wrote the piece is a married journalist who has argued against the value of motherhood and campaigns for women's ordination. A clericist. The worker priest movement went too far, but there is a long and venerable tradition of social justice in Catholicism going back to Rerum Novarum and even earlier. It's a bad idea to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Mar 4, 2018 14:03:01 GMT
How present a danger do you think it is that the Church in general, and female religious orders in particular, are going to discard the social justice element of the faith?
Compared to the danger of careerism, resentment, and worldliness run amock in same?
Let us see things in perspective.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Mar 4, 2018 14:17:33 GMT
Having said that...of course, the authorities in the Vatican should look into such allegations impartially. Nobody should be treated unfairly at work. (And the labourer is worthy of her hire.)
If I was on a commission appointed to investigate such matters, I would be obliged to put my scepticism aside and treat it in as impartial a way as possible.
But as an outsider, looking in, I have no such obligation. And I'm fairly sure such complaints are motivated mostly or entirely by a socio-political agenda, and based on resentment and pride. This is based on my experience of religious orders today. (Try looking at the websites of female religious orders, as I have often found myself doing in the course of research. Very often there is barely a mention of Jesus or Christianity.)
|
|
|
Post by annie on Mar 4, 2018 17:53:57 GMT
Having said that...of course, the authorities in the Vatican should look into such allegations impartially. Nobody should be treated unfairly at work. (And the labourer is worthy of her hire.) If I was on a commission appointed to investigate such matters, I would be obliged to put my scepticism aside and treat it in as impartial a way as possible. But as an outsider, looking in, I have no such obligation. And I'm fairly sure such complaints are motivated mostly or entirely by a socio-political agenda, and based on resentment and pride. This is based on my experience of religious orders today. (Try looking at the websites of female religious orders, as I have often found myself doing in the course of research. Very often there is barely a mention of Jesus or Christianity.) It is the responsibility of the Superior of each convent/religious order to ensure that their members are not being mistreated in any way including economically. In my youth, a number of young nuns got sick and died in our local convent. The GP told the Rev Mother bluntly that she wasn't feeding them well enough and that more would die if she didn't see to this. She did. That GP tended to his patients 24/7 and brought those in need of surgery to world hospital in his VW Beetle. He also had to carry out emergency Caeserians on occasion but he was a fully trained surgeon as well. He had both poor and rich patients and treated all the same. Those without money paid him when they had it. He had a true vocation. Mother Teresa's nuns own nothing except their saris but have all they need. Having nuns or female housekeepers take care of priests, bishops or popes, is an extension of Christian fellowship and a good for all sides. Families are made up of both sexes because we bring out the best in each other.
|
|
|
Post by annie on Mar 6, 2018 10:34:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by annie on Mar 6, 2018 10:45:37 GMT
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Mar 6, 2018 11:29:47 GMT
Or maybe not. I agree the Catholic Herald interview made all the right noises but in the introduction to the book, there are the usual throwaway references to "the Church's misogyny" as though it is an acknowledged fact.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Mar 6, 2018 12:59:02 GMT
I do agree with her that women should be allowed to rise to any non-clerical position in the Church. But I don't see that it would have any particular benefit other than being fair. Feminists have been saying for decades that having women in public life (politics, business) etc. would have a civilizing effect. Has it?
|
|
|
Post by annie on Mar 6, 2018 14:58:04 GMT
I do agree with her that women should be allowed to rise to any non-clerical position in the Church. But I don't see that it would have any particular benefit other than being fair. Feminists have been saying for decades that having women in public life (politics, business) etc. would have a civilizing effect. Has it? Not necessarily. Groupthink and the looking after friends is as prevalent among women as it is among men. Golda Meir, Margaret Thatcher and Indira Ghandhi were no better than the men they replaced. Women are not intrinsically more saintly or worse than men. Like fingerprints, we are all different. Typecasting all men are x or all women are y dosen't reflect reality.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 7, 2018 21:35:22 GMT
It might make things better in some ways and worse in others. Perhaps women have different ways of being nice and nasty from men, but they average about the same: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_bee_syndrome Put things another way - the 1981 Maze hunger strikers thought Mrs Thatcher might be more conciliatory than her male predecessors because she was a woman.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 15, 2023 20:42:17 GMT
A different sort of misogyny - a feminist discusses how the transgender Dylan Mulvany's "girlhood" behaviour in fact amounts to a hostile parody of women as weak and useless. Look on the bright side - the decision of some woke capitalist corporations to hire this person to advertise their products has brought an unprecedented alliance between feminists who are burning Nike sports bras and macho types who are boycotting Anheuser Busch's beer! thecritic.co.uk/the-performance-of-a-lifetime/
|
|