PLEASE PRAY for my family

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

I cannot share details. However, my immediate family (parents, 2 brothers, & me) are in desperate need of your prayers at this time. I ask that you pray 3 things, to which I am sure no Christian could object:

That God would...

1. show us all His Truth

2. bring peace to our home

3. empower me with strength & wisdom to be a channel through which He brings about 1 & 2

Thanks for your prayers & support. I appreciate it so much.

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), March 22, 2004

Answers

bump

-- (bump@bump.bump), March 22, 2004.

Emily,

You have my heartfelt prayers. Take comfort in the Lord.

-- Andy (aszmere@earthlink.net), March 22, 2004.


You haved mien this very night.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 22, 2004.

I will pray for you guys.

-- - (David@excite,.com), March 23, 2004.

Emily,

You have been in my prayers daily since I saw your first post. I will continue to pray for you and will forgo lunch today and affer this as a fast for your intentions.

Dano

-- Dan Garon (boethius61@yahoo.com), March 23, 2004.



will do

-bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), March 23, 2004.


I am touched by your kindness - thank you all.

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), March 23, 2004.

My prayers are with you too.

-- Jim Furst (furst@flash.net), March 23, 2004.

Count me on. My family will be offering prayers for you.

Enrique

-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), March 24, 2004.


Here is a site you might find interesting Emily. www.sistersofmary.org

They have multiplied one thousand percent--from four sisters to 44 (and counting!) At a time when the average American sister is in her sixties, most of the sisters here are in their twenties.

-- - (David@excite.com), March 26, 2004.



Thanks for the info, David. They wear habits, and I don't think I want to join one that still does that - I would feel distanced from people. I want to be able to feel that I can relate to people and be normal with them. Also, I have to look into the different types of orders more closely. I am leaning away from contemplative and leaning toward Franciscan possibly. The heart of what I really love is serving others (that is franciscan, right?). Thanks for keeping your eyes out for info for me tho - I appreciate it.

God bless,

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), March 26, 2004.


p.s. David, I don't mind elderly women, and often I get along better with them than with those my own age (still some immaturity among college women sometimes). So who knows where I'll end up!

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), March 26, 2004.

Contrary to whay you think, the public wants sisters to wear habits. They can be spotted a mile away, and it makes them very approchable. People can walk right up tp them and start talking about spiritual problems, asking for prayers, etc...

The pope has said that he wants relegious men and women to wear habits. [The Church reqires them to wear something distintive, but nowadays some women's orders wear ordinary secular outfits(and makeup) with multiple styles, instead of a uniforum style.

Almost all the orders/congegations that do not wear habits are dying out.[Few young women are attracted to them because most of them do not accept all the teachings of the Church or do not do anything distintive from ordinary lay women living inn the world..]

Almost all of the orders/congregations that wear habits are getting new members[Such as the Dominican sisters whose site I showed you] They have exlpoded to 44 members. You need to do your homework more because you are talking about your life!

You need to pray in front of the Blessed Sacrament and learn what the Blessed Sacrament is. Not ask what is [it]. You want Franciscan? Are you aware that there is not just one Franciscan order/congregation Emily? There are many different ones and you know what young Lady? The best ones wear habits. You want "service"? How Mother Teresa's Missionaries of Charity.

You should LONG to wear a habit, not shun the idea!!!

-- - (David@excite.com), March 27, 2004.


Sorry to offend you, David. I don't know enough about it so I'll have to look into these things more. Yes, I am aware that there are many orders. I have been researching it, but I have a lot of time before I can join one. Your information was helpful, but I was hurt by your disrespectful tone. Please do not address me this way. I did not say I "shun" the idea of wearing habits. I simply said I felt that it would distance me from others. Maybe I'm wrong, I don't know. I deeply admire Mother Teresa and she is what inspired me in the first place. So maybe I will join her order; like I said, I don't know yet.

God bless,

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), March 27, 2004.


David, I couldn’t disagree with you more. I think the opposite is true. I agree with Emily that many women do not wear habits for the reason she stated. Do you have any information to back up your assertion that “the public wants sisters to wear habits”?

I think habits accomplish the opposite of what you maintain. I believe they are intimidating to most strangers and discourage people from approaching sisters. If you want to be a witness for Christ, you don’t always want people who share the same beliefs as you do, approaching you. You want people who are curious about your faith to approach you and I think habits go along way in discouraging this for non-Catholics by intimidating them.

I have heard the Pope would prefer that sisters wear habits, but I have been given the impression this was only a personal preference or desire of his. You’ve made it sound that the reason orders who aren’t wearing habits are disappearing is solely do to this fact, which is ludicrous. How can you say that most orders who do not wear habits are dying out because “most of them do not accept all the teachings of the Church or do not do anything distinctive from ordinary lay women in the world”? How can you dismiss these orders out of hand as being unfaithful to the Magisterium simply because they don’t wear habits? Most orders I’ve seen whether they wear habits or not easily and markedly distinguish themselves from lay women in the community. I haven’t looked into the Dominican sisters and why they are reversing a present trend of declining members, however, I would guess it has nothing to do with the superficial reason of wearing a habit. Do you want sisters whose primary force behind then joining an order was solely based on dress? Choosing an order should have everything to do with how one identifies with the charism of the order and not with how they dress.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), March 27, 2004.



I'll pray for you too Emily.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), March 27, 2004.

Emily,

I would be honoured to pray for you and your family.

I've been extremely impressed by your posts to the forum over the last while. Your manner, your courtesy, your decorum in the face of uncharitable, unfair and unfounded onslaughts has been outstanding. I'm sure that any Religious Order would benefit from your joining them.

Outward appearances count for little Emily, the interior-self is what is important, as I know from your posts you have discerned already.

I know several nuns through my work that wear 'secular' clothing, and others who wear the traditional religious habit. Let me assure you that in no way can they be judged according to what they wear. Sisters from either traditions may be good, kind, intelligent, hard- working individuals who bring love in abundance to all they meet.

Please continue to ask any questions you need to in your search for knowledge. Many people here are more than happy to try to help in any way they can.

May the Holy Spirit guide you in your journey, Emily.

God bless

Sara

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), March 27, 2004.


Hi, Emily

I'm sorry that I hurt you.

Hi, Ed

I now realize that you can answer questions about the faith from people asking and you can give them solid doctrinal facts, but when you jump into something you don't know anything about its not right of you because your reply lacked "RESPECT" to me. It was worhless and should be deleted. And you were misleading Emily.

You accused me of saying things I did not say, like calling ALL the no-habit sisters"unfaithful to the Magisterium." You even QUOTED me, but still wrongly accused me.

Lets look at what I wrote. I wrote "MOST" of the no-habit......." The word "MOST" means a signiicant majority Ed not"All? That means that some of the no-habit sisters are still OK. but you IGNORED my word ("MOST") and trashed it though I had used the word "ALL".

" I think habits accomplish the opposite of what you mantain. I beleive they are intimidating to most srangers and ...."

You have been a Catholic for over 50 years and would say this is "ludicrous to me". From the earliest centuries of the Church, there have been many relegious that wore habits that symolized their virginity and consecration to God to set them apart from the ordinary laywomen. The idea that an order not wearing a habit would have been unthinkable for almost 2000 years, and its NOT the Church's will today.

What you are doing is equalivent the same thing that Pat D. was doing and you warned him last week in another thread. You don't know what your talking about Ed. You are in a direct violation of Canon Law and are a "PERVERSION" of what the bishops who attended Vatican II. They wrote it very simple to understand about habits in "Perfectae Caritatis," the Decree on Renewal of Relegioius Life.

"17. The relegious habit, an awkard mark of consecration to God, should be simple and modest, poor and at the same becoming. In addition it must meet the reqirements of health and be suited to the circumstances of time and place and the need to the ministry involved. The habits of both men and women in religious which do not conform to these norms must be changed.

Ed do you notice that they said habits could "be changed," but not eliminated. This idea is emphasized in the 1983 Code of Canon Law (which you disagree with) which does not allow religous brothers or sisters to go with out habits. Canon 669& 1 As a sign of their consecration and as a witness to poverty, relegious are to wear the habit of their institute, determned in accordance with the institute own law"

How does it feel knowing that your advice you have given directly goes against Canon Law? I am not going to say "BINGO CAT!!" because I want to help you and teach you correctly. I imagine that up in Canada you don't see to many Nuns wearing a habit. You guys did away with a lot of holy days of obligation isn't that right?

God bless you

-- - (David@excite.com), March 28, 2004.


David, originally your wrote:

“Almost all the orders/congegations that do not wear habits are dying out.[Few young women are attracted to them because most of them do not accept all the teachings of the Church or do not do anything distintive from ordinary lay women living inn the world..] Almost all of the orders/congregations that wear habits are getting new members...”

I read this to mean you are saying “almost all” orders who don’t wear habits have two noticeable characteristics in common - 1.) They don’t follow all teachings of the Church. 2.) They do not do anything distinctive from laywomen. I disagree with both these assumptions you made. I have never seen any proof of either of these statements nor has it been my personal experience that this is true. If you have information to prove the contrary, I would be interested in seeing it.

David, you originally wrote, “Almost all of the orders/congregation that wear habits are getting new members...” If you really believe this, if you think this is the reason for declining vocations in sisters, don’t you think ALL orders not wearing habits would have switched back to wearing habits by now to enlist new members?

David, you recently wrote, “You accused me of saying things I did not say, like calling ALL the no-habit sisters"unfaithful to the Magisterium." You even QUOTED me, but still wrongly accused me.” David, I haven’t accused you of anything, since I didn’t say this. If you go back and check my original post you will see that I used the word “all” one time only. I used it in a direct quote of what you said earlier. My personal comments did not include the word “all” whatsoever? I suggest you go back an re-read my post. I don’t know where you’ve gotten this notion that I said “all”? You’ve obviously made an incorrect inference. Any idea you’ve gotten that I used the word “all” has come from your own imagination and not my writing. Go back and read what I wrote. Further, I didn’t ignore your word “most” I used it frequently in my reply to you. I know the definition of the word most, and I still don’t agree with you that a “significant majority” of orders who do not wear habits do not accept the teachings of the Catholic Church. Where did you ever come up with such a theory? It’s asinine! It is ludicrous! How could what clothing they wear affect or change what they believe in, or cause them to go against the teachings of the Church? What’s the fact that orders have been wearing habits for 2000 years got to do with orders who don’t wear habits not following Church teaching? Is your conclusion here, that it must have been the wearing of the habit that kept all of these good sisters in line with the teachings of the Church for 2000 years? Don’t you think it could have been something else, like faith, that kept them in communion with Rome and that what they were wearing at the time had no bearing on this? Sisters wear habits as a witness to their love for Christ, not to keep their faith in check or to keep themselves from becoming heretics.

David, you’ve quoted Perfectae Caritatis. Nowhere in #17 does it say sisters are obliged to where habits. On the contrary, one can argue it proves my point. It specifically says, habits are not required “if they “do not conform to the norms”.

David, you referred to Canon 669-1. Why not show the entire reference to the subject of dress in institutions:

Can. 669 §§1 As a sign of their consecration and as a witness to poverty, religious are to wear the habit of their institute, determined in accordance with the institute's own law.

§§2 Religious of a clerical institute who do not have a special habit are to wear clerical dress, in accordance with can. 284.

Can. 284 Clerics are to wear suitable ecclesiastical dress, in accordance with the norms established by the Episcopal Conference and legitimate local custom.

So, it would seem that suitable dress can be left to the discretion of the Episcopate. The habit of some institutes are not what you seem obviously willing to accept. Some institute’s allow for more normal dress as a style of habit when not cloistered and working and living in society and are not in violation of Canon Law. They have the approval of the Episcopate to do so. If they were in violation, don’t you think the Vatican would have told them so by now? So, as it turns out, I don’t disagree with Canon Law at all, nor do sisters who do not wear formal habits. (By the way David, most orders have habits, the kind you like, for formal religious ceremonies.) David, If you’ve got a beef about habits, maybe you should take it up with your Bishop. He’s the guy that gave them the permission to do this in the first place.

My comments in this thread don’t go against Canon Law David. You haven’t taught me anything. The only thing you’ve accomplished in teaching me if anything, is that my assumptions were correct. David you wrote, “ I imagine that up in Canada you don't see to many Nuns wearing a habit. You guys did away with a lot of holy days of obligation isn't that right?” Your ignorance is astounding! What kind of bigotry and intolerance is this? I won’t justify it with any further comment accept to say, you’ve given me a whole new meaning to the term “Archie Bunker”!

David, I got into this discussion because I thought I had seen enough of your putting down Emily. In a few threads you were talking down to her in an unfriendly manner and I didn’t want any of your comments to discourage her from joining our Faith or becoming a nun if that’s what she feels God is calling her to do. As it turns out I am pleased to see, Emily is quite capable of taking care of herself. I also got into this discussion because I couldn’t believe the assertion you made about “MOST” orders who don’t wear habits do not accept all the teachings of the Church. I just couldn’t let that pass without challenging you on it.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), March 29, 2004.


Happy to Emily. Don't let the crazy side issues that always occur here distract you. People are praying for you and yours.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), March 29, 2004.


Ed,

Please go to your "forum rule" thread and read what it says about adhominem attacks.

Your "Archie Bunker" comment was cute Meathead!:-) Was I wrong about Canada only having two holy days of obligation not counting Sundays? If so I apologise.

But realy it could be argued that you are more like Archie than anyone in forum. It Ed's way or the highway. Isn't that the way Archie was?

When I have more time I will come back and work with you on your last post to me.

God bless you

-- - (David@excite.com), March 29, 2004.


Thanks for your apology, David. I appreciate it.

Could anyone tell me how to find this Canon Law stuff? I did a google search and got this website (http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/canon/), but now I don't know how to navigate it. Is there a way I can search for the numbers that David and Ed referred to, like I can on the Catechism site (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm)? Or is there another canon law site that I should look at?

Thanks!

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), March 29, 2004.


David, I can’t follow your logic. Now you're writing in circles. What having only two days of holy days of obligation in Canada has to do with your perceived notion that there aren’t many nuns in Canada who wear habits is way beyond me to comprehend. Surely you can't be implying as you have earlier that not wearing a habit promotes heresy? This doesn't even warrant further discussion. This dialogue will end like most of my dialogues do with you. I simply go away out of frustration. I should know better by now.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), March 29, 2004.

Emily, I use this site for references dealing with Canon Law:

http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/canon/

There is no easy way at this site to locate a numbered section. You have to feel your way through the topics and click on the titles and scroll down until you come to the section you’re looking for. I don’t know of a site that gives you a quick reference search of Canon Law. If anyone knows of one, I would appreciate learning of it.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), March 29, 2004.


Emily, you can also view a copy of Canon Law at the Vatican website here at:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), March 29, 2004.


Emily, you can search Canon Law at the Vatican site from its main page. It will give you hits throughout its site including the Canon Law section.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), March 29, 2004.

Hi, Emily

Thanks for your kindness to me! I wanted to share some more information with you and to help teach Ed about this.

There are two groups of women relegious reconized by the Vatican. In the first(the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, or LCWR),many of the sisters do not wear distinctive habits, and almost none of them wear veils symbolizing chastity and virginity. In the second group(the Council of Major Superiors of Women Relegious, or CMSWR), ALL the sisters wear distintive, uniform habits, and most of them wear veils. See www.cmswr.org (You should read this to Ed)

There are NO dangerous orders in the CMSWR, but there are many "dangerous" orders in the LCWR. By dangerous, I mean the kind of order to which no decent orthodox Catholic woman would want to belong to because of (a) Gross dissent even to the point of heresy on doctrine and morality(ESPECIALLY SEXUAL MORALITY),from the top to bottom ranks there is flagrant disobedience to the holy Father and the Vatican. Usually it is only the very old who are slowly dying out are orthodox Catholics.(b) Homosexual lesbians behavior. There are many sisters who think that they are in love with each other and live in pairs in private houses. Some of these sisters arrange to have retreats to discuss how acceptable this gay lifestyle is etc....(c) Dimished prayer life and Abandonment of common prayer(liturgy of the hours, rosary, daily Mass) is very common because their "social work" iss all consuming of there time and effort.(d) Abandment of the longstanding apostolates of their order, especially school teaching (e) Agitation of feminist goals. Some stupidly even push for the ordination of women and for special rights for homosexuals, for Catholics to be able to use contraception, for exceptions to abortions etc....

Now just so he doesn't come back and misqoate me AGAIN. I am not saying that every single of the LCWR orders are ruined by the above problem that I have showed you. Maybe there are some realy good ones left? But if there are I would like to know there names??? But I am ABSOLUTLEY certain that so many of the LCWR orders are ruined(and many of them have become extinct in the past 30-40 years) that a young pure women like you is much better of ignoring the LCWR orders and just directly going to the CMSWR.

God is taking care of His church Emily. The LCWR orders are suicidally dwindling in number not attracting enough girls/women(in any at all) to offset there losses through death and voluntary departure.

I am going to pray for you and your family in front of the Blessed Sacrament tonight.

Hi, Ed

You have made many, many errors inyour last few posts to me. I guess you do walk away in frustration with me because you are wrong a lot of the time and I show you.ll come back and help you get to the bottom of this. God bless you and I am praying for you too.

-- - (David@excite.com), March 30, 2004.


David,

Thanks for the clarifications. I never knew about all of this. But are there still some good LCWR groups? I mean, surely there must be some, right? Why does the Pope not reprimand the groups that are going off on the fringe, and say that they're not with the Church anymore or something?

God bless,

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), March 30, 2004.


Hi, Emily

You could be wasting a lot of time visiting a bunch of bad LCWR communities, getting more and more frustrated. Then maybe you would find one that could fool you into thinking they are good and enter it and find out corrupt they are inside. You might loose your new found Catholic faith out of discouragement. You should visit some CMSWR sisters and be at peace. You could find out how joyful these woman are, and how they bring joy into the lives of others. I visted some holy sisters in Washington D.C. last month with a holy friend of mine and I hated to leave. They were the poor Clares of perpetual Adoration.

I think the pope has reprimanded a "bad group" of sisters before not the entire order just the scandoulous indivuals though. But the holy Father trys not to humilate people publicity unless it is abosolutely necesarry. I would imagine that some bad orders of sisters and Monks have been repramanded in private by the Vatican. The Vatican has a congregation that has one Cardinal overseeing the actions of relegious orders, etc.............

Popes of our era can't act like dictators who are constantly hammering people and making them do things against there wills. But, even Ed has mentioned that he heard the holy Father wants habits worn. And the pope likes to do things at the local level at let the bishops hanndle it and only step in if they can't get the job done. But God is handling this and the LCWR are going extinct. There probably are a few good ones Emily, but how d you find a needle in a haystack? And why would a good Nun stay in the LCWR when they have the CMSWR to turn to? The interner site for LCWR is www.lcwr.org/. Look at the photos of the women there. At least 5 of those woman are sisters(note the abbrevations after their names?), but not ONE of those sisters is wearing a habit that the public would reconise as relegious. Look at their press releases and publications and newsletters(linked at botton). You will see that they are PURELY POLITICAL, full of boycotts and protests and pacifism. They are nothing like your favorite Mother Teresa or the Little Flower, these babes have NOTHING to say about prayer, holiness, penance, teaching children the faith etc........... This is absolutley sickening!

God bless you Emily.

-- - (David@excite.com), March 30, 2004.


Strangely enough, the sisters on the website that David posted aren't wearing habits.

Of course, we all know that doesn't make detract from their dedication to Christ and His Church anyway.

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), March 30, 2004.


"Strangely enough, the sisters on the website that David posted arn't wearing habits. Of course, we all know that doesn't make detract from their didication to Christ and His Church anyway."

Hello!! I didn't think I would have to remind you that I gave two URLs. One for the good habit wearing sisters, earlier in the thread (www.cmswr.org) and now one for the troubled no habit sisters (www.lcwr.org). Did you misunderstand me to be PROMOTING the LCWR?

-- - (David@excite.com), March 30, 2004.


David, how did you find out about these two different groups? There seem to be very few members of the CMSWR compared to all of the orders that must exist around the world. Although I liked what I read on their site about their "Theology of Religious Life." They seem to be a very good group. However, how do you know that there are only two groups (CMSWR and LCWR)? This must mean groups based in the US or something, because this can't be all of them from the world, or even from English-speaking countries (since the site is in English).

Does anyone know of any other sites that are a good organization of orders, such as this one?

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), March 30, 2004.


Hi Emily,

After reading the discussion above, I thought you might find the following book helpful: The Habit: A History of Clothing Catholic Nuns by Elizabeth Kuhns

I saw the author interviewed recently on The Abundant Life, a very interesting program on EWTN (Mother Angelica's Catholic cable network.)

The book sounded fascinating, and seems to address some of the questions you have been asking about concerning religious habits.

You can find out more about it at www.lhla.org (I tried to put in a link for you, but it didn't work.) How is that done here anyway??

Good luck with your discernment, Emily. Even the possibility that Our Lord may be calling you to religious life is so exciting! How wonderful for you!

Blessings, Patricia

-- Patricia (MTherese2@aol.com), March 31, 2004.


Emily,

It is true that the(large)LCWR and(still small but growing)CMSWR are United States conferences/councils only not world-wide. Maybe some other countries have no such councils. Maybe some other countries (like Ed's Canada and Sara's Great Britain) have only conferences like the LCWR. I realy have no idea. Maybe they could post and tell you?

If your interested in more information on non-watered down Catholicism read this link www.vci.net/~inmanmj/catholic/lcwr01.htm

It tellls how CMSWR has only 7% of the women's orders/congregation, but it gets 35% of the new women entering the sisterhood, five times the number expected!!! It also tells some ways in which the Lcwr is wacko.

May Mother Seton pray for the CMSWR.

-- - (David@excite.com), March 31, 2004.


Hi, Ed

I'm just going to brief because I don't want to put to much on your plate at once and get you frustrated like you said up thread.

"David, you orginally wrote, " Almost all of the orders/congregations that wear habits are getting new members...."If you realy believe this, if you think this is the reasons for declining vocations in sisters, don't you think ALL orders not wearing habits would have switched back to wearing habits by now to enlist new members?"

No, just like you some of them have no idea that part of the reason for their falling numbers is because they don't wear habits. And some of the higer ranking older LCWR sisters who know or suspect that habits are increasingly important are to hooked on dressing normal. Doesn't the holy Father want habits worn Ed?

"I suggest you go back and read my post. I don't know where you've gotten this notion that I said all"? You've obviously made an incorrect inference. Any idea you've gotten that I used the word "all" has come from your own imagination and not my writing. Go back and read what I wrote."

I did Ed. the word "all"(even if not used is expicitly) is implied in your post to me. It was not an"incorrect inference."

"It's assinie! It is ludicrous! How could what clothing they wear affect or change what they believe in, or cause them to go aginst the teachings of the Church?"

How are you unable to understand that its the other way around? I never claimed that it was the failure to wear habits that made sisters go bad! They were already full of dissent when they entered or lost their faith with rotten theology back in the 60's and 70's. Then the cast of their habits Ed! They don't wear habits because they don't believe in the reliable ways of the past. They don't want to obey Canon law or understand it like you! Some of them want to look attractive, like laywomen wearing makeup etc...............

"David, you've quoted Perfectectae Caritatis. No where in #17 does it say sisters are obliged to where habits. On the contrary, one can argue to proves my point. It specifically says, habits arenot requried"if they "do not conform to the norms"

Ed this is a WHOPPER!:-)You completley misqoated the passage from Vatican 11. Number 17 of "Perfectae Caritatis" Please go back and read it again and if you still need me to show you please ask!

"David, you refered to Canon 669-1. Why not show the entire reference to the subject of dress in institutions. Can669 1 As a sign of their consecration and as witness to poverty, relegious are to wear the habit of thir institute, determned in accordance with the instite's own law.$$2 Clerics are to wear suitable ecclesiastical dress, in accordance with the norms established by the Episcopal Conference and legitamate local custom. So, it would seem that suitable dress can be left to the discretion of the Episcopate."

Wrong AGAIN Ed! I left Canon 284 out becausE it has NOTHING to do with SISTERS! Maybe you think the word "CLERICS" include sisters but it doesn't! It refers to men who have been ordained(clerics). BTW .. Notice how there are No(or almost no) Mens relegious orders brothers or priests(Franciscans, Dominicans, Benedictines Trinitarianns etc................... who go around without habits(or with a half dozen different outfits like some of the LCWR sisters groups). The Feminist sisters are not obedient.

"If they were in violation, don't you think the Vatican would have told them by now?"

You are to much Ed! The fact that the pope has asked sisters and brothers to wear habits shows "The Vatican is telling them so by now". But you conveneniently brushed it off earlier as just an opinion from the pope(When you didn't know that Vatican 11 and Canon law reqire habits)

God bless you Mr. Lauzon

-- - (David@excite.com), March 31, 2004.


David, Thanks for that article (http://www.vci.net/~inmanmj/catholic/lcwr01.htm). I am so glad actually, that we had this conversation, because I see now what you mean about the LCWR going off the deep end. They lamented the fact that people lost their jobs after they had been so disobedient to Church teachings from Rome. (For example, they kept pushing for women's ordination, support for the homosexual lifestyle, and other feminist causes). The LCWR as a whole still pushes for these things, saying basically that the Church is an oppressive, patriarchal organization. Here is the quote from the site that I think you were referring to:
According to the Vatican's Congregation for the Religious, the United States is the only country in America with two official women religious organizations. The Pontifical approval of the CMSWR-- a response to the special crisis facing women's religious orders in the United States-- was granted by the Vatican four years ago. Although it now represents about 7 percent of women's religious institutes, the CMSWR is growing rapidly, unlike the LCWR; the congregations belonging to the CMSWR account for about 35 percent of the total of new religious vocations in the US. Then-president of LCWR criticizes the traditional consecrated religious life (cloisters) as "static" communities that are expected to uphold and obey the magisterium of the Church - the worldview of a "patriarchal clerical culture" and one with which they "beg to differ". While respecting "loyal dissent" she expounds on the suffering by those who follow their own conscience and find themselves in conflict with the Vatican. She laments the unwillingness of the Church hierarchy to "dialogue" with them on issues that concern them (ie; women's ordination, gay and lesbian lifestyles, celibacy, etc., etc.). Now, like the article said, the US is the only country with two organizations. Since Sarah is from Great Britain and Ed is from Canada, they may not be aware of this. Perhaps this is where the whole confusion is stemming from? In light of this conversation, I think I would rather join a CMSWR group and wear a habit than join a LCWR group and support these liberal causes, rebelling against Church authority. That said, perhaps there are some other good organizations based out of other countries that have good standards, but do not require the women to wear habits. Since I am considering working in Latin America anyway, perhaps I can find something from one of those countries. Or Canada or somewhere else nearby. Thanks so much, David, for your patience in explaining all of this to me and sharing your knowledge. I now see why you were trying to save me from wasting my time with the liberal LCWR orders. God bless,

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), March 31, 2004.

David,

Thanks for that article (http://www.vci.net/~inmanmj/catholic/lcwr01.htm). I am so glad actually, that we had this conversation, because I see now what you mean about the LCWR going off the deep end.

They lamented the fact that people lost their jobs after they had been so disobedient to Church teachings from Rome. (For example, they kept pushing for women's ordination, support for the homosexual lifestyle, and other feminist causes). The LCWR as a whole still pushes for these things, saying basically that the Church is an oppressive, patriarchal organization.

Here is the quote from the site that I think you were referring to:
According to the Vatican's Congregation for the Religious, the United States is the only country in America with two official women religious organizations. The Pontifical approval of the CMSWR-- a response to the special crisis facing women's religious orders in the United States-- was granted by the Vatican four years ago. Although it now represents about 7 percent of women's religious institutes, the CMSWR is growing rapidly, unlike the LCWR; the congregations belonging to the CMSWR account for about 35 percent of the total of new religious vocations in the US.

Then-president of LCWR criticizes the traditional consecrated religious life (cloisters) as "static" communities that are expected to uphold and obey the magisterium of the Church - the worldview of a "patriarchal clerical culture" and one with which they "beg to differ". While respecting "loyal dissent" she expounds on the suffering by those who follow their own conscience and find themselves in conflict with the Vatican. She laments the unwillingness of the Church hierarchy to "dialogue" with them on issues that concern them (ie; women's ordination, gay and lesbian lifestyles, celibacy, etc., etc.).

Now, like the article said, the US is the only country with two organizations. Since Sarah is from Great Britain and Ed is from Canada, they may not be aware of this. Perhaps this is where the whole confusion is stemming from? In light of this conversation, I think I would rather join a CMSWR group and wear a habit than join a LCWR group and support these liberal causes, rebelling against Church authority. That said, perhaps there are some other good organizations based out of other countries that have good standards, but do not require the women to wear habits. Since I am considering working in Latin America anyway, perhaps I can find something from one of those countries. Or Canada or somewhere else nearby.

Thanks so much, David, for your patience in explaining all of this to me and sharing your knowledge. I now see why you were trying to save me from wasting my time with the liberal LCWR orders.

God bless,

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), March 31, 2004.


moderator, please delete the first of my two posts, as it was badly formatted. Thanks!

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), March 31, 2004.

Emily,

You are very welcome. And again I want to say I'm sorry for being rude to you. I will never be rude to you again. I know I was 100% wrong.

God bless you

-- - (David@excite.com), March 31, 2004.


Thank you, David. You're forgiven. I knew that wasn't characteristic of the real you, and I didn't want you to get banned for something like that. We all have our moments. I know you're a good contributor here overall, and I'd hate to have to see you leave.

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), March 31, 2004.

In case anyone wants to know, I found this site below which has numerous links to organizations such as LCWR and CMSWR throughout the US, Canada, and Latin America. It's a great resource for those pursuing relgious life, and other things too I think.

http://www.relforcon.or g/7_related.htm

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), April 01, 2004.


Emily,

Thanks for the link.:-)

Ed,

Just out of courosity, do you understand now how you misquoted the passage from Vatican II number 17 of "Perfectae Caritatis" when you posted last week in this thread? I don't want you to be frustrated with me like you posted above. I want to help you, Edward.:-)

May God have mercy on all the suffering souls in Purgatory on holy Thursaday and during this holy week.

-- - (David@excite.com), April 08, 2004.


David said: May God have mercy on all the suffering souls in Purgatory on holy Thursaday and during this holy week.

Is Holy Thursday specifically a special day during which God offers more mercy to the souls in purgatory? Is there some significance to the day and this connection?

God bless,

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), April 08, 2004.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ