I would like info on who owns property in civil law for many things. Who "owns" my parish church? Who "owns" our Catholic high school?
Good article. Sad to see it get to this.
In 5th paragraph you have "Octoboer"--I had to google if that was some British way of spelling it, but I have no way of verifying if Hogwarts spells it that way and that is where Ed learned it =)
Yup. And, to complicate it, it varies from diocese to diocese. In the words of Monsignor Ronald Knox: In the Barque of Peter, those with queasy stomachs should stay out of the engine room.
As someone who was involved in the creation of the first new episcopal corporation sole ex nihilio in Canada in over 70 years (Completed this year for the Ordinariate’s Canadian Deanery, which is really growing up in a very good way), I can attest to the Byzantine structures. But we have to marry ancient canonical requirements with modern civil laws of a modern western society that, let’s be honest, is not friendly to the Church. “Vicarious liability” and “piercing the corporate veil” are very real legal concepts that are relatively modern realities and have to be dealt with. Not for the faint of heart. What a ride, but a good news story unto itself.
Exactly. And, if one may be blunt, it's in the Church's interest that it remains so, lest the civil courts start seizing and selling off parish buildings in order to satisfy judgements against dioceses for sex abuse coverups.
There are people called lawyers who are very good at that sort of thing. And the ownership of one, individual, piece of property is very easy to determine. Almost every county has a GIS system where you can determine who owns a given parcel with the click of a mouse.
What is complicated is that there is no universal answer to who owns Church property in the United States; not that it is difficult to figure out who owns THAT piece of property. Different states have different laws. The last state to ban corporate ownership of church property - any religion - was West Virginia and that provision of the state constitution was struck down by a federal district judge at the end of September. (The history of that provision and the attempts to remove it are worth an article in and of themselves.)
A church in a given diocese that was built in the early 19th century may have different civil ownership that the school next door where the property was bought in the 60's, which is certainly different from the rectory that was bought 10 years ago. THAT is what makes it complicated.
What I mean is that, if the state courts recognized that the bishop (as major superior) really owns all the Catholic property of a diocese, then they might start seizing bank accounts and parish buildings to make good on bankruptcy proceedings and sex abuse settlements. There is good reason why no one has ever consolidated everything under the ownership of a single diocesan civil entity.
That is exactly the case right now; and what you describe routinely happens. In civil law in the majority of places the Bishop is the civil owner of the property - including the property of a parish; and that property is considered part of the bankruptcy estate if a diocese files for bankruptcy. See the Archdiocese of Santa Fe as but one example.
That is why you can see the 21st century era of church property ownership where the civil reality is being aligned with the canonical reality of the pastor of a parish being the civil owner of the parish real estate. But that does not extinguish liability for past claims, it would only effect any new claims going forward.
I will take your word for it, since I make no pretenses about being a subject matter expert in this field, and I could very well be misinformed. I had been under the impression that parishes tended to be civilly administered and owned by separate legal entities from the diocese, but I could well be wrong in that regard.
What most of the other commenters have said is accurate. It varies by US state. In a fair number of states and dioceses, each parish is its own civil corporation, which holds the title to its own property. This model more closely aligns with the canonical reality than some other models.
Catholic High schools, if they are parish high schools, would civilly owned in the same way as their parish, presumably. If they are independent Catholic high schools, it is... more complicated - especially if a religious order is involved. Much of the most complicated situations in Canon law involve the interaction of a diocese and a religious order (and civil law to boot!)
I'm growing weary of the weed nuns. Clearly they have problems that need to be resolved, but running to sex offender 'priests' isn't the way to solve them. I've prayed and continue to pray for them but their obstinance in the face of viable alternatives -heck call up a priest in Peoria or Pascagoula and ask their advice- has put me off whatever merit their cause might have had.
The current priest who lives at the Monastery, is not an SSPX priest.
Fr. Vincent Young, also from Scranton, has been without faculties for twenty years! One would think that if the former nuns were truly with SSPX, one would merit a SSPX priest? Fr. Young is listed as a "friend of SSPX". The closest SSPX chapel, " Our Lady of Mount Carmel" is in Richardson, Texas.
A priest flies in from Kansas City each weekend to cover two Chapel's, in two different cities.
monasteries, churches, etc. ultimately belong to the Church per Canon Law but civilly, that is a different story. It also depends on what is in their constitutions. Civil Law will usually respect as well as the bylaws of the monastery.
The inevitable outcome. I wish them the best. Pope Francis has assured us multiple times that being Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, or Buddhist is no barrier to salvation (just one of so many "grammars" with which to speak about God), so I'm confident there will be room in Heaven for a little band of kooky Carmelites. One wonder why Bishop Olsen made such a fuss. Is he a crypto-neo-Pelagian such as His Holiness warns about? Doesn't he know that today's Magisterium bids us all to make our own kind of music?
I kinda wonder if Bishop Olsen's unexpected fuss is at the root of this. No one expects a bishop to make any kind of fuss over anything without having some ulterior motive.
The bishop in charge of the priest who was sinning with the nun is not known to have made any fuss. The priest who got caught routinely employing a homosexual hookup app while holding the top administrative office at the USCCB was put in charge of a parish by his bishop. An utter lack of fuss even when it is thoroughly warranted is what everyone expects, through long experience. So even a warranted fuss arouses sincere suspicions. One wonders what else the particular superior fusses about and who else has been dismissed, rather than assuming they are fairly even-handed and justified. Sincere suspicions do not result in the trust that underlies obedience.
Isn't that part of the issue, though? It seems to me that bishops have way too much unfettered authority to decide what they want to do. One bishop can say the priest who employs a homosexual hookup app can be a pastor a year later; another bishop can say a priest with no credible accusation has no faculties.
Do I think the nuns here have gone overboard? Probably. Do I think Bishop Olsen has treated them fairly? Nope. If you've heard the recording of Olsen's interview with the superior, it's nauseating. The woman apparently whispered sweet nothings to a priest on the phone. Granted neither or she should have done so, but it's hardly justification for this outcome. How did we end up here? Is this a reasonable conclusion to this drama?
How does one fetter authority, except by another authority? We already have another authority, and the Pope's Curia is at least as arbitrary about its enforcement as the bishops are. Rupnik has a job, Strickland and Torres do not. Power combined with unpredictability is the natural result of authorities refusing to submit to reason. Authorities refusing to submit to reason is the natural result of them having been formed by laity (parents and teachers) who refused to submit to reason. Laity refusing to submit to reason is the natural result of authorities lording it over them rather than teaching them. Cycle of spiritual abuse. Be nice if we could break that.
I haven't listened to any recordings, but given that they didn't meet in person, there are some obvious limits to what they could have done. I can certainly see a nun being guilt-ridden over a purely emotional affair, and with good reason. But I can't even track the escalation from that to the bishop cutting off all Sacraments for all the nuns, and attempting to dismiss the superior from the religious life and render her homeless, much less to where they are now. The drugs are concerning, but nothing particularly clear has been said about that by anyone. I'm continuing to hold out hope that this is not the conclusion though.
The decrees from Rome starting in April, provide the factual story.
The November 28 and 29th final statements from Rome, offer the conclusion. This whole plan by the former nuns was activated and planned, because it was thought Lisa Marie Gerlach, would be expelled from the order in April 2024 from Rome. When that did not happen and a "temporary Prioress" was appointed by Rome, they were blindsided, and would not allow her entry, and filed yet another civil lawsuit, which went nowhere. From April through November the former nuns would not communicate with the appointed Prioress, even going as far as claiming new elections in August, that were unanimous within the Community, ( The New Prioress was not allowed to participate) with Lisa Marie Gerlach, again elected.
This was done in the presence of an SSPX representative.
They former nuns have not had a priest with proper faculties since August of 2023. So yes, a reasonable conclusion to their actions and decisions indeed.
It is time and way past time these Bishops are divested of the absolute control of others.They are not God though many act that way. I have spent the last four years reading almost anything I can about their actions. They play with people’s lives like puppeteers regardless of the cost. Yet many of their egregious actions are not sanctioned at all. If this is what Jesus had in mind in building His church we have sure missed the boat. Praying for the good ones who humbly interact with others as fellow sinners and journey people.
What I can't get past in this whole situation is that Bishop Olson refused to provide a priest for Mass and confessions early on in the dispute. That to me is the most nauseating and faithless part of this mess.
I’m not sure that your claim about Pope Francis is fully correct. Even in his Singapore speech, he didn’t say anything about salvation. And in none of his official teaching documents has he repeatedly taught assurance of salvation. So I’m unsure of where you’re getting all this.
"All religions are paths to reach God." What does it mean to reach God if not to find salvation? Can someone seek and reach God only to be turned away? That sounds Calvinist to me.
Saint John of the Cross says, "If anyone is seeking God, the Beloved is seeking him all the more." If these are all paths to God, then they are also paths by which God Himself seeks us, for no one can go to the Father unless He calls us. And what else is a path to salvation except a path by which we seek God and God seeks us?
In a sense, one can reach God, even reach the one true God, and still not be saved. This is affirmed by the natural law tradition of the Church, the theologians, and the Magisterium.
For instance, St. Thomas Aquinas called his arguments for God the “Quinque Viae,” or the Five Paths. These paths, though they reached the one true God, would not be salvific, since certain divine aspects of God were not proved in them (e.g., the Trinity).
St. Bellarmine admits that the “Jews themselves and the Turks, although they are impious, yet worship the one God.” Thus, a Jew or a Turk, following their own religion, would attain the one true God, though non-salvifically. Francisco Suarez argues likewise affirms that Jews and Muslims “worship the one true God [verum Deum adorant]”. Thus, these “infidels’” religions provide a path to “worship” the one true God—though non-salvifically. Other of the theologians affirm the same.
In Pope Pius X’s Catechism, he distinguishes those who go after false Gods from those who “admit[] one true God,” such as the Muslims. Thus, through their religions, they come to God, though non-salvifically.
Nostra Aetate affirms that Muslims “adore the one God.” Though, once again, it doesn’t say that they do so salvifically. So their religion brings them to the one true God, though not necessarily in a saving manner.
In Pope Francis’ address that you cited, he nowhere mentions being saved or salvation or anything like that. It’s therefore a bit of an interpolation to talk about salvation at all based merely on those remarks. This puts Pope Francis more in line with the theologians and prior magisterium, which affirm other religions can lead people to the one true God, though non-salvifically.
Francis has never struck me as someone who is overly concerned with philosophical speculations about coming to know God as the Divine Mover, etc. He has always seemed laser-focused on God as the One who breaks into our lives in surprising ways bringing mercy and healing. In other words, with God the Savior, the Good Shepherd who carries us on His shoulders. That's the lens through which I read his words, even though he doesn't explicitly speak of salvation in his remarks.
The only person I can say with certitude needs to be Catholic in order to be saved is myself! I don't think I'm special in that regard, so I'm sure there are plenty others for whom that is true, but I also know all sorts of people whom God is clearly leading by...different paths, and I cannot help but respect and acknowledge that. I know that doesn't square easily with Book Catholicism, but I can't deny it either. And I read Pope Francis as having a similar experience and trying to articulate it to others. Maybe I'm reading my own experience into his words too much, but that's how I see things.
Very sad that it came to this. Let’s pray that these former nuns reconcile with Holy Mother Church, and, for the sake of their souls, that they didn’t fully understand the gravity of their actions.
I think this is a bit condescending, brother. Nuns aren't stupid, nor are they sheltered little lambs. When a bishop or priest goes into schism, no one says, "Hopefully he's just confused and doesn't realize how sinful this is." But women religious are often talked about as if they are small children.
I think the sisters know exactly what they are doing, and see it as a choice between going into schism and hoping to patch things up later under a different bishop, or getting turned out on the sidewalk without a penny to their names. "I don't have a choice" is just as often a rationalization for sin as "It's not that big of a deal."
I would be saying the exact same thing if it was a bishop or priest doing this. The reason I say so is if they don’t realize the gravity of what they are doing, then the 3 conditions of a mortal sin are not satisfied, that’s all. That’s why I hope they don’t realize the full gravity of what they have just done.
I hope Bishop Strickland and Father Altman and Peter Kwasniewski don’t realize the full gravity of what they have done in their recent actions either, to name a few, and, now that President Biden will be out of office, I hope, if he hasn’t already, he’ll have time to reflect on the gravity of his betrayal of the Church’s teachings on life, marriage, and human sexuality
And Smart, level-headed people make very bad decisions all the time. Look at King David and what he did, and
*Look at King David and what he did, and it took the Prophet Nathan to call him out on it and knock some sense into him. And if I’m ever tempted to break communion with Holy Mother Church, I hope God sends a Prophet Nathan into my life to smack me on the head and knock some sense into me.
Yeah, I think the nuns know full well what they're doing, but also that it probably isn't as big a deal as some people feel it to be. I think there is a lot to be said for the Eastern Orthodox position that schism is just one of those unfortunate realities of ecclesial life lived by fallen human beings, rather than the Worst Sin Ever. Stuff happens, and we do our best to patch things up afterwards, while not making too big a deal out of it.
Or maybe they realize that they were baptized Priest,prophet and King. Maybe they realize that bully bishops will remain and decided not to fall prey. Whatever they realized, there is one Judge and His name is not Olsen.
Mary Undoer of Knots, pray for these women and all involved.
I would like info on who owns property in civil law for many things. Who "owns" my parish church? Who "owns" our Catholic high school?
Good article. Sad to see it get to this.
In 5th paragraph you have "Octoboer"--I had to google if that was some British way of spelling it, but I have no way of verifying if Hogwarts spells it that way and that is where Ed learned it =)
The simple answer: It is really, really complicated.
And unravelling all those complications basically provides a history of the Catholic Church in the United States.
That’s a very good answer.
Yup. And, to complicate it, it varies from diocese to diocese. In the words of Monsignor Ronald Knox: In the Barque of Peter, those with queasy stomachs should stay out of the engine room.
I resemble that remark Father! ;)
As someone who was involved in the creation of the first new episcopal corporation sole ex nihilio in Canada in over 70 years (Completed this year for the Ordinariate’s Canadian Deanery, which is really growing up in a very good way), I can attest to the Byzantine structures. But we have to marry ancient canonical requirements with modern civil laws of a modern western society that, let’s be honest, is not friendly to the Church. “Vicarious liability” and “piercing the corporate veil” are very real legal concepts that are relatively modern realities and have to be dealt with. Not for the faint of heart. What a ride, but a good news story unto itself.
Deacon Joseph
Oh yeah, someone needs to work the proverbial engine room! Thanks for your service, Deacon, and may God bless the Ordinariate!
Exactly. And, if one may be blunt, it's in the Church's interest that it remains so, lest the civil courts start seizing and selling off parish buildings in order to satisfy judgements against dioceses for sex abuse coverups.
Not really.
There are people called lawyers who are very good at that sort of thing. And the ownership of one, individual, piece of property is very easy to determine. Almost every county has a GIS system where you can determine who owns a given parcel with the click of a mouse.
What is complicated is that there is no universal answer to who owns Church property in the United States; not that it is difficult to figure out who owns THAT piece of property. Different states have different laws. The last state to ban corporate ownership of church property - any religion - was West Virginia and that provision of the state constitution was struck down by a federal district judge at the end of September. (The history of that provision and the attempts to remove it are worth an article in and of themselves.)
A church in a given diocese that was built in the early 19th century may have different civil ownership that the school next door where the property was bought in the 60's, which is certainly different from the rectory that was bought 10 years ago. THAT is what makes it complicated.
What I mean is that, if the state courts recognized that the bishop (as major superior) really owns all the Catholic property of a diocese, then they might start seizing bank accounts and parish buildings to make good on bankruptcy proceedings and sex abuse settlements. There is good reason why no one has ever consolidated everything under the ownership of a single diocesan civil entity.
That is exactly the case right now; and what you describe routinely happens. In civil law in the majority of places the Bishop is the civil owner of the property - including the property of a parish; and that property is considered part of the bankruptcy estate if a diocese files for bankruptcy. See the Archdiocese of Santa Fe as but one example.
That is why you can see the 21st century era of church property ownership where the civil reality is being aligned with the canonical reality of the pastor of a parish being the civil owner of the parish real estate. But that does not extinguish liability for past claims, it would only effect any new claims going forward.
I will take your word for it, since I make no pretenses about being a subject matter expert in this field, and I could very well be misinformed. I had been under the impression that parishes tended to be civilly administered and owned by separate legal entities from the diocese, but I could well be wrong in that regard.
What most of the other commenters have said is accurate. It varies by US state. In a fair number of states and dioceses, each parish is its own civil corporation, which holds the title to its own property. This model more closely aligns with the canonical reality than some other models.
Catholic High schools, if they are parish high schools, would civilly owned in the same way as their parish, presumably. If they are independent Catholic high schools, it is... more complicated - especially if a religious order is involved. Much of the most complicated situations in Canon law involve the interaction of a diocese and a religious order (and civil law to boot!)
It depends on how law works where you are. Here the owner is the titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Singapore.
I'm growing weary of the weed nuns. Clearly they have problems that need to be resolved, but running to sex offender 'priests' isn't the way to solve them. I've prayed and continue to pray for them but their obstinance in the face of viable alternatives -heck call up a priest in Peoria or Pascagoula and ask their advice- has put me off whatever merit their cause might have had.
They ditched the sex offender priests when they associated with the SSPX.
The current priest who lives at the Monastery, is not an SSPX priest.
Fr. Vincent Young, also from Scranton, has been without faculties for twenty years! One would think that if the former nuns were truly with SSPX, one would merit a SSPX priest? Fr. Young is listed as a "friend of SSPX". The closest SSPX chapel, " Our Lady of Mount Carmel" is in Richardson, Texas.
A priest flies in from Kansas City each weekend to cover two Chapel's, in two different cities.
Weekday Mass is not available at either Chapel.
Yeah, the SSPX has a bit of a circuit rider approach. Their priest shortage is probably the reason for (allegedly) using Fr. Young.
I hope they have enough sense to not be going to him for Confession.
monasteries, churches, etc. ultimately belong to the Church per Canon Law but civilly, that is a different story. It also depends on what is in their constitutions. Civil Law will usually respect as well as the bylaws of the monastery.
I don't think it is worth the bother.
The inevitable outcome. I wish them the best. Pope Francis has assured us multiple times that being Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, or Buddhist is no barrier to salvation (just one of so many "grammars" with which to speak about God), so I'm confident there will be room in Heaven for a little band of kooky Carmelites. One wonder why Bishop Olsen made such a fuss. Is he a crypto-neo-Pelagian such as His Holiness warns about? Doesn't he know that today's Magisterium bids us all to make our own kind of music?
I kinda wonder if Bishop Olsen's unexpected fuss is at the root of this. No one expects a bishop to make any kind of fuss over anything without having some ulterior motive.
The bishop in charge of the priest who was sinning with the nun is not known to have made any fuss. The priest who got caught routinely employing a homosexual hookup app while holding the top administrative office at the USCCB was put in charge of a parish by his bishop. An utter lack of fuss even when it is thoroughly warranted is what everyone expects, through long experience. So even a warranted fuss arouses sincere suspicions. One wonders what else the particular superior fusses about and who else has been dismissed, rather than assuming they are fairly even-handed and justified. Sincere suspicions do not result in the trust that underlies obedience.
Isn't that part of the issue, though? It seems to me that bishops have way too much unfettered authority to decide what they want to do. One bishop can say the priest who employs a homosexual hookup app can be a pastor a year later; another bishop can say a priest with no credible accusation has no faculties.
Do I think the nuns here have gone overboard? Probably. Do I think Bishop Olsen has treated them fairly? Nope. If you've heard the recording of Olsen's interview with the superior, it's nauseating. The woman apparently whispered sweet nothings to a priest on the phone. Granted neither or she should have done so, but it's hardly justification for this outcome. How did we end up here? Is this a reasonable conclusion to this drama?
How does one fetter authority, except by another authority? We already have another authority, and the Pope's Curia is at least as arbitrary about its enforcement as the bishops are. Rupnik has a job, Strickland and Torres do not. Power combined with unpredictability is the natural result of authorities refusing to submit to reason. Authorities refusing to submit to reason is the natural result of them having been formed by laity (parents and teachers) who refused to submit to reason. Laity refusing to submit to reason is the natural result of authorities lording it over them rather than teaching them. Cycle of spiritual abuse. Be nice if we could break that.
I haven't listened to any recordings, but given that they didn't meet in person, there are some obvious limits to what they could have done. I can certainly see a nun being guilt-ridden over a purely emotional affair, and with good reason. But I can't even track the escalation from that to the bishop cutting off all Sacraments for all the nuns, and attempting to dismiss the superior from the religious life and render her homeless, much less to where they are now. The drugs are concerning, but nothing particularly clear has been said about that by anyone. I'm continuing to hold out hope that this is not the conclusion though.
The decrees from Rome starting in April, provide the factual story.
The November 28 and 29th final statements from Rome, offer the conclusion. This whole plan by the former nuns was activated and planned, because it was thought Lisa Marie Gerlach, would be expelled from the order in April 2024 from Rome. When that did not happen and a "temporary Prioress" was appointed by Rome, they were blindsided, and would not allow her entry, and filed yet another civil lawsuit, which went nowhere. From April through November the former nuns would not communicate with the appointed Prioress, even going as far as claiming new elections in August, that were unanimous within the Community, ( The New Prioress was not allowed to participate) with Lisa Marie Gerlach, again elected.
This was done in the presence of an SSPX representative.
They former nuns have not had a priest with proper faculties since August of 2023. So yes, a reasonable conclusion to their actions and decisions indeed.
It is time and way past time these Bishops are divested of the absolute control of others.They are not God though many act that way. I have spent the last four years reading almost anything I can about their actions. They play with people’s lives like puppeteers regardless of the cost. Yet many of their egregious actions are not sanctioned at all. If this is what Jesus had in mind in building His church we have sure missed the boat. Praying for the good ones who humbly interact with others as fellow sinners and journey people.
What I can't get past in this whole situation is that Bishop Olson refused to provide a priest for Mass and confessions early on in the dispute. That to me is the most nauseating and faithless part of this mess.
I’m not sure that your claim about Pope Francis is fully correct. Even in his Singapore speech, he didn’t say anything about salvation. And in none of his official teaching documents has he repeatedly taught assurance of salvation. So I’m unsure of where you’re getting all this.
"All religions are paths to reach God." What does it mean to reach God if not to find salvation? Can someone seek and reach God only to be turned away? That sounds Calvinist to me.
Saint John of the Cross says, "If anyone is seeking God, the Beloved is seeking him all the more." If these are all paths to God, then they are also paths by which God Himself seeks us, for no one can go to the Father unless He calls us. And what else is a path to salvation except a path by which we seek God and God seeks us?
https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2024-09/pope-calls-singapore-youth-unity-during-interreligous-dialogue1.html
In a sense, one can reach God, even reach the one true God, and still not be saved. This is affirmed by the natural law tradition of the Church, the theologians, and the Magisterium.
For instance, St. Thomas Aquinas called his arguments for God the “Quinque Viae,” or the Five Paths. These paths, though they reached the one true God, would not be salvific, since certain divine aspects of God were not proved in them (e.g., the Trinity).
St. Bellarmine admits that the “Jews themselves and the Turks, although they are impious, yet worship the one God.” Thus, a Jew or a Turk, following their own religion, would attain the one true God, though non-salvifically. Francisco Suarez argues likewise affirms that Jews and Muslims “worship the one true God [verum Deum adorant]”. Thus, these “infidels’” religions provide a path to “worship” the one true God—though non-salvifically. Other of the theologians affirm the same.
In Pope Pius X’s Catechism, he distinguishes those who go after false Gods from those who “admit[] one true God,” such as the Muslims. Thus, through their religions, they come to God, though non-salvifically.
Nostra Aetate affirms that Muslims “adore the one God.” Though, once again, it doesn’t say that they do so salvifically. So their religion brings them to the one true God, though not necessarily in a saving manner.
In Pope Francis’ address that you cited, he nowhere mentions being saved or salvation or anything like that. It’s therefore a bit of an interpolation to talk about salvation at all based merely on those remarks. This puts Pope Francis more in line with the theologians and prior magisterium, which affirm other religions can lead people to the one true God, though non-salvifically.
Francis has never struck me as someone who is overly concerned with philosophical speculations about coming to know God as the Divine Mover, etc. He has always seemed laser-focused on God as the One who breaks into our lives in surprising ways bringing mercy and healing. In other words, with God the Savior, the Good Shepherd who carries us on His shoulders. That's the lens through which I read his words, even though he doesn't explicitly speak of salvation in his remarks.
The only person I can say with certitude needs to be Catholic in order to be saved is myself! I don't think I'm special in that regard, so I'm sure there are plenty others for whom that is true, but I also know all sorts of people whom God is clearly leading by...different paths, and I cannot help but respect and acknowledge that. I know that doesn't square easily with Book Catholicism, but I can't deny it either. And I read Pope Francis as having a similar experience and trying to articulate it to others. Maybe I'm reading my own experience into his words too much, but that's how I see things.
Very sad that it came to this. Let’s pray that these former nuns reconcile with Holy Mother Church, and, for the sake of their souls, that they didn’t fully understand the gravity of their actions.
I think this is a bit condescending, brother. Nuns aren't stupid, nor are they sheltered little lambs. When a bishop or priest goes into schism, no one says, "Hopefully he's just confused and doesn't realize how sinful this is." But women religious are often talked about as if they are small children.
I think the sisters know exactly what they are doing, and see it as a choice between going into schism and hoping to patch things up later under a different bishop, or getting turned out on the sidewalk without a penny to their names. "I don't have a choice" is just as often a rationalization for sin as "It's not that big of a deal."
I would be saying the exact same thing if it was a bishop or priest doing this. The reason I say so is if they don’t realize the gravity of what they are doing, then the 3 conditions of a mortal sin are not satisfied, that’s all. That’s why I hope they don’t realize the full gravity of what they have just done.
I hope Bishop Strickland and Father Altman and Peter Kwasniewski don’t realize the full gravity of what they have done in their recent actions either, to name a few, and, now that President Biden will be out of office, I hope, if he hasn’t already, he’ll have time to reflect on the gravity of his betrayal of the Church’s teachings on life, marriage, and human sexuality
And Smart, level-headed people make very bad decisions all the time. Look at King David and what he did, and
*Look at King David and what he did, and it took the Prophet Nathan to call him out on it and knock some sense into him. And if I’m ever tempted to break communion with Holy Mother Church, I hope God sends a Prophet Nathan into my life to smack me on the head and knock some sense into me.
Obviously you have a very different read of the situation than I do, and I respect that. I see it differently than you do.
Yeah, I think the nuns know full well what they're doing, but also that it probably isn't as big a deal as some people feel it to be. I think there is a lot to be said for the Eastern Orthodox position that schism is just one of those unfortunate realities of ecclesial life lived by fallen human beings, rather than the Worst Sin Ever. Stuff happens, and we do our best to patch things up afterwards, while not making too big a deal out of it.
Thank you for explaining your thinking on that.
Or maybe they realize that they were baptized Priest,prophet and King. Maybe they realize that bully bishops will remain and decided not to fall prey. Whatever they realized, there is one Judge and His name is not Olsen.
I am sure the nuns have at least one wealthy patron.
Let me now sing of my friend,
my friend's song concerning his vineyard. ...