Apr 23, 2012 -- 10:59PM, ted08721 wrote:

This is really good stuff, not so much Allen from NCR but after him there is a sister and a spokesperson from that neo-con college in Virginia along with several calls into the show

www.npr.org/2012/04/23/151222359/vatican...

Ted, thank you much for that link. The exchange below, between two guests on the show, one (Ms. or is it Sr.? Bethell) who sits on the board of directors of a catholic college in Virginia, and the other Sr. Simone Campbell who works for NETWORK, an organization mentioned in the vatican's reprimand:

CONAN: Donna Bethell, chairman of the board of directors for Christendom College in Front Royal, Virginia. Also with us, Sister Simone Campbell, executive director of NETWORK. You're listening to TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. Sister Simone Campbell.

CAMPBELL: I think that there are teachings within the church, but at the core of our faith is Jesus, and our belief that our way is to walk with Jesus, and that we are one body. The whole of creation is one body. And that walking as Jesus walked, when you look at what Jesus did, it's to be in relationship with those at the margins of society.

There's a story - and one of my favorites is the Samaritan woman at the well. Jewish men did not talk to Samaritans, especially a woman, and yet he not - Jesus not only talked to her, Jesus asked for help, and gave her a life that was beyond her imagining. And that being at the margins is how we as Women Religious live.

We are in relationship with the folks that are cast out, with the folks that are not talked to, with the folks that are shunned, the homeless, the hungry, the folks who we would like to turn our backs on. That's who we commit our lives to. And that influences how we see Jesus, and then, therefore, also how we then live vibrantly in the church.

Our mission in the church as Women Religious is to the people of God. The bishops are doing their work and their mission as a church, which is to protect the institution and the institution of the church. Those two missions are often historically in conflict, and that's what we have here right now, is a small, little dustup around the different of - difference of mission.

CONAN: Donna Bethell, a small, little dustup?

BETHELL: No, I don't think so. The Samaritan woman story is one of my favorites as well. And it's interesting that Jesus did talk to her against the cultural norms of the day. He did ask her for help, and then he called her to account for her life. He asked her - he said, come back. Go get your husband and bring him back here.

And she said, well, I don't have a husband. And he said, yes. The man you're living with is not your husband, or the four before that. So he's - he didn't mince words with her. And she was so taken aback that she tried to change the subject, and he wouldn't let her change the subject. And then she finally saw. She said, I see that you are a prophet, and you are speaking the truth. And she went off to tell the villagers, come and see what this - come and see this man. He's told me everything I've ever done. Well, they knew what kind of a woman she was. They rushed right out to hear the whole, you know, every bit of (unintelligible). But at any rate, the bishops are the authority in the church.

The bishops are not simply restricted to some kind of an administrative role. They are responsible for everything that goes on in the church; that you cannot bifurcate them and say that there are other things that go on that don't concern them and that they're not answerable for.

That these two women focus on different parts of the same Gospel story says it all to me about the divisions in the church, in the nation, and beyond between conservatives and progressives. Each comes from their own orientation and picks what part of the story to emphasize. Where is the objectivity? There is none, or at best very little is to be found. Where is the dialogue? Not in that short program as the two simply re-stated their views and that was that. I think more people want dialogue to happen, but the religious dogmas and doctrines stifle that, as I see it. What is needed is more questioning, not more re-statement of preconcieved ideas and beliefs. But then, that's the way I see think the best answer is found -- through inquiry, even when (or maybe especially when) the results of that inquiry challenge your own beliefs and attitudes.

Apr 24, 2012 -- 12:58PM, gilg wrote:

Newsjunkie,

I agree but at least they are "talking" with one another.... I don't think it is so much dogma that impedes communication as much as GOALS; ths sisters have one goal which is living the a lifestyle models after Christ, the other lady is like the bishops, their goal is protecting the image of the institution or better yet, protecting the bishops' ass.

 

OK, but how did they each get into those roles, chasing after different goals, in the first place?

Apr 24, 2012 -- 1:04PM, gilg wrote:

OK, but how did they each get into those roles, chasing after different goals, in the first place?

Good question, I don't know. Let me think aboujt it... or perhaps someone has some insight that they will share with us. 

Actually, that question, in a much broader way is one that I have been wondering about, and asking, ever since I came to Bnet.  So many of the views of the "conservatives" make no sense to me, so I have asked and asked.  Initially, the response was simply to quote from a church document of some kind, as if be simply repeating what the institution says about itself should be enough.  When pressed, some then implied that the "dissenters" are uneducated about Catholicism, that they were "poorly catechized", that they never understood what Vatican II was 'really" all about. Yet most of the "dissenters" on this board were catechized in precisely the way these conservatives - mostly part of the most "conservative" cohort in the church - the 30s and 40s - think the church should go back to. Some here are former priests, several are former seminarians, and many others were educated from birth through graduate school in Catholic educational institutions. The dissent is not the result of poor catechesis or lack of knowledge of the church and its documents and its teachings and its history, which is often broader and deeper than that of the "conservatives" for whom Catholic history revolves around John Paul II and Benedict.   But, over and over, when asked for their personal thoughts and about the thinking process that leads them to their conclusion, they have been unable to answer.  It's always more quotes from more Catholic documents or from a personal favorite (Escriva, for example).

Gil, I well remember a time when you asked that JJ or Dan dialogue with you about TOB - you wanted to go through it with them talk by talk, all several hundred of them.  They disappeared. That has happened many times on this board - it makes one wonder if they have ever really thought it all out - on their own -  if they are simply not capable of discussing these things based on their own thought, rather than simply their acceptance of the arguments presented by the church - based on their foundational belief assumption that the institutional church, the "magisterium" literally speaks for God, as the hierarchy teaches about itself. If you accept that premise without question, then there is nothing that anyone can say about anything that they will accept if it diverges from the official instiutional church teaching of the moment.

Eventually they just drop out of the conversation.  So will the "progressives" and the "conservatives" ever truly be able to grasp where the "other side" is coming from - understand how they form their beliefs, which leads to their "goals"?

Apr 24, 2012 -- 2:36PM, WaveringCC wrote:

Eventually they just drop out of the conversation.  So will the "progressives" and the "conservatives" ever truly be able to grasp where the "other side" is coming from - understand how they form their beliefs, which leads to their "goals"?

Here is a book which I haven't read but from reviews and discussions may addresses your question:

www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/...

FYI: This review suggests that Haidt says "conservatives" understand "progressives" but not the other way around.

Apr 24, 2012 -- 9:06PM, SeraphimR wrote:

Apr 24, 2012 -- 2:36PM, WaveringCC wrote:

Eventually they just drop out of the conversation.  So will the "progressives" and the "conservatives" ever truly be able to grasp where the "other side" is coming from - understand how they form their beliefs, which leads to their "goals"?

Here is a book which I haven't read but from reviews and discussions may addresses your question:

www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/...

FYI: This review suggests that Haidt says "conservatives" understand "progressives" but not the other way around.

I don't think either side really understand the other - especially in the political realm. While the book sounds interesting, it does not seem that it would answer my question.  He is primarily concerned with the political realm, specifically the American political realm. The terms "conservative" and "liberal" within the context of Roman Catholicism do not always refer to the same individuals identified by those terms in the American political realm. Sometimes, but certainly not always.  I am referring instead specifically to a handful of conservative Catholics who used to post on this board regularly.  They disappear from discussions as soon as they are asked questions beyond the simplistic, child-level catechetical level, and usually also when asked to explain their views w/o quoting from a papal or other official church document.