Text: Faithful Women Religious release counter-statement
Hot on the heels of the liberal women religious orders that released a statement yesterday in support of the anti-life health care bill, this statement was released today by the Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious (bold parts are mine):
In a March 15th statement, Cardinal Francis George, OMI, of Chicago, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, spoke on behalf of the United States Bishops in opposition to the Senate’s version of the health care legislation under consideration because of its expansion of abortion funding and its lack of adequate provision for conscience protection. Recent statements from groups like Network, the Catholic Health Association and the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) directly oppose the Catholic Church’s position on critical issues of health care reform.
The Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious, the second conference of Major Superiors of Women Religious in the United States, believes the Bishops’ position is the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church.
Protection of life and freedom of conscience are central to morally responsible judgment. We join the bishops in seeking ethically sound legislation.
Mother Mary Quentin Sheridan, R.S.M.
President
On behalf of the Membership of the Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious
Circulate this to anyone you hear claiming “all the nuns support the health care bill.”
This point should also be made: contrary to nearly all the reporting, 59,000 nuns don’t support the bill. There are 59,000 religious women in the United States total (according to CARA), and not all of them are represented by the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR). It would be helpful to find out how many religious women are in LCWR and CMSWR.
update – CMSWER (the faithful women religious quoted above) represent 103 communities and 10,000 members. The letter released by LCWR (disagreeing on this issue) claimed 60 communities.
Tweet this
Email
RSS
29 Comments
my daughter wishes to join /your ground.sending me your address would be of my great impontance.thanks sisters.
Regarding DTMarch 18, 2010Marianne,
“Faith” is hardly the word for it. More like “informed, but certainly not infallible judgment about how a political actor is likely to behave in the future given the particulars of the current situation”. My faith is in Jesus Christ alone, and my allegiance is to his kingdom, not to any other principality or power.
Even still, the question isn’t whether my judgment is “touching”; it is whether it is heterodox. Does my political and legal analysis on this matter mean that I now must hang quotation marks around the word Catholic any time I use the word in reference to myself? Does it mean Thomas and other Catholics who are politically conservative will from now on label me a fake Catholic?
You face our Maker and decide who you are then.
Thank you, Mother Mary Quentin Sheridan, R.S.M.,
These nuns do profess their faith by doing what is taught by the Catholic Church. Glenn Beck has referred to many Catholic’s who do not practice what is taught by our faith but social justice as a government policy. The important things are to remember Faith Hope and Charity. Mandated charity is not like giving from your heart.
CatholicVoteAction.orgHomeDiscussDonateText: Faithful Women Religious release counter-statement
by Thomas Peters on March 18th, 2010Hot on the heels of the liberal women religious orders that released a statement yesterday in support of the anti-life health care bill, this statement was released today by the Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious (bold parts are mine):
It is like paraphrasing Glenn Beck’s statment Some Catholic’s who contrary to their religious teaching are supporting social justice rather than personal charity pursuits.
Sister Simone at network said she spoke for 59,000 other nuns. Guess what ? According to my research there are only 59,000 nuns in the US and many of them are old and retired
Great article! The LCWR has absolutely no right to speak for all of the women religious in the United States. My community, the Daughters of Mary Mother of Healing Love are absolutely opposed to Obama’s health care plan for many reasons, the primary one being that it will fund abortions. Thank you for publishing this article with the rebuttal from CMSWER.
Marianne,
“Faith” is hardly the word for it. More like “informed, but certainly not infallible judgment about how a political actor is likely to behave in the future given the particulars of the current situation”. My faith is in Jesus Christ alone, and my allegiance is to his kingdom, not to any other principality or power.
Even still, the question isn’t whether my judgment is “touching”; it is whether it is heterodox. Does my political and legal analysis on this matter mean that I now must hang quotation marks around the word Catholic any time I use the word in reference to myself? Does it mean Thomas and other Catholics who are politically conservative will from now on label me a fake Catholic?
DT,
We are not just talking about campaign promises. Obama said that the pre-Stupack bill would not provide federal funding for abortions. Yet that was not true. If he was mistaken or lying about the pre-Stupack House bill, why should I believe him when he says the same thing about a Senate bill that lacks Stupack-like language?
Beyond that, there are expert legal opinions on both sides of the abortion-funding question. I am no expert, so I quite frankly do not know which to believe. So I use another litmus test:
- Are those handful of pro-choice politicians who are saying so lying to their pro-choice supporters when they say that there will be abortion funding?
- If the bills do not provide abortion funding, and are not structured in such a way as to easily accommodate abortion funding in the future, then why are efforts to make that clear and unequivocal being so hotly contested by the pro-choice side?
Considering that there is so much resistance to an explicit prohibition of federal funding for abortion in the Senate bill from pro-choice politicians, I have to conclude that it does in fact provide either funding, or a mechanism that will make funding possible for abortion and that they are using the obfuscation of dense legalese to try to hide that.
Interestingly, the CMSWR website publishes the list and names of communities affiliated with them. And so when they say they speak for so much number of communities and women religious, they have the list to prove it. This is not true the same with the LCWR.Go and check their websites.
Caption of the Day/PPOTD
