Religion
Related: About this forumLiberal Love Affair with Francis Over?
Pope Francis Supports Crackdown on US NunsVATICAN CITY (AP) The Vatican said Monday that Pope Francis supports the Holy Sees crackdown on the largest umbrella group of U.S. nuns, dimming hopes that a Jesuit pope whose emphasis on the poor mirrored the nuns own social outreach would take a different approach than his predecessor.
The Vatican last year imposed an overhaul of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious after determining the sisters took positions that undermined Catholic teaching on the priesthood and homosexuality while promoting radical feminist themes incompatible with the Catholic faith. Investigators praised the nuns humanitarian work, but accused them of ignoring critical issues, including fighting abortion.
On Monday, the heads of the conference met with the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Archbishop Gerhard Mueller, who is in charge of the crackdown. It was their first meeting since Mueller was appointed in July.
In a statement, Muellers office said he told the sisters that he had discussed the matter recently with Francis and that the pope had reaffirmed the findings of the assessment and the program of reform.
The conference, for its part, said the talks were open and frank, and noted that Mueller had informed them of Francis decision.
more:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/pope-francis-supports-crackdown-on-us-nuns.php?ref=fpblg
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)I'm sure another coach tour will fix everything. After all, the Vatican ignores these mighty nuns "at their peril", if I recall your words.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)So pay close attention. This is not your safe haven. It is not your private echo chamber. You do not get to decide with a wave of your hand who you will allow to comment on or criticize your posts in an open discussion forum. I know you'd like to stifle all judgement or criticism of what you post here, and I know you've tried to in every way you can think of, but that's not how this place works. Cope.
You have three choices. You can stay in Interfaith. You can stop posting. You can put me on ignore. Notice that having me never respond to one of your posts again is not among them. If you choose to post publicly in open forums, you implicitly accept comment and criticism of those posts that is within site and group rules. From anyone.
And please, don't waste your time or mine repeating your request. It will be ignored, and I will continue to feel free to respond as I see fit.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)You're such a meanie!
rug
(82,333 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Leave me alone! You're such a meanie!
Robb
(39,665 posts)Not for nothing, but this might be a moment for you better spent in quiet self-reflection.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)I've seen how juries here think, and I know they heartily approve of calling atheist "assholes" But I figured, what the hell?
And if I'm supposed to reflect on asserting my right to respond to other people's posts as I see fit, and not to be stifled by someone who indulges their right to post freely anything they choose, but not other people's right to criticize them, it's been done.
You have a nice day.
Robb
(39,665 posts)Again, you ought to think on that.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)The people on this board who call atheists "assholes" just can't help themselves, can they? This is all the fault of the people being called "assholes", isn't it?
It may be time for YOU to reflect a little. Or to thank God that you're not like other atheists.
Robb
(39,665 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)You don't think skeptic is right? Should cbayer be immune from criticism in Religion? Seriously.
I get it. skeptic can be caustic and isn't everyone's cup of tea. But when I read that response to cbayer, I thought it was very level headed and respectful in tone given that it was in response to "shut up and don't post to what I say in an open forum."
But I'm asshole, too, I guess. So there's that.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Which of us do you think he was flinging the term "assholery" at?
As far as the rest, I wouldn't expect a coherent answer. He's already reached his depths.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)In any public forum, a person has the right to request that someone leave them alone.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)That's the option you have. Then you never need to read a thing from them.
This is an open forum. You post in it, people have the right to respond to you. Just because he responded with what you previously said about what would happen if the RCC squashed those nuns does NOT rise to stalking, harassing, or bullying. You were wrong about what was going to happen. You were wrong about the approach this Pope would take. We are all wrong many times in our lives.
Heddi
(18,312 posts)You make a post in a public forum and people will respond to you. It's called "responding to you," not stalking, harassing, or bullying. I know you consider anyone who doesn't agree with your opinion or your worldview to be "stalking, harassing, or bullying" you, but it's not the case.
You don't want someone responding to your posts, you have a few options:
1) don't make posts on a public messageboard where others are free to respond to your posts
2) put the people that you don't want responding to your posts on ignore
3) choose option 1
4) choose option 2
This is not your private forum. This is a public forum open to all members of DU who have posting privileges. You are the only person able to control who does and doesn't respond to you...and if you see those responses or not. The onus is on you, and it's rather rude to demand that others not respond to your posts because you don't like what they have to say.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)But you don't have the right to have that request fulfilled. Not when "leave me alone" means "never challenge, criticize or respond in any way to anything I post, ever, ever again".
You don't have that right. No matter how much you play the victim card here, you don't.
rug
(82,333 posts)There's a huge difference between criticism and being caustic and rank personal attacks.
It's even more obnoxious when it's draped in self-righteousness.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Who's never been caustic or never made personal attacks..says the champion of passive-aggressive snark.
rug
(82,333 posts)How ever do you bear it?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)If you don't want to interact with someone, use the Ignore feature. You will never see their posts again.
If you believe their behavior is out of line or against the rules, use the Alert feature. If a jury agrees, the post will be hidden and that person won't be able to reply to you again in the thread.
It doesn't seem appropriate to act like you get your own special third way to silence viewpoints you don't want to hear.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)without being harassed, stalked or bullied. It's a request. You can choose to ignore it if you wish.
Heddi
(18,312 posts)Your posts are being responded to by other posters who have the same rights to type messages and responses on this message board as you do.
That's not stalking. It's not bullying. It's not harassing,.
If you don't want people to respond to your posts you can either
1) not make posts
2) not see the responses by putting the people who you incorrectly believe are stalking, bullying, or harassing you on ignore.
Those are your options.
You truly dilute the true meaning of the words "harass", "stalk", and "bully" when you use them to refer to postings that disagree with you. Or that challenge you. Or that respond to you.
You are not being bullied. You are being challenged. You are being responded to. You are being disagreed with.
I urge you to speak with victims of true harassment, bullying, and stalking (I am one, and would love to show you the miles of paper trail and red tape and restraining orders, and black and blue marks and physical and psychological scars from it) and let them tell you that you're full of baloney if you think that having someone disagree with you on a message board is stalking, harassing, or bullying
trotsky
(49,533 posts)But one could ask why you don't think others have the right to participate here, by simply asking you questions.
I asked why the tools DU has provided us are insufficient for your needs. I didn't threaten, harass, or bully you. I asked you a question. I understand what you're trying to do; it's quite transparent. I don't know if this method to alert on and silence people will work, but I do know the behavior is very dishonest, childish, and passive-aggressive. I think you can be better than that.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)I truly believe that you can be better than this. Please demonstrate that my belief is justified.
rug
(82,333 posts)2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)ForgoTheConsequence
(4,846 posts)And I'm not surprised in the slightest that the boards resident Papal News Network reporter didn't post this under late breaking news, I guess it doesn't fit their agenda.
DonViejo
(60,536 posts)you should be aware that I have entered two OP's regarding the Pope, this being the second. And neither were entered as LBN.
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,846 posts)I'm referring to someone who spams the board with nothing but positive news about this Pope.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)But I guess the new boss is the same as the old.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Did you respond to the right post?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)And the posts about a certain someone posting positive stuff made me think that we had high hopes. I am sorry if I was not clear on that Cleanhippie.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)hugely conservative cardinal elevated to the papacy would continue the hugely conservative policies of his dubious predecessor?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Except for all of us mean cynical atheists who predicted exactly that, of course.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Tempest
(14,591 posts)Neither myself or any of my liberal friends give a rat's ass about what that organization does.
DonViejo
(60,536 posts)that we're hoping this Pope would somehow be different. I sent them copies of this article but haven't heard back from them yet.
2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)Although those ones' status as "liberals" is highly debatable.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)I must have missed a memo.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Fail, ST, but nice try.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)If ever there was an evangelical atheist, it would look a great deal like you.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)didn't we have this conversation already? i thought atheists were 'militant' when loud. i guess that didn't stick so might as well grasp at some other straw?
in any case it's a matter of opinion and p.o.v. your evangelical atheist is my vocal nonbeliever.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Last edited Tue Apr 16, 2013, 10:27 AM - Edit history (1)
I know it must be frustrating, so just stop it.
And thanks for demonstrating yet again, that all you have left are personal attacks and name calling. I wear it as a badge of honor coming from the likes of you.
Have a nice day!
On edit: I see that you started a whole other OP dedicated to calling me and other vocal non-believers disparaging names. Thats all you have left, isn't it? How sad and pathetic. I'll pray for you.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I thought he might have been a breath of fresh air.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)a homophobic misogynist, were you expecting him to magically change his positions since election into office?
pinto
(106,886 posts)backscatter712
(26,355 posts)It's time to tell him "Lighten up, Francis!"
struggle4progress
(118,034 posts)with the Presidency of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) of the United States of America ... "As this was his first opportunity to meet with the Presidency of the LCWR, the Prefect of the Congregation, Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Muller, expressed his gratitude for the great contribution of women Religious to the Church in the United States as seen particularly in the many schools, hospitals, and institutions of support for the poor which have been founded and staffed by Religious over the years. The Prefect then highlighted the teaching of the Second Vatican Council regarding the important mission of Religious to promote a vision of ecclesial communion founded on faith in Jesus Christ and the teachings of the Church as faithfully taught through the ages under the guidance of the Magisterium ...
http://www.indcatholicnews.com/news.php?viewStory=22339
struggle4progress
(118,034 posts)by Joshua J. McElwee | Apr. 15, 2013
... While the doctrinal congregation may be taking a hard-line approach, the Vatican congregation responsible for overseeing the work of religious orders around the world recently has taken a more sensitive tack, even indicating it sought dialogue with the sisters.
The April 6 appointment of Franciscan Fr. José Rodríguez Carballo as the second-in-command of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, Pope Francis' first appointment to the Vatican bureaucracy, seemed to approve the softer approach: Rodríguez's colleagues said he is someone who seeks collaboration rather than conflict ...
http://ncronline.org/news/vatican/pope-francis-reaffirms-lcwr-critique-plan-reform
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)..the cognitive dissonance is stifling.
though i expect the love affair to continue in liberal catholic strongholds.. here, at least the catholic community loved the *old* pope. the dissonance just increased in intensity, but it was not new.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)He does great photo-ops, but his policies are the same old misogynistic, homophobic, authoritarian RCC shit.
dimbear
(6,271 posts)the base happy, and that means ticking off relatively unimportant small groups, in this case, the liberals.
The important problem for the RCC is its schism (actually schisms, but mainly the one) on the right--that's what they really care about, taking care of that schism on the right (and guarding against more of the same) will determine their actions for the immediate future.