I'm glad to be able to report some good news on the case of the abortion nun. (CHT to the person who e-mailed!)
While she hasn't repented (so far as I know), it appears that action is being taken regarding her case. The following statement appears on the Sinsinawa Dominican sisters' web site:
Public Statement of the Sinsinawa Dominican Congregation
11/2/09
Several months ago, the leadership of the Sinsinawa Dominicans was informed that Sister Donna Quinn, OP, acted as a volunteer escort at a Chicago area clinic that among other procedures, performs abortions. After investigating the allegation, Congregation leaders have informed Sr. Donna that her actions are in violation of her profession as a Dominican religious. They regret that her actions have created controversy and resulted in public scandal. They are working with Sr. Donna to resolve the matter appropriately.
Congregation leaders offer the following statement on behalf of members of the Congregation. We as Sinsinawa Dominican women are called to proclaim the Gospel through the ministry of preaching and teaching to participate in the building of a holy and just society. As Dominican religious, we fully support the teaching of the Catholic Church regarding the dignity and value of every human life from conception to natural death. We believe that abortion is an act of violence that destroys the life of the unborn. We do not engage in activity that witnesses to support of abortion.
My guess is that "resolv[ing] the matter appropriately" will mean getting Sr. Quinn to resign from the order, but at least that's one way of ending the scandal of a nun ferrying frightened mothers into a child-killing facility.
Meanwhile, ED PETERS HAS SOME GOOD ADVICE FOR DIOCESAN SPOKESPEOPLE REGARDING SUCH MATTERS.
This a start in the right direction. I hope things continue to improve regarding this religious on all fronts.
🙂
Is it unreasonable to speculate that the photo somebody took of Sr. Quinn (see the previous story about this subject on October 27) casually wearing a “Clinic Escort” bib is what brought about this decision?
Is it another victory for cell phone cameras?
+J.M.J+
Definitely a good start. Let’s pray this all gets resolved the right way.
In Jesu et Maria,
Mr. Akin,
Are you aware of any serious attempt to examine the overall issue of why so many womens’ religious orders have gone so far off the rails? One can understand the post-Vat.II vocations crisis, and even the taste for endless experiment, given the environment of that time. But what has led to such extreme behavior –for this is no great anomaly, given the current state of women religious.
I’m always a little troubled by statements on social issues that start with “We believe that …”, in this case “We believe that abortion is an act of violence that destroys the life of the unborn.” Does it mean “We believe it, but other people believe differently, and who knows who’s right”? Why can’t they just say matter-of-factly “Abortion is an act of violence against the unborn”, if they believe that’s the truth?
Hmm.
How do you feel about the Creeds? Should we be saying “God the Father Almighty is creator of heaven and earth, and Jesus Christ, His only Son, is Lord,” etc?
Just asking.
Wow, SDG asked me a question, how awesome is that! Love decentfilms.com, and your fascinating discussions of films on Catholic Answers Live.
Well, strictly speaking, if I said “God the Father Almighty is …” I would be stating the truth, but I wouldn’t be saying the Creed, which begins with the words “We believe in ….” (Okay, that’s a beside-the-point technicality.)
More to the point, in some situations prefacing a statement with “We believe …” is weaker than simply stating the fact. Suppose I said “we believe that SDG is a man”. Are we really SURE??? Maybe you’d prefer I just said “SDG is a man.”
Abortion IS an act of violence against the unborn. Why can’t the good Sisters just say that, instead of adding a preface that can be interpreted as a hedge?
The point of the Creed (from “credo”, meaning “I believe”) is to state your beliefs. So it makes sense to preface it with “I believe”, with the implication that “I believe this to be true.”
Using the preface in other situations may or may not be as appropriate. I suppose it does weaken the statement a bit, but its not that bad – it still carries the assumption you believe X to be true.
SDG, I think Tom contextualized his concerns to exclude Creed statements at Mass, and the like. I kinda see what’s talking about. It’s a fuzzy way to talk about moral non-negotiables. I mean, like, someone says “I beleive that killing millions of a Jews is an evil thing.”
Like, huh, what? You “just” “belevie” it?
Ah, I see the problem. It would have been less ambiguous had they written:
As Dominican religious, we fully support the teaching of the Catholic Church regarding the dignity and value of every human life from conception to natural death. We, THEREFORE, believe that abortion is an act of violence that destroys the life of the unborn.
They did not fully connect the support of the Church to what they believe. The way it was written, it could have meant that the Church teaches that human life has dignity, but WE go further in saying that abortion is an act of violence.
In charity, I would chalk this up to simply poor writing rather than an attempt to obsfucate.
It is a shame that public pressure forced this to happen. Do not the superiors keep track of their sisters? This should not have been allowed to go on even for a day if the superiors knew. Did not the sister have to ask permission to do this? Doesn’t a vow of obedience mean anything? Something does not seem right, here. Not to be unfair to the sisters, but at least in the old days, no sister could have done something this public without the knowledge of the superiors. If that happened, here, then it would seem that there was a total breakdown of communication or chain of command. As I am not on the inside, I do not know and so I reserve judgment pending better information.
The Overly Critical Chicken
The statement by the Chicago archdiocese is rediculous: “The Cardinal and the other bishops have no power to exert disciplinary action . . . over this sister or her order . . . Sisters and nuns are not priests so the authority of the Cardinal and the bishops does not apply to their discipline.”
Did the press office not stop to think about the logic of this statement? If it were true wouldn’t it mean that religious aren’t bound by canon law? I can understand them getting some point of canon law wrong, but I can’t believe they’d make a statement that’s so illogical. It’s as if they want to do nothing.
Thanks, everyone.
Perhaps the point might be put like this: Does “We believe” mean “We believe,” or “We believe“? That is, does it mean “It is our own view” (“We believe”), in a sense that acknowledges other points of view in some sense parallel to one’s own view, or does it mean “This is constitutive of who and what we are” (“We believe“), this is non-negotiable for us?
The Creed is “We believe” in the latter sense: belief as constitutive of identity, as non-negotiable. To say “We believe” does implicitly acknowledge that others (who are not “we”) do not believe, but it does not concede unbelief as parallel to belief.
The Chicken says that the Congregation’s statement is ambiguous. I agree in the sense that I think that it’s possible to take “We believe” either way. I’m not sure I consider the ambiguity a matter of blameworthiness or that I would call it bad writing.
The context, in which the Congregation “informed Sr. Donna that her actions are in violation of her profession as a Dominican religious,” seems to dovetail with an interpretation of “We believe” as “It is constitutive of who we are, it is non-negotiable.” They also acknowledge that her example caused “public scandal.” I don’t see the need to place the emphasis on “We” rather than “believe” and make it a matter of the Congregation’s particular views.
Beyond that, I consider my moral worldview as a Catholic to be contingent on my theological worldview (i.e., if there is no God, all things are permissible, and all that). So if I can say “We believe in God,” then it doesn’t seem inappropriate to say “I believe in the natural moral law,” “I believe that murder is wrong,” etc. Even “I believe that killing millions of Jews is wrong.”
That said, it occurs to me that “We believe that abortion is an act of violence that destroys the life of the unborn” does seem weak, because as phrased it’s not really a moral statement, but a basically undeniable statement of empirical reality. So not so much parallel to, e.g., “I believe that killing millions of Jews is evil” as “I believe that the Holocaust killed millions of Jews.”
In that sense, I agree it’s poor writing, though I think that adding a moral qualifier such as “We believe that abortion is a morally indefensible act of violence that destroys the life of the unborn” would make it a perfectly acceptable statement without compromising the non-negotiability of moral truth.
All the leaders and all the members? A majority? A minority? Perhaps just a few? Who exactly is “we” in the statement? Two people?
“The Creed is “We believe” in the latter sense: belief as constitutive of identity, as non-negotiable.”
If emphasis on “believe” rather than “we” is what makes the belief “constitutive of identity”, what do you make of the scene in A Man for All Seasons where Thomas More says: “But for me, the important thing isn’t that they’re true, but that I believe them-or rather, not that I believe them but that I believe them”? I feel that this is the only morally ambiguous moment in an otherwise magnificent play. We should emphasize the truth, not ourselves. Still, with this in mind, it seems to me that whether the belief is non-negotiable depends not on which word is emphasized, but what meaning is given to the word “belief”: the “certainty of faith” in the traditional Christian sense, or the less definite sense of an opinion (as in “I believe A Man for All Seasons is a great work of drama”). There’s a real danger that people may think “believe”, as used in the creed, takes the latter sense.
Perhaps “we” are members of the National Coalition of American Nuns (NCAN). As NCAN cofounder Sr. Traxler has said, “We are against abortion,” and as Sr. Donna has said, “I do not promote abortion. I never have promoted abortion.”
Members of NCAN have reportedly said that too. In the 80’s, Sr. Traxler reportedly signed a statement requested by the Vatican saying she too believes in the sanctity of human life. Sr. Donna also signed a statement that reportedly said, “I have never promoted abortion nor do I intend to.” The Vatican then reportedly issued a public statement saying the sisters and others had made “public declarations of adherence to Catholic doctrine.”
Or, maybe “we” is Humpty Dumpty, who said ‘in rather a scornful tone’, “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.” But then, perhaps “we” would have to be used “in rather a scornful tone”. Perhaps only Humpty Dumpty knows.
I wish the resolution to the problem was the nun turning away from the mirror and coming back to the Catholic faith.
+J.M.J+
Don’t know whether anyone read the latest:
Nun Defiant Following Rebuke, but Stops Abortion Escorting
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/nov/09110501.html
In Jesu et Maria,
I saw her comments which basically said she’s pro-choice without actually using those words.
I AM curious about Cdl George’s comments. Jimmy, can you explain the role of a bishop relative to religious orders? Among other things, a bishop is a teacher and I am not sure why it would be a problem for him to minimally express concern about a nun escorting women to the door of an abortion clinic since it certainly gives the APPEARANCE of supporting the act of abortion and thus creates scandal. On the other hand, there is no way that we can know if he did or did not call the mother superior to discuss the matter with her.
>My guess is that “resolv[ing] the matter appropriately” will mean getting Sr. Quinn to resign from the order,
Those who worship the mirror will not do the right thing like resign.
They’d have to forcefully kick her out. I’d doubt they’d do that, as it took this publicized scandal just for them to actually admit “hey, abortion kills!”
“it took this publicized scandal just for them to actually admit ‘hey, abortion kills!'”
More like, “We believe abortion kills.”.
Could Donna Quinn have been escorting women to the abortuary and counseling them while escorting? Hmmmm.
She needs to leave the community and find a group more compatible with her views. It is incomprehensible that a Catholic nun helps escort. I wrote the same to the Prioress, and she replied that they are working with Quinn. Another non answer.
>She needs to leave the community and find a group more compatible with her views.
Moloch worshipers? 🙂
Manuilsky, a prominent Soviet professor at the School of Political Warfare, said: “The bourgeoisie will have to be put to sleep. We shall begln by Launching the most spectacular peace movement on record. There will be electrifying overtures and unheard-of concessions. The capitalist countries, stupid and decadent, will rejoice to cooperate in their own destruction. They will leap at another chance to be friends.”
And Khrushchev, a more contemporary Soviet prime minister, said: “We cannot expect Americans to jump from capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans doses of socialism until they suddenly awake to find out they have Communism.”
Sr. Donna’s abortion mill, ACU “Health” Center is a 21 min drive from Queen of Peace HS (all girl) and 17 mins from Trinity HS (all girl). Her order the Sinisawan Dominicans “sponsors” both schools. Anyone else have a really awful feeling in the pit of their stomach?
Sinsiwans “sponsored” Edgewood College has quite a few OP actually teaching. Lots in their Ed Dept and one teaching Theology, another Philosophy. Their students student teach at a k-8 school connecte to the college.
Think the singing bowl and labyrinth waking is bad at the motherhouse? Take a look at the social justice/peace gone mad at Queen of Peace. The old bats may be dying off but they’re doing their best to brainwash a new generation.
Their claim to be in the Dominican tradition is hilarious – given St. Dominic’s role in combatting the Albigensians and the Inquisition. Oops – they call it the Sinisawan tradition. Not exactly accurate if you know anything about their founder’s penitential practices.
Please pray for their conversion – I have a vision of all of them in Dominican habits marching with Aletha King and Fr. Frank Pavone in front of ACU and leading the girls to the March for Life in DC. Wouldn’t thay be wonderful?
Ugh, she gets worse and worse.
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/religion_theseeker/2009/12/prochoice-nun-still-fighting-for-womens-care.html