Leftist Hysteria Continues Over Pope Francis and LCWR

This one is too good to pass up. Over at the Daily Screech, someone named Barbie Latza Nadir Nadeau has posted this scribbled panic attack with the priceless title “New Pope, but No Nicer to Nuns.” The only good thing that can be said about it is that Ms. Nadeau is skilled at alliteration. In school, Rhetoric 101 may have been more her strong suit than Logic 101.

***

Ms. Nadir Nadeau begins her article by setting the context for the outrage to come. (As she sees it.) “Pope Francis,” she tells us, “has done wonders to renew the faith of many lost Catholics around the world and cast a positive light on the troubled Church.”

Yes. You see, to leftists, the Church is always “troubled.” They never stop to consider that it might be themselves who are “troubled,” for no other reason than that the Church is there; but leftists have a strange need to project their own psychoses onto 2000-year-old institutions.

Francis’s concern for the poor, Ms. Nadir continues, “has been welcomed by many disenfranchised Catholics who felt their church was out of touch with reality.”

Yes. If by “reality” you mean “heresy.” It’s important to be careful here, because leftists never provide translations of their own rhetorical fugues.

***

Now for the outrage. (As Ms. Nadir sees it.) When Pope Francis decided to reaffirm the CDF’s Doctrinal Assessment of the LCWR (known on this blog as the Wyrd Sisters, or Pope Joan and the Magical Mystery Tour), “it felt like it was back to business as usual.” Upon noting which, Ms. Nadir lets loose with the the standard, and tired, references to the DA (which she likely has not taken the time to read or understand) as a “clampdown” on “nuns.”

But here’s the key sentence in Ms. Nadir’s lead:

For all the renewal that Francis promises, the cold hard reality is still that the Catholic Church is still [sic] one of the most misogynistic organizations around.

That’s right, Ms. Nadir. You tell’m. We’re so “misogynistic,” in fact, that we say the greatest human being to ever live was this person:

That sort of consideration, however, is lost on Ms. Nadir. She has her talking points and she clings to them like Linus’s blue blanket, no matter how insensate they are. “[A] positive gesture towards recognizing women’s value in the universal [C]hurch,” she intones, “could have started with softening the strict stance on American nuns.”

***

But no, Ms. Nadir. The CDF has not taken a strict stance on “nuns.” It has taken a strict stance on heresy. Have you read the DA? Lumen Gentium 43-47? Vita Consecrata? Please, don’t wait for the crickets to stop chirping. Here is a key passage from VC:

A distinctive aspect of ecclesial communion is allegiance of mind and heart to the Magisterium of the Bishops, an allegiance which must be lived honestly and clearly testified to before the People of God by all consecrated persons, especially those involved in theological research, teaching, publishing, catechesis[,] and the use of the means of social communication. (§ 46)

You see, Ms. Nadir, the purpose of a religion is to advance claims about the Truth.

Veritas? Quid est veritas?

If you find that to be your question, that might be part of the difficulty you are having. For you seem to think that the Church is a plastic institution and can be molded and remolded to suit whatever political hysteria is gripping the masses at the moment. But you see, Ms. Nadir, the very same Pope John Paul II who wrote those words about the importance of fidelity to the truth as proclaimed by the Church, also named St. Therese of Lisieux—a woman and a nun—a Doctor of the Church. Pope Benedict XVI did the same for St. Hildegard of Bingen. Before them, Pope Paul VI, author of that misogynistic, anti-contraception encyclical Humanae Vitae, named two women Religious as Doctors of the Church: St. Teresa of Avila and St. Catherine of Siena. Does that sound like misogyny to you?

Perhaps, Ms. Nadir, you would care to explain to me how a concern for the poor and an appreciation of the role of women Religious in the Church is inconsistent with faithfulness to Church teaching? Please. I have a combox and a contact form. I would be interested to know. For if it is inconsistent, then how do you then explain Mother Teresa and the Church’s deep and abiding love for her and her mission of charity?

Indeed, there can be no real concern for the poor, nor the smallest and weakest among us, without faithfulness to the Truth. According to the LCWR, quoted in Ms. Nadir’s article, the sanctions imposed by the CDF “could compromise their ability to fulfil their mission.” But no, Ms. Nadir, not unless their mission is heresy—because heresy is not the mission of the Church. Proclaiming the Truth is, and bringing it to all men and women. And in the service of that mission, the Church does not hate women. It hates heresy.

It must be understood, however, that those in the leftist media, like Ms. Nadir, do not understand the Church, neither do they care to. They won’t take the time to read the DA or to understand what it actually says. To do so would be inconvenient to their small minds and their small talking points. Truth does not matter, and never did, to them. Quid est veritas?

American nuns deserve better than a gaggle of heretics who claim to speak in their name.

Update: I wish I could top Fr. Z’s “spittle-flecked nutty” expression, but that happens to be the perfect description for Katie McDonough’s charming meltdown on Salon. Check it out and marvel.

***

If you like the content on this blog, your generous gift to the author helps to keep it active. I remember all my supporters in my Mass intentions each week.