Nuns gone wild...
News came recently of the Vatican’s decision to crack down on nuns in the United States for their radical beliefs. This was not exactly a rush job, as Donna Steichen gathered sufficient evidence to demonstrate the catastrophic problem twenty years ago. In 1991 she wrote, Ungodly Rage: The Hidden Face of Catholic Feminism. It is an exposé of the radical feminist beliefs of women religious in the Catholic Church and the failure of U.S. bishops to deal with the problem and sometimes even to acknowledge it existed.
Mrs. Steichen is a wife and mother and a believing, orthodox Roman Catholic. She is a veteran of the pro-life movement and writes from a theological perspective that many of us would find appealing, save the normal differences between Catholics and Protestants.
The book was difficult for me to finish because it was repetitive; however, the repetition came out of necessity. She was trying to make the case that large sections of Roman Catholicism in the U.S. had overthrown the Catholic faith and were now adherents of a different, alien faith...To do so, Steichen went to conference after conference, interviewed speaker after speaker, examined Catholic order after order and group after group.
This book is the write-up from the copious notes she took and we should be grateful. It could not have been easy to hear the heresies spewed forth by bitter women and to encounter the spiritual evil she met in these conferences, which were not so different from the activities of your local coven of witches or a new age coffee klatch. She deserves our thanks and prayers. She did the investigative work, made her case, and now, finally, the Vatican is taking note.
If you are time-pressed, you could probably read the first and seventh chapters and then just a portion of chapters two to six and you would still get the gist of her point.
What was her point? During the 70s and 80s, a group of Catholic women led significant parts of the U.S. church astray by teaching a radical feminism. Some names came up time and again: Rosemary Radford Ruether, Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza, (Indiana University’s own) Mary Jo Weaver, Starhawk, Mary Daly and Marjory Tuite. Much of their teaching at conferences is through personal narratives, telling their own life stories to other women religious who attend.
The narratives often went something like this. “I grew up in a very conservative Catholic home. We went to mass every week. We said the rosary together. As I started to develop sexually, my parents told me that sex was only for marriage and that if I was really good, I’d become a nun and never have sex. So I did. I said, ‘no,’ to my body for twenty years. Now I am saying, ‘yes,’ to my body in all kinds of ways, good and bad. Slowly, I have come to see the need to connect spirituality and my sexuality.” Sometimes these women have left their orders. More often they have remained within them in order to work for lasting change.
These agents of change are attempting to reform the Catholic Church in the following ways, which are by no means comprehensive.
- Patriarchy is horrid. Matriarchy is good.
- The goddess dwells within all of us.
- The earth is our mother. We must take care of her.
- God the Father must be “exorcized” from the church.
- The masculinity and exclusivity of Jesus must be abandoned.
- Jesus is not God incarnate except in a way all of us can be.
- The traditional doctrine of the atonement is divine child abuse.
- The Bible is not the word of God.
- The Bible does not contain the word of God.
- The Bible is hopelessly patriarchal.
- We must find and create new names for God.
- Traditional God-language must go.
- Theology is not discovering the truth about a God who is there.
- Theology is inventing a deity with whom we can feel comfortable.
- Eve was not wrong in what she did.
- God was wrong for punishing her.
- Pride is good. Humility is evil.
- Abandon the sacraments. Invent new ones.
- Prayer is not communing with a transcendent God.
- Prayer means getting in touch with the god within us.
- Abortion is not about life. It’s about controlling women and their sexuality.
- We honor the goddess by honoring and (homo-erotically) loving our bodies.
- Homosexuality is good.
- Incest can be okay.
Much on this list will seem familiar to many of us since it is now the world in which we live. It is the stuff of bumper stickers and forms of the core of sermons and articles and translation projects from all kinds of churches, Catholic, Evangelical and mainline Protestant. Evangelical writer, Phil Yancey, tells us that a Christian is one who believes that Jesus is an incarnation of God. Emergents like Rob Bell and Steve Chalke concur that the penal substitutionary theory of the atonement is abusive and reflects poorly on God the Father. The patriarchal language has been removed from our Bible translations and pulpits. We regularly tolerate a refusal to address God as Father. Single women in our pews adopt children or conceive them artificially since fathers are unnecessary or dangerous. Speakers for InterVarsity promote homosexuality. Though there is still some hesitancy about pedophilia this hesitancy will be deconstructed.
The evangelical church is just like the Catholic hierarchy: Asleep in the light, infantile in discerning truth from error, nonchalant about the blasphemy of God’s name, accustomed to wickedness and preoccupied with personal peace and affluence. We need a clear note from the trumpet of God’s ministers. Fathers and brothers, “be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong” (1Corinthians 16:13).




Comments
If your female order is pro-life and anti-contraception, it's small but flourishing. But if your order promotes "women's health," your order is of Sanger's culture of death and is quite predictably self-destructing.
Melinda Gates said today that as a Catholic, if she were face-to-face with the Pope, she'd tell him he's wrong on contraception. She said the world needs contraception to break free from poverty and famine. She says it has nothing to do with population control although she admits that depopulation is happening everywhere contraception is found.
Sadly, all the pill will do for these women is make them more a slave to sin and allow their male sex partners to rule over their bodies yet never have to grow up.
If Africa is a target demographic for her $3 billion of free birth control, their wars, poverty, fornication, adultery, disease, divorce and famine will only explode because the men will no longer feel any need for self control.
These nuns went wild just for the want of the pill. Imagine what it does to the psyche of the Christian who's actually on it.
Allan,
Even more sadly, that is not all the pill will do. The IARC lists it as a Class I carcinogen. It not only poisons souls, it poisons women's bodies as well as the environment around us.
Just one example: approximately 4% of Caucasian women carry a genetic mutation that is normally silent. However, if a woman with this mutation goes on the pill, her risk of throwing a serious (even fatal) blod clot is quadruple the risk of her friend that does not carry the mutation.
Hi Kamilla,
Would you tell us what the IARC stands for? I know you do your research very well and I'm sure it's a legitimate organization, but just curious what type of organization it is.
Thanks,
Sue
P.S. About 30 years ago, a woman in my high school graduating class was on the Pill and did throw a clot. Fortunately, she ended up with no permanent damage to her health and she and her husband went on to have three healthy children.
Sorry! I'm just so used to it - IARC is the International Agency for Research on Cancer. It is part of the World Health Organization and the United Nations.
You wrote:
How does this differ from the caption on the front cover of the bulletin of the 2011 Christmas Eve services at my Anglican church that read, "The Feast of the Incarnation of our Lord"?. The caption was under a drawing of the infant Jesus, Mary, and Joseph.
Thanks,
Sue
P.S. I checked the bulletin before posting this to make sure I had the wording of the caption right.
There is an enormous difference between asserting that Christ is AN incarnation of God and asserting that Christ is THE incarnation of God.
David G.,
Your response to my post makes sense. Thanks.
David W.,
Over the years I've learned a lot from some of Philip Yancey's books, such as What's So Amazing about Grace, and more recently, What Good Is God? [he concludes that God indeed is good, but also says that sin is very much a part of our world], so this is potentially troubling to me. Would you be able to tell us the source where you found that statement by Philip Yancey and its context?
Thanks,
Sue
Dear Sue: It was from a column he wrote in Christianity Today magazine. I subscribed to the magazine for many years but no longer do so. And in all of our moves, I somewhere gave away my old CTs. My guess is the column was written in the 80s, maybe the 90s. The wording is burned into my mind because it was so starkly unbiblical.
There are a number of things that are wrong with Yancey's statement. David Gray has already pointed out one of them: there is a huge difference between saying Jesus is an incarnation of God and God incarnate.
But there is also the idea of faith as knowledge, assent and trust. Part of saving faith is believing certain Bible truths about God and mankind. But that is not saving faith. Based on believing those truths, you put your trust in Jesus Christ, that He might save you completely. Yancey says that saving faith involves giving assent to certain truths and ignores fiducia (trust). That's not a small problem; it's huge.
Your broader question is about the teachings of Philip Yancey more generally. My brother, Tim Wegener (an elder at Clearnote Church), warns us about Yancey since he is such a good writer. As such, he is able to get us to believe things merely because he says them so well. Very good point.
He writes as a post-modern to post-moderns. His books take us on a journey, his quest for understanding, melding autobiography, spiritual search and Bible teaching. He grew up without a father in a rigid fundamentalist church, rejected the faith and then slowly worked his way back to Christianity.
I wish I had access to my books (back in Zambia) so that I could pull some of his off the shelf and give some illustrations of why I don't trust him. Obviously he gets some things right; but at many places, precisely where our culture is most pressing the church, he gets it wrong. He fuzzifies the truth, giving so many exceptions and "on the other hands" that we are left wondering what is solid and certain. Raised among the certain and burned by them, he wants no part of certitude and clear notes, and wants the same for you and me.
Warmly, David
David, I wonder if it was from his article titled "The Last Deist" in the April 5, 1999 issue of Christianity Today:
It might be, Daniel. That was later than I had thought, but maybe so.
David W.,
Thanks for taking the time to provide a well-thought response to my question about Philip Yancey. [flameproof jammies on] I subscribe to Christianity Today [flameproof jammies off] and may have access to an online archive of older issues of their magazine online. Maybe I can find the column in there if their archives go back that far.
Thanks again,
Sue
Dear Mrs. McKeown,
I suggest that a better use of the flameproof jammies is for when you are reading Worldliness Today. Please see the danger (and the ridiculous spectacle!) of protecting yourself against faithful shepherds who care for your soul while not protecting yourself from the poison continually flowing from the pens of those mockers and despisers of God's Word at that publication.
Respectfully,
Add new comment