AnonymousSeptember 29, 2014 at 5:54 PM
There is no revenue for the NCW. The NCW does not exist as a corporate entity. It only exists as a set of spiritual goods to be administered by the bishop. I repeat the NCW does not have income! I do not understand what money they are talking about.
The reason why it is incomprehensible for NCW critics to accept that there is no money in the NCW except what private individuals donate to specific causes like the church or the seminary is because they themselves spend their lives counting pennies. Not because they are poor but because that is what they worry about all day. They see family members send their children to pilgrimages and are envious. How can they afford to send 3 kids to brazil? Providence. How can they spend weekends in hotels? Providence. How can they have 10 children? Providence. How can a seminary exist without stable income? Providence. The freedom to use money for what the world thinks is folly is one of the great beauties I have received from the way. Money does not dictate what I do. It should not dictate what anybody does.
People do not believe that God provides and so it is impossible for them to believe all the mentioned above. I have heard priest say that lady providence is dead so stop spinning that lie. Well with an attitude like that of course they think badly. You really cannot judge them for their lack of faith. Pray that they may have an experience of providence in their own life. The goal of a Christian is not to achieve the middle class, it is to get to heaven.
The reason why it is incomprehensible for NCW critics to accept that there is no money in the NCW except what private individuals donate to specific causes like the church or the seminary is because they themselves spend their lives counting pennies. Not because they are poor but because that is what they worry about all day. They see family members send their children to pilgrimages and are envious. How can they afford to send 3 kids to brazil? Providence. How can they spend weekends in hotels? Providence. How can they have 10 children? Providence. How can a seminary exist without stable income? Providence. The freedom to use money for what the world thinks is folly is one of the great beauties I have received from the way. Money does not dictate what I do. It should not dictate what anybody does.
People do not believe that God provides and so it is impossible for them to believe all the mentioned above. I have heard priest say that lady providence is dead so stop spinning that lie. Well with an attitude like that of course they think badly. You really cannot judge them for their lack of faith. Pray that they may have an experience of providence in their own life. The goal of a Christian is not to achieve the middle class, it is to get to heaven.
This is said by people who collect money in trash bags. What about tax authorities? Is NeoCat a nonprofit organization at all? How come? Relics sales, real estate dealings, building projects, etc. produce nice profit to a few elect. Who traces this money flow inside the movement? Are there any means or any procedures to follow some meaningful accounting practices inside the NeoCat? How? Or is your business an uncharted territory? Are you guys operating outside of laws and overview? Just wondering.
ReplyDeleteDear vof
DeleteSometimes your answers make me think that either you did not read carefully or have some comprehension issues. The NCW is not a movement. It is a set of spiritual goods. I am a person, I can own property and money. A corporation profit or nonprofit can own property and money. They NCW is neither. It does not exist as a juridical person but as spiritual goods. Can ideas own money and property? The NCW is not a business. Nobody gets paid and nobody pays anything. When a collection is made (yes with trash bags) it always has a specific cause: repair church roof, pay for church flowers, pay for convivence, pay for Eucharist wine, buy presents for first communicants, pay for church electricity bill, etc etc etc.
In that case, whenever money is collected by the NCW it should be recorded through the parish. Whether or not it is "donated for a specific cause", it is money flowing through the Church. There is therefore an obligation for it to be recorded and accounted for. Can you confirm that this actually happens?
DeleteAlso, it is rather curious that a "non-entity" such as the NCW can have "members", clergy and seminarians. How many times have we heard about the number of priests and seminaries of the Way?
You are right. There are no such things as members priest or seminarians of the NCW. There are people seminarians and priest who follow an itinerary of spiritual formation. All priests and seminarians who benefit of those spiritual goods are diocesan or regulars and all the lay are roman catholic or seeking to become roman catholic faithful. You are absolutely correct.
DeleteThat also applies for money's collect through NCW. Money cannot be collected through NCW because NCW does not have physical or juridical hands to collect the money. Moneys are collected by private individuals for private causes. Wether I choose to declare the money I give to Purple Heart or to caritas on my taxes is my business and mine alone. As such it needs not concern the parish, the church or the state.
Dear Anonymous at 10:48 AM. You are judging me again without thinking. This is the way in the NeoCat? You say NeoCat is not a movement. But Diana quoted someone in your own rank who praised the NeoCat as a charismatic Catholic movement. It is not enough to say "we are not this or that" when your organization wears all the marks of a religious movement.
DeleteArguello said in an interview that the NeoCat is defined as its own legal persona and this helped him tremendously to arrange for the financial matters of the Domus Galilea, a multimillion dollar building project that he designed. Where did all this money come from? How was it handled and accounted for? These practices seem to contradict to what you say about the legal status of the NeoCat.
In the parishes NeoCat has its own closets and boxes to keep their stuff that they don't allow for any other church group to use. It is handled as the property of the NeoCat. Is this not true? The collected money is not accounted for and is a free-to-grab for NeoCat leadership. It is said the 10% or gross salaries of NeoCat members is collected by higher leadership that is disappearing from the parish budgets. Money collected on church property belong to the church!
NeoCat takes advantage of the nonprofit status of the Catholic Church while hiding money-making machines inside their activities. Tax authorities will catch up on these practices one day. This will be a dark day not only for the NeoCat but also for the Church proper that gives safe haven to the movement. Our Catholic Mother Church would do better to prevent this brewing scandal from bursting out by internal supervision and investigation.
Dear voice of faith,
DeleteYou sound exactly like Christopher HItchens. Hitchents accused Mother Teresa of fraud, theft, deception, and money laundering. He demanded that she be audited and that she reveal her financial records.
Diana, what I say has nothing to do with Mother Teresa! What I say is about NeoCat practices. You say you have been a NeoCat for several years. So you must be familiar with the boxes and closets where you guys keep you stuff. Your NeoCat property that you don't allow to use by other parish groups. Is this not true, Diana? You have your Kiko painted Madonna at every seances, don't you?
DeleteAs I said the Domus Galilea project is a multimillion dollar project. Even maintaining that vast builing in the Holy Land costs a lot of funds. Now, how can you say NeoCat has no businesses? How can you say, it is not NeoCat possession? You raise funds on church properties for your own causes. But that money belongs to the church. Show where you publish NeoCat book keeping and I believe you, But until then...? How could I?
Dear voice of faith,
DeleteI never said that what you stated had something to do with Mother Teresa. I said you sound just like Christopher Hitchens. I have no idea what you are talking about boxes and closets. It was already pointed out to you that the NCW does not own anything. If you are interested in the Domus Galilea project, then why not do a research on it. Through your research, you can discover who actually owns that building.
Diana, are you trying to say that your NeoCat group or "community" has no specific Kiko-item at its disposal? No Kiko Madonna, no Kiko cross, nothing? Please! These are all religious items, valuable possessions. That is why they belong to all the people of the parish. I mean to all with equity without exclusion. I once saw a fellow to wrap a Kiko Madonna into drapes and hiding it in the church closet in the St Anthony at Tamuning. How many times has you or your community lent your Madonna or cross to other parish groups? I tell you: zero times! Never, zilch, nada! This is the truth about possessing stuff in the NeoCat. You are exclusive and selfish. What is yours, nobody else can touch it. It is not how things should be in parishes. Are you in denial?
DeleteDear voice of faith,
DeleteI do not know where you got the idea that we do not share our signs with the other communities. The younger communities especially those who have recently been born do not have any signs. So, how do you think they hold their celebrations. We often share our signs with the younger communities. We do not need to loan our signs to other parish groups because they have their own signs. We only loan our signs in our parish with the younger communities who do not have any signs.
That's a good one, Diana! I was talking about sharing with other parish groups outside of the NeoCat! Not inside with your fellow NeoCat siblings. You see, you did not even understand me. You did not even thought of other church groups. This is exactly what happens when NeoCat kicks in at a parish, we may only talk about your ilks but not about those who are outside of this circle of insiders. Do you truly think it's how the Lord wanted us, to be segregated from each other, Diana?
DeleteDear voice of faith,
DeleteIt appears that you misunderstood me. I did not say that we do not loan our signs to other parish groups because we are segregated from them. I said we do not loan our signs to other parish groups because they already have their own signs.
I don't understand. I just don't understand. Vof wants a community to share its signs with other parish groups. Ok. The community bought those signs from their own pockets and they belong to the community who bought them. She is outraged that a non specific community wrapped its icon and put it away to prevent damage. I don't think there is any moral ethical or state law that says I have to loan you the things I bought with my own money but if you ask maybe I will.
DeleteWhy is it so hard to believe the DOMUS runs on private donations?why does it bother you? Do you really think the Israeli government would let them operate if anything wasn't above board? Have you even heard of the irs? Don't you think they check on the seminaries? Some of these posts read like the work of conspiracy theorists!
DeleteThanks Anonymous, you just confirmed what I am saying that NeoCat groups have their own possessions that they use by excluding other parishioners. This is called material possession. Now, the problem is that you did not buy it on your "own money", because the fund was raised on church properties therefore it belongs to the parish. You still don't understand that you cannot use the church, its buildings and rooms for your own business. Because it would be exchanging spiritual goods, that of the presence of the Holy Spirit in the parish, with the temporal that is money. It is called simony. When you exclude the parish from the benefits, you basically steal from God.
DeleteDear voice of faith,
DeleteLet me see if I got this correct. You want us to have the parish use the signs of the NCW in the parish????
You stated: "Now, the problem is that you did not buy it on your "own money", because the fund was raised on church properties therefore it belongs to the parish."
So, if I purchase a candle from the parish, the candle does not belong to me because I bought it on church grounds???
Diana - How did "signs" get in the picture? That's not what VOF was referring to. There you go spinning the subject matter again. And as far as the purchase of a candle from the parish, your analogy is way out in left field again.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 4:44 pm,
DeleteThis is what voice of faith stated:
Diana, are you trying to say that your NeoCat group or "community" has no specific Kiko-item at its disposal? No Kiko Madonna, no Kiko cross, nothing? Please! These are all religious items, valuable possessions. That is why they belong to all the people of the parish. I mean to all with equity without exclusion. I once saw a fellow to wrap a Kiko Madonna into drapes and hiding it in the church closet in the St Anthony at Tamuning. How many times has you or your community lent your Madonna or cross to other parish groups? I tell you: zero times! Never, zilch, nada! This is the truth about possessing stuff in the NeoCat. You are exclusive and selfish. What is yours, nobody else can touch it. It is not how things should be in parishes. Are you in denial?
The "Kiko Madonna" (which is really the Blessed Virgin Mary with Christ) and the "Kiko-cross" (which is the crucifix) that voice of faith is referring to are what we call "SIGNS."
So, tell me again what was it that voice of faith was not referring to???
Your definition of a "sign'" is the statue and the crucifix? Nice try Diana.. Here is the definition of a sign:
Deletenoun:
: a piece of paper, wood, etc., with words or pictures on it that gives information about something
: something (such as an action or event) which shows that something else exists, is true, or will happen
: a motion, action, or movement that you use to express a thought, command, or wish
Dear Anonymous at 12:49 pm,
DeleteIn the Catholic Church, we do not follow the secular dictionary of the world. We follow the Catechism of the Catholic Church and her definitions. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church regarding SIGNS (Capitalization is my emphasis):
CCC 1161 All the SIGNS in the liturgical celebrations are related to Christ: as are sacred images of the holy Mother of God and of the saints as well. They truly signify Christ, who is glorified in them. They make manifest the "cloud of witnesses" who continue to participate in the salvation of the world and to whom we are united, above all in sacramental celebrations. Through their icons, it is man "in the image of God," finally transfigured "into his likeness," who is revealed to our faith. So too are the angels, who also are recapitulated in Christ:
Following the divinely inspired teaching of our holy Fathers and the tradition of the Catholic Church (for we know that this tradition comes from the Holy Spirit who dwells in her) we rightly define with full certainty and correctness that, like the figure of the precious and life-giving cross, venerable and holy images of our Lord and God and Savior, Jesus Christ, our inviolate Lady, the holy Mother of God, and the venerated angels, all the saints and the just, whether painted or made of mosaic or another suitable material, are to be exhibited in the holy churches of God, on sacred vessels and vestments, walls and panels, in houses and on streets.
So, you see Anonymous.......even the Catholic Church calls the icons and sacred images "SIGNS."
"A corporation profit or nonprofit can own property and money. NCW is neither."
DeleteNCW owns seminaries. It owns buildings.... They own money....
"It does not exist as a juridical person but as spiritual goods"
In what LAW can some organization with money and buildings be declared as "spiritual goods"?
"Nobody gets paid and nobody pays anything. When a collection is made... "
So nobody pays anything , but they do pay in the trash bag....
Do you understand that this is a contradiction or you have a comprehension issues?
Dear Anonymous at 10:17 am,
DeleteThe NCW does not own the seminary. The Archbishop has the certificate of titles showing that he is the owner of the seminary.
"There are no such things as members priest or seminarians of the NCW."
DeleteYes there is....
" There are people seminarians and priest who follow an itinerary of spiritual formation."
Called NCW. And those people are people but they are also members of it.
Calling them aliens or people does not make them any less members.
" All priests and seminarians who benefit of those spiritual goods are diocesan or regulars "
And to whom did they belong to before they entered the Church 20-30 years ago?
"That also applies for money's collect through NCW."
So money is collected through NCW.
"Money cannot be collected through NCW..."
But money cannot be collected through NCW.
Do you understand that you contradict yourself?
" because NCW does not have physical or juridical hands to collect the money."
Because NCW has no personnel or members, it has "people"
And those people who collect the money that is not really collected have no hands...
" Moneys are collected by private individuals ..."
who are members of NCW, but they are not physical... They are spiritual, like ghosts so rules do not apply to them. Like rules of logic. Yeah i think i get it now.
"for private causes. "
Which is the maintenance and spreading of NCW manpower and infrastructure and other needs of NCW.
In these comments you can see what is the root problem of NCW. They will make up any word game that defies logic just to force their view. This kind of thinking is the basis of NCW and its unjust and unfair.
So it seems that an organization called NCW which built around 100 seminaries and has around 1 million members and takes 10% of their income and uses that money for building more infrastructure does not really own anything , has no members , takes no money and has no money...
DeleteAny neocat who supported this idea has shown better then any of us critics can that one of the working principles of NCW is DENIAL of truth.
DianaMay 14, 2016 at 11:07 AM
Delete"The NCW does not own the seminary. The Archbishop has the certificate of titles showing that he is the owner of the seminary."
Dear Diana, who owned seminaries before NCW was part of the Church.
Dear Anonymous at 4:22 am,
DeleteThe seminaries had always been owned by the Archbishop.
DianaMay 15, 2016 at 6:44 AM
DeleteSo let me get this straight.
1 Neocats give 10% of their money to other NCW members, not to the Church directly.
2 Then they use the money among other things to build seminaries.
3 Then they place it under the authority of a bishop.
Dear Anonymous at 6:44 am,
DeleteMoney that is used to collect in the NCW goes to evangelzation and other things needed in the NCW such as flowers, wine, bread, chalice, paten, etc. Collections are also made to go the Church. If we have retreats, collections are also made to pay the bill for the retreat.
So where does the money which built around 100 seminaries comes from? Its not only money for buildings but food and utilities that support people residing in those seminaries. That is a lot of money and it needs a steady stream of income.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 9:28 pm,
DeleteGod provides. Do you not know that Mother Teresa who took a vow of poverty was able to build hundreds of orphanages, shelters, soup kitchens, etc.
How do we know the money "God provided" is not the money NCW takes from its members?
DeleteWhy should we trust what you say especially without any paper trail?
Dear Anonymous at 3:04 am,
DeleteThe only person who ever questioned Mother Teresa was an atheist. He asked where the money went. Nevermind the fact that she had hundreds of orphanages, shelters, and soup kitchens to show for it. And here you are asking the NCW where the money went. Nevermind the fact that there are over 100 RMS seminaries all over the world and thousands of mission families and itinerants.
"And here you are asking the NCW where the money went."
DeleteNo i am not. I am asking where it came from. As it is clearly stated 2 comments before. Your response it to a question i did not ask.
I asked how do you know that money that members give is not the same money "God provides"?
ANSWER THIS QUESTION PLEASE.
You did not answer the question, so i will...
DeleteIt is known that NCW takes money from its members and leaves no paper trail or any records of it.
But we are supposed to believe that the massive infrastructure and manpower that NCW has built is supported by God's providence...
Why does NCW take money for anything at all, why does God not provide for flowers, repairs ,wine bread etc...
Because its not God that provides, its the people/members of NCW.
So to say that "NCW has no income" is an outright LIE.
Its not hard for us to believe that God provides for NCW because we count "every penny" but because we know NCW has income.
Dear Anonymous at 6:53 pm,
DeleteGod provides also means that He uses people as His instruments to carry out His divine will. God sent Moses to free the Israelites, but Moses gave the credit to God. The Catholic Church teaches us that our skills and talents to earn an income comes from God. So, when we use our skills to earn an income, we do not take any credit for ourselves. All credit goes to God who provides everything.
So the NCW has income from its members whether they are God's instrument or not.
DeleteThis means the original post is refuted.
Diana , do you think money given to the NCW should be somewhere on record so its transparent just like money given to the Church is transparent?
Dear Anonymous at 8:18 am,
DeletePeople are allowed to have an income. The NCW, on the other hand, does not have an income. The NCW is an organization. The people can have a savings account. The organization (NCW) does not have a bank account of its own and under its own name. Whatever money the NCW collects from its members cannot be kept. It is spent on what it was meant for. Only the members of the NCW (especially the Responsibles and Co-Responsibles) know how much eas collects, and the Responsibles or Co-Responsibles keep all receipts.
"The NCW, on the other hand, does not have an income. "
Delete1)
And how would you call the flux of money with which NCW hierarchy builds its seminaries?
2)
The fact that NCW does not have a bank account and the fact that NCW operates only with cash (obviously) takes away from its transparency.
" Only the members of the NCW (especially the Responsibles and Co-Responsibles) know how much eas collects"
Yes we all know its a secret how the money is spent.
And do YOU THINK money given to NCW should be somewhere ON RECORD so its TRANSPARENT just like money given to the Church is transparent?
ANSWER THIS QUESTION PLEASE.
Dear Anonymous at 9:01 pm,
DeleteThe seminary on Guam was not built by the NCW. It was built by a Japanese businessman who later could not maintain the hotel. A donor in the U.S. Purchased the hotel for the Archdiocese of Agana. The people of Guam nor the NCW put in a penny.
Courage, be not afraid Tim!! The cracks are starting to show over there in lala land. Look at what one of the disciples of Tim Rohr is saying their saying that we in the way and you Diana are in LA LA land
ReplyDeleteAnother deflective tactic. Point out how others only think of money and have no faith when the real issue was the NeoKats tried to have the RMS Yona property secretly signed over to them. It's not that others only think of money but that all the NeoKats WANT is money (and property). I'm sure you're going to spin this off to another topic. Deflect away my friend, deflect away.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 7:44 am.,
DeleteFather Pius already came out in the PDN and said that the NCW cannot own anything. It is also stated in our Statutes.
Not a deflective tactic. An attempt to explain why you care how I spend my money. I don't want to think badly of you so I try to explain to myself why money is such an issue to you. Prob with yona property is only that Benavente wanted to sell it to pay for his debts. Show me how NCW can legally own property. You cannot because NCW cannot.
DeleteDear Diana,
ReplyDeleteI just tested the system over at junglewatch and wanted to see what Tim has to say about "Community". Apparently Tim thinks that this is a "neo" concept of community. He hurriedly assumes and he is wrong.
AnonymousOctober 1, 2014 at 5:39 PM
Our Society teaches us that to be successful, we must stand alone. But in reality, loneliness is the greatest fear of each and everyone of us.
In isolation, we cannot be fully human. Our experiences confirm this. Because we are social beings, community is essential to our human life. We, therefore, inevitably form into small groups - some temporary and some long lived. Loneliness reminds me of one log left on a fire, slowly burning out, its light and heat slowly diminishing because no in is stoking the embers. we, just like the log, cannot survive without someone caring and helping, poking, and giving us strength. Just add two or three logs to a fire and watch its light increase and fill the room, and feel the heat intensify. Alone, a log can do little, but with others it can be very powerful and awesome. So it is with us. we need others to grow, to give us strength, and to help us increase and intensify.
Reply
Replies
TimOctober 1, 2014 at 5:57 PM
Actually this sounds a bit narcissistic. The answer to loneliness is to form ourselves into small groups? The Christian answer to loneliness is to serve God and serve others and let God take care of your loneliness. There's hardly a great saint who did not "go it alone" into the dark night of the soul. In fact, this false sense of community is why we were forced to change the first word of the Credo back to "I believe" instead of the corrupted "We believe." And we "cannot survive without someone caring, helping, poking, and giving us strength"? Wow, tell that again to the great saints, especially the likes of St. Francis and and St. John of the Cross who were thrown out of their own communities, and in St. John's case, even tormented by his own brothers. No wonder so many in the Neocatechumenal Way never grow up if this is what you think
I partially agree with tim. He says that the only true answer to loneliness is God. And yes to remain in a community because of personal affection or for companionship is a perversion of the role of the community. And leads to spiritual infantilism.
DeleteI was reading and article on the New York Times about Opus Dei. A member of opus is quoted as saying:"Maintaining some discipline, he explained, helps him focus his faith: “If you’re not tied to Opus Dei or some other movement, being a Catholic today isn’t easy in a world that has become much more materialistic.”
He also added speaking about opus:“Many of the misinterpretations of Opus Dei are due to people’s lack of knowledge and ignorance,”
I think both statement are very apropos to NCW.
If anyone wants the link here it is http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/09/27/world/europe/beatification-portillo-opus-dei.html
Diana why didin't you answer about who owns Porto San Georgio and the Mount of Beatitudes? Who owns those sites and substantial buildings? Just answer. What's the problem?
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 7:23 pm,
DeleteBecause it was already pointed out to you that the NCW owns nothing. So, why are you asking who owns Porto San georgio and the Mount of Beautitudes?
You're still not answering the question Diana.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 7:39 am,
DeleteI did answer the question. You simply do not like my answer. I already said that the NCW do not own anything.
The question was not whether the NCW owns anything Diana. You always seem to resort to "you simply do not like my answer" as a cop out.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 2:31 pm,
DeleteWhy don't you look it up and find out who owns them yourself since you are interested in it? I already said that the NCW does not own anything. The NCW does not have any income or revenue.
He's right of course. "Community" is an idol to the neocats.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteGod did not create anyone to be alone. And even the saints were not alone. St. Francis established a religious order, which consisted of a community. St. John of the Cross also founded the Discalced Carmelites, which consisted of a community. In February 1585, John travelled to Málaga and established a monastery of Discalced nuns there. In May 1585, at the General Chapter of the Discalced Carmelites in Lisbon, John was elected Provincial Vicar of Andalusia, a post which required him to travel frequently, making annual visitations of the houses of friars and nuns in Andalusia. During this time he founded seven new monasteries in the region.
If these great saints believed that they were supposed to be alone, then why build monastaries to house religious communities?? When Christ created the Church, the Church does not consist of only one member. The mentality of God is "family." He thinks in terms of family. God Himself is a community of persons. In other words, God is never alone.
God is love. And love does not exist alone. One cannot love when there is no one else to love. The concept of love is to give oneself to the other. How can one give oneself to another if there is no other? God thinks in terms of family and a family does not consist of only one person. God's family is a community of people who love one another.
The community is important for we are a community of equal. But that is not NCW is teaching. The community (NCW) has evolve from to a defensive, dysfunctional, oppressive, clericalized, macho exclusive for men church. Who are the responsibles in the community? mostly men, if there is a couple like the first responsibles, the husband is the head.One cannot be head responsible if you are a woman.The catechists, same also, it is a men's world. The women are taught to be subservient and they will quote Paul on that. The community's relevance and sense of meaning is lost. And ends up as a fundamentalist group trying to relive a utopian past... the primitive church.
ReplyDeleteDear Isaias,
DeleteThis is false. There are single women who are Responsibles. For a single woman, Christ is her head.
I keep hoping that Isaiah speaks with more sense. We know why Isaiah left the Seminary. So be sensible, dear brother. No need to vomit your resentment on the Neocatechumenal Way.
Deletesingle women can only be elected as co-responsibles. you had a chance to clarify but chose not to.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 12:52 pm,
DeleteI will say again, I do know of a single woman who was a Responsible. She was elected a Responsible. Later, she got married. Now that she is married, her husband becomes the Head. But before she was married, she was elected the Responsible.
And why couldn't she remain as the Responsible even though she got married? Is there an NCW rule against that?
DeleteDear Anonymous at 2:34 pm,
DeleteWhen a woman marries, her husband becomes the head of the house and therefore also the Responsible. She becomes the Responsible's wife and supports him in his role.
God made man the head of the house. And a woman is supposed to support her husband in his role as Head of the house. She is not supposed to plot in usurping his position so she can become the head of the house.
Diana, catechist, the phrase is "mostly men". There are single women who are Responsible's. How can i forget?
ReplyDeleteIt is not easy to discard/forget all those years. The truth is single women can not be First Responsible after the 2nd Scrutiny. The beginning of the community, yes. But as it moves thru the stages, they will not be elected. In Guam, after 2nd scrutiny, tell me, which community has a single woman as First Responsible?
Catechist, any women head catechist? None... International itinerants, any woman, head catechist? None.
The church is a She, right, Diana. and Christ is the Bridegroom. Why are there no women priest? ( a question pose by a university student back when i was teaching theology) I still cannot forget that.
Diana, while i was like you, a catechist, during the scrutiny, the community was a big idol, a molten calf...and it took a lot of introspection and honesty to admit it.
Dear Isaias,
DeleteA woman cannot be a priest because she is not the head of God's family. Christ chose men to be His Apostles. He did not choose any woman to become a priest. This does not mean that the Catholic Church views women as inferior.
God created both man and woman equal as human beings, BUT being equal does not mean that they have the same roles. God gave them different roles. The man becomes the head of the house while the woman is the heart. These are their roles. Having different roles does not mean that they are not equal. It simply means that they are different.
In my household there is equality. My husband is not the head of household where decisions need to be made, there must be a consensus to every decision. We both either agree or table it. As for you, you can have your other half decide things for you....this is not the times of bowing down to the decision of a man....
DeleteDear Anonymous at 3:01 pm,
DeleteSo, if your husband is not the head of the household, is it correct then to assume that YOU are the head of the house? So, it comes down to either both of you agree or it is table. Perhaps what you are saying is that he either agrees with you or nothing comes of it.
Throughout the Bible, God and the angels recognize who the head of the house is. The Angel Gabriel spoke to Zacharias and told him that his wife Elizabeth would bear a child. He spoke to the husband because he was the head of the house. The angel also spoke to Mary when she was single. AFTER she married Joseph, the angel never spoke to her again. He spoke only to Joseph because he recognized Joseph to be head of the household.
God spoke to Abraham, not to Sarah. In the Garden of Eden, God also spoke to Adam before speaking to Eve. Throughout the Bible, God and the angels recognized who the head of the house hold is......and that is ALWAYS the husband. In the case of single women, Christ is her head.
Do you know who Satan first spoke to in the Garden of Eden???? The Devil spoke to Eve because he wanted to cause trouble. He ignored Adam and spoke to Eve as though she was the head of the household. Then came the fall of man. It was God who gave man the title "Head of the household." He never gave this title to the wife. A good wife would always support her husband. She is not there to steal her husband's title away from him so she could become the head of the household.
As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:27-28 NRSV).
DeleteDiana, catechist, Jesus fought for the inclusive rights of women. He protected them, he challenged the prevailing sexism of the the day, the one you just described above so eloquently. Jesus treated women with respect and dignity, not like what you are describing and redefined the role of women
in the church and society.
The NCW is still very far from fulfilling Galatians 3 where Christ embraces and values women as respected partners in the church's institutional life.
There are still areas of leadership in the communities, in the decision-making, and of areas of discipleship for which the NCW will not trust, value, revere, or allot resources to women to the same degree as their brothers in the faith.
This was problematic for me back then. I always get in trouble if i ask, Why? I was also part of the problem as i was a catechist and i have to tow the community practice. I thank God for my liberation and emancipation from the community.
There is equality in the household. Equality in chores, paying bills, caring for children and decision making. We both hold the title of head of household!
DeleteSo if the woman works, then she is the head of household because she brings in the money? She and her husband exchange roles! He is Mr mom and she is Mr. Bread winner! Who then should make the decision on things...the breadwinner in the home or the man who stays home? EQUALITY All around.
Marriage is a two way street and not based on the decision of one person. Guess my marriage is something special. There is Love, equality and religious convictions!
So I'm goin to say it even though it's not going to makes a difference to isaias.
DeleteI know off the top of my head 2 head of international teams who are women. Anna maria Federici in Hungary and pili in Argentina.
I know of at least 2 women responsible of communities off the top of my head. One was responsible for over 20 years until the day she died.
Your charge of sexism is puerile. You probably believe the church is sexist. Maybe even God is sexist? Or maybe you are one of those who believe God is a woman. Jesus was a man. If he had wanted to make a statement about sexism he would have incarnated himself as something else (and today as we know the possibilities are endless)
why did i left seminary anonymous 11:46? i have been speaking more sense than all of you, just being truthful and honest. Obedient?
ReplyDelete