Thank you for this note. I am happy to see that someone has found a way to be a faithful RC and yet to actively oppose the life-denying violence which is encouraged by the “pro-life” theology of Rome’s Curia.
The last two lines are the crux of the article: Sister Donna is not “participating actively in abortion” as Ms Keane is quoted as saying, but is participating actively in giving succor to of the victims of violence, which is a biblical imperitive.
I imagine that her position is rather comparable to a conscientious objector, unarmed, in combat as a medic.

Deacon Scott…
Sister Donna may or may not be “giving succor to the victims of violence,” as you say. But in the process she is also facilitating a more egregious and unsupportable act of violence, the taking of a human life. She’s enabling — and actively taking part in — murder.
Dcn. G.

Zero justification Deacon Scott. No matter how “big tent” you define the catholic church, Sister Quinn has with these premeditated actions clearly chosen to walk out of the tent and down the street to a very different “circus”. We can and should pray for her. Lets not excuse it or especially confuse her actions with those sisters who are faithful to the church, even then the question and push for change.
Deacon Greg – Let’s be careful not to fall into the MSM habit of grouping all nuns ( especially all sisters who other then those who have returned to cloisters and live pre-VII lifestyles) in the same heading like Sister Quinn and NCAN types. I have known a lot of sisters over the years. Some of the more liberal bent might say the church has not always respected the role and equality of women. Some may even think the church misguided in denying women the path to the priesthood. None I have ever met would remotely take the radical positions and actions of the NCAN and Sister Quinn.
Alas, I am old enough to remember that the martyred Maryknoll sisters you so eloquently wrote about on mission Sunday were at the time also considered by many in the church as trouble makers, not following the traditional path of sisters, perhaps even worthy at that time of a Vatican investigation. (ironically a different Curia department investigation should be initiated for them!)
Let’s be careful that that the call for an investigation of women religious differentiates between those who have left the tent and require a clear map back to be Catholic and those whose witness may make some uncomfortable and even challenge our thinking but ultimately enriches the faith and the Church.
Joe

Well … considering the source of the article, I’m a little surprised at the inclusion of Sr Donna’s reason for being there. It would seem to be enough that she’s there and not echoing the Chamber to condemn her.
I’m also disappointed at a blog post in which the quote way overbalances the comment 42 lines to 2. We all can follow a link, and it would be an improvement to hear your commentary on this Greg, rather than get spoonfed LSN. I think both you and Beliefnet can do better on this.
And as for the comment that “Anyone who is still wondering why the Vatican is investigating women religious in the United States might want to ponder …” I think we all realize the distinction between systemic problems, like bishops harboring sex predators and generally lacking a full grasp of the gravity of their credibility situation, and one woman religious operating in something of a questionable way.
Clearly not a good moment for anyone on this piece.

Thank you for your thoughts, Todd.
I posted the lengthy excerpt as a convenience for readers. I do that a lot. You’ve been reading my blog long enough to know I prefer to post things and let people draw their own conclusions — though, in this instance, I think my commentary is irrelevant. The facts speak plainly. This sister is acting in open and very public defiance of church teaching on one of the most critically important issues of our time.
And her superior is allowing it.
That indicates to me a “systemic problem” of another kind that might well merit having the Vatican ask a few probing questions about how these orders operate in this country, and why.
Blessings,
Dcn. G.

Todd is such a tool. I mean, really.
Todd, do you understand the damage you have done over the years to the whole concept of “liturgist” in the years you have been commenting on blogs?
In several ways:
First, you are unendingly, consistently snide and passive aggressive. And arrogant.
Secondly, you are *everywhere.* Which indicates that you really don’t have a lot of work to do. which indicates that the role of liturgist is probably superfluous and unnecessary.
Your comment on this post is vintage Todd. Find some way to pick at a post in a way that has nothing to do with the point of the post, demonstrating (you think) your superiority. “You can do better than that” is, again, vintage Todd.

Thanks for keeping it classy, Mark.
I acknowledge I’m no paragon of perfect behavior. I’m well aware I’ve given offense many times on the internet over the past twelve years. I certainly realize that people have formed opinions of me because of my poor form, bad choice of words, and my letting my own emotions get the better of me. I don’t make any excuses, but when I have the opportunity to make amends in a significant way, usually through private correspondence, I do so.
Sometimes, however, it’s just a debate in which I’m but one of many participants. And maybe you have a point: I should withdraw from these episodes when they become more about the arguing than the argument.
As for your points, I argue a point of view with confidence. If I don’t have an opinion, I don’t comment. If I lack any expertise, I leave the discussion for others. It’s not often I will post on another web site, “I’m not sure about my opinion here.” And on my own site, I’ve welcomed those in agreement and disagreement freely and without ever banning anyone. The blogosphere is rough and tumble. The only difference between me and mainstream conservative bloggers is that most of the commentariat disagrees with my positions and views. I suppose it can be said that freely commenting as a minority viewpoint is arrogant. If so, guilty as charged.
It’s not news that I rely on the internet for my second job as a freelance writer. So yes, I do spend time surfing sites that have any amount of liturgical information. To give one example, Greg’s post on the “church garage sale” tipped me off to an interesting item that will be heading off to my editor, with comment, in a few days.
It may be that I would have done better to take my complaint about this post to Greg personally by e-mail. But I stand by my comment on his opening salvo. And I do think he can do better. I know I can, and I will take these and any other serious comments to heart for my own practice.

There is no justification for Sr. Quinn’s actions. There is no justification in providing solace to a woman who is taking active steps to kill her child. Her actions are scandalous, in that they pretend to provide moral justification to Catholics that we can support abortion and the abortion industry and remain faithful Catholics. In my mind, her actions warrant automatic excommunication, and I think the bishop of her diocese needs to act, if her religious superiors refuse to do so out of some twisted notion of loyalty and sisterhood.

Sure a Bishop should do something… buy what? She has the support of her Prioress and the other Sinsinawa’s. I was educated by the Sinsinawa’s (as was most of my family) and the Sinsinawa’s are all very, very ‘progressive’. I was once kicked out of a theology class for disagreeing with a sister who maintained that she should be a priest and it was sexism to hold her back.
They have long known about Sr. Quinn. Heck, she was on the NARAL website wearing a ‘Nuns for choice’ shirt and they did nothing. I called and spoke to the Prioress and she told me that since Donna was a ‘member of the family’ she could and would do nothing.
The other question is which Bishop should do something? The motherhouse is in the diocese of Madison, Sr. Quinn lives in the Chicago archdiocese and the clinic where she does her ‘escort duty’ is in the diocese of Joliet.

One word: Interdict.

Give me a break! Has her Bishop not the courage to stand up to this blatant nonsense? I’m sick of the kumbaya, feel good Catholicism that came out of the pathetic 60s and 70s. It is about time, people start to stand up to these kinds of kooks!

New Age Catholicism
Mary Ann Collins
(A Former Catholic Nun)
March 2002
Revised April 2007
________________________________________
The “New Age” is a mixture of old paganism and Eastern religions that have been “westernized” by dressing them up in modern vocabulary and images. It denies foundational Christian (and Catholic) doctrines. In spite of this, there are some Catholic priests and nuns who openly promote New Age beliefs and practices.
I will give documented information about this from Catholic authors. One of them is a Catholic reporter who spent over twelve years getting first-hand, eye witness information.
As we will see, there are priests and nuns who promote pagan rituals, Eastern religious practices, worship of “the goddess,” witchcraft, and “channeling” (having “spirits” speak through you). They deny foundational Christian doctrines, such as the Atonement (Jesus Christ died to save us from our sins).
If you have difficulty with the following information, I understand. So do I. But the facts won’t go away just because we don’t like them.
Randy England is Catholic. He wrote “The Unicorn in the Sanctuary: The Impact of the New Age on the Catholic Church”. According to England, New Age concepts are taught at retreats, prayer workshops, and educational conferences. [Note 1]
The theology of Jesuit priest Teilhard de Chardin opened the door for New Age concepts to come into the Catholic Church. (“Unicorn,” pages 78-95) These led to “creation-centered spirituality” and Catholic feminism, which will be discussed later. (“Unicorn,” pages 118-134).

This so-called nun should be publically corrected and kicked out of the Church without fanfare or ceremony.
Mike Malone