| We hope you enjoy your visit! You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harrassment, and crude or sexually-explicit language. If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| excommunicated saint; Mary MacKillop | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Monday, 18. October 2010, 13:43 (572 Views) | |
| Eileenanne | Monday, 18. October 2010, 20:23 Post #16 |
|
The new saint could indeed be an additional patron of abuse victims, but they already have one patron in St Maria Goretti. Eileenanne |
![]() |
|
| Clare | Monday, 18. October 2010, 20:46 Post #17 |
|
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
|
Archbishop Lefebvre...
|
|
S.A.G. Motes 'n' Beams blog Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz! | |
![]() |
|
| PJD | Monday, 18. October 2010, 21:47 Post #18 |
|
Note I have on file: Conditions for excommunication- The person must be Baptized. The sin must be an external act. The sin must be mortal and known at the time it is committed. The sinner must know excommunication is attached to the sin.. PJD [Source originally via Sm I think] [edit - perhaps this should have been on topic excommunication & heaven; but I had to choose one or other] Edited by PJD, Monday, 18. October 2010, 21:53.
|
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Monday, 18. October 2010, 23:18 Post #19 |
![]()
Administrator
|
St Maria Goretti was the victim of abuse, so she makes an excellent patron. Sr Mary MacKillop was a religious, determined to have something done about abuse. She will make a good intercessor for those who have made honest truthful reports, and and been fobbed off. |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| KatyA | Tuesday, 19. October 2010, 00:45 Post #20 |
|
Where is the evidence for that? I did not intend to comment further, but it seems Mary's excommunication is being attributed to something in which she was not involved. I recieved this from an Australian friend:
Edited by KatyA, Tuesday, 19. October 2010, 00:55.
|
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Tuesday, 19. October 2010, 01:40 Post #21 |
![]()
Administrator
|
Having researched many sites that appear to be loyal to the Church and reliable, all I can say is that in my personal opinion, it is, on the balance of probabilities, true. It would take a good legal team to research the vast amount of information available, sift the true from the false and present an argument. We are accustomed to some of the media making anti-Catholic comments and innuendo, but in News items I would expect the government owned Australian Broadcasting Corporation to get its facts right. If it publishes falsehood it would lose the support of the object of its new items. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/09/25/3021772.htm
The Universe has a similar report http://www.totalcatholic.com/tc/index.php?/201009251386/news/church-excommunicated-mackillop-for-exposing-abuse-priest.html This story was also in the Catholic Herald. Within days there were claims the reports were not true. I doubt whether any of us will ever get to the root of all this. |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| Gerard | Tuesday, 19. October 2010, 09:38 Post #22 |
|
So KatyA, you were content to post selectively from Roses second link when you thought is supported your preconcieved ideas but when I summarised the same source to show what that source was actually saying - you decided to quote insted your "friend". I guess there's none so blind as those who wont see. Gerry |
| "The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998). | |
![]() |
|
| KatyA | Tuesday, 19. October 2010, 09:58 Post #23 |
|
Odd, that's exactly what I was thinking. So far as I can see, all the media reports attribute their source as being Father Paul Gardiner, former postulator of the cause. In fact most of the reporting about her seems to be based on his biography of the saint churchnewssite the whistle that never blew In fact I read about this some time ago on CNA but unfortunately I can't now find the relevant piece. It was an interview with Fr Gardiner in which he stated that he was angry that his words had been taken out of context in that the abuse scandal had been siezed upon and linked to Mary Mackillop. Mary Mackillop was not involved either in exposing the scandal, or in speaking out about the way it was handled. That is all I am trying to say. |
![]() |
|
| Gerard | Tuesday, 19. October 2010, 10:23 Post #24 |
|
KatyA I know what you are trying to say. I think you are trying to whitewash the episode. Your motivation to do so is so high to do so you even suggested it was about property. At the heart of this story, wherever a reliable source is referenced, is an abusive priest who was "moved" back to Ireland. The ramifications led to Sr McKillop being excommunicated. Gerry |
| "The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998). | |
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Tuesday, 19. October 2010, 12:27 Post #25 |
![]()
Administrator
|
The passage Katy received from her friend is a short excerpt from a lengthy advertising blurb for the Mary MacKillop Silver Icon http://www.rosarycard.net/Mary-MacKillop-Silver-Icon-p-16178.html short |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Tuesday, 19. October 2010, 12:58 Post #26 |
![]()
Administrator
|
http://www.pioneerssa.org.au/early_sa_history.html We are told that the sisters reported a priest for whistle blowing, and did not tell the head of their religious order. They were educated women, they ran schools, whatever the distance they could have communicated by letter or telegram. They managed to raise the money to build schools, so presumably they could afford a stamp. I doubt whether we will ever know the truth about this affair. |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| tomais | Tuesday, 19. October 2010, 18:23 Post #27 |
|
Sister Mary McKillop has been deemed a saint; good enough for me; I wish I could have met her; wish she works here; just what else do we want? More digging away at second/ third detritus? If only there were more in our community. |
![]() |
|
| KatyA | Tuesday, 19. October 2010, 20:52 Post #28 |
|
I was going to let this pass but the comment "Your motivation to do so is so high to do so you even suggested it was about property." is offensive, seeming to suggest that I had some ulterior motive, so here in my own words is a summary of my interest in the case of Mary MacKillop. I have for some weeks been reading articles about Mary Mackillop, essentially because she reminded me of Mary Ward, foundress of the IBVM, who also came into conflict with church authorities. My reading was of purely personal interest and I did not make notes or reference my reading. In the course of this reading I learned that Mary Mackillop’s vision of an order of nuns not in an enclosed convent, but actually out and about and living with the poor was alien to the society in which she lived. Nuns lived in convents and were subject to the authority of the diocesan bishop. Their property belonged to the Church . The rule drawn up by Mary MacKillop and Fr Woods provided for the sisters to live in poverty, begging when necessary, and go wherever necessary to provide education for the needy. In doing this, there were often no more than 2 sisters and they lived in the schools they built or in places provided by benefactors, not in church property. The order was autonomous. The bishop sought to change the rule -Mary MacKillop refused and was accused of insubordination and excommunicated for a short period. The behaviour of the clergy towards Mary and her order was, by anyone’s standard, quite appalling and indefensible. All this happened some time after Fr Woods had reported Fr Keating for abuse and some trouble was indeed instigated by a friend of Keating. This of itself was not the reason for her excommunication, other matters including ownership and independence together with other political factors contributed to the affair. Mary MacKillop had nothing to do with the abuse report and is not known to have spoken out about it. It is therefore wrong to say that she was excommunicated because she exposed child abuse Edited by KatyA, Tuesday, 19. October 2010, 20:53.
|
![]() |
|
| Gerard | Wednesday, 20. October 2010, 09:15 Post #29 |
|
Whats that got to do with property? Gerry |
| "The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998). | |
![]() |
|
| KatyA | Wednesday, 20. October 2010, 09:33 Post #30 |
|
My understanding is that the schools built and property inhabited by the order were outside the control of the church and the church authorities were not happy about this. My powers of communication seem to be somewhat lacking as I can't get my point across. You and I will have to agree to differ on this, I hope without rancour. KatyA |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Archived Discussions · Next Topic » |







7:53 PM Jul 11