People really need to get this straight, since failing to obviously does great damage. In Latin Rite Catholic canon law, a marriage is presumed valid until proven otherwise. If a couple believe, in good faith, that they are legitimately married when they have kids, the kids ARE LEGITIMATE, even if the marriage is later declared canonically null (which means that it did not meet the conditions for a sacramental, non-dissoluble relationship). It’s sad that people needlessly suffer (and often resent the Church), from not understanding this. If I were teaching seminarians, I would drill this into their heads; any parish priest should be able to explain it clearly.

This was sorted out In the Middle Ages. For example: Louis VII of France and Eleanor of Aquitaine had two daughters before their marriage was declared null. Those daughters were never considered illegitimate, or ‘erased’. The Church also considered kids canonically legitimate if the parents were not married when they had them, but legally could have been (ie neither was married to someone else, or had vows of chastity) and subsequently did get married. This was WAY more lenient than English secular law, which considered such kids bastards, while their younger born-in-wedlock siblings were legitimate.

Incidentally, I think the two investigations of women religious are quite different from each other, and I have a much less sinister view of both than I see expressed here. But it’s late and I have papers to grade …

I share your frustration with moves by leadership like the one described above, but I think there is a logic to women’s continued faith in Catholicism and the church. It’s what they believe, and many uppity women aren’t going to let this or that bishop or Pope tell them what the church is or isn’t. Women religious will continue to nod, and then turn away to do whatever they like.

Most of us are members of corrupt organizations: the organizations that employ us, or marriage, or holding a passport/being a citizen of a nation. But they’re not corrupt everywhere for all time–most of us find communities or corners of these organizations that suit our needs and that work for us, right? I think that’s how many women and men feel about the Church.

Nuns do incredible work, and they do it in the name of a religion that tells them they’re not fit to be priests. Hell, they’re not fit to hold any “leadership positions” and some guy, who’s probably not doing anything useful for his fellow human beings, needs to investigate them for being organized enough to run a soup kitchen. Why don’t the nuns resign in mass? Or at least get offended and tell him to go soak his head?

I don’t know if there’s an answer to my question that I could understand (for Catholicism or any other religion). And you do point in the same direction when you note that “this could be the final nails in the coffin for Catholic women’s communities in North America and Europe.” I would think so! My bogglement is that there are any left at all.

When I was discerning religious life, I heard so many stories from various religious about how the history of their religious order was controlled and directed by whatever Bishop was displeased with them at the time. And yet, for all their attempts to control religious, they certainly took advantage of their work and certainly never attempted to help them make ends meet while they did the work of the Church.

As much as things change, they just stay the same.

Colleges: Birth control ban is honored
4 local Catholic institutions tell bishop no contraception is made available.

http://www.timesleader.com/news/Colleges__Birth_control_ban_is_honored_04-07-2009.html

Bishop Martino says colleges’ condom response is ‘insufficient’

http://www.scrantontimes.com/articles/2009/04/10/news/doc49df376097ef1036820682.txt

I understand why millions of women are Catholic–it’s what they believe. I just wish that the church leadership for the past 1100+ years were more respectful of women’s work and women’s contributions. Many will argue that 1100+ years is a long enough time to wait for change–and I agree. But, it’s what people believe, and what I admire about the Roman Catholic church is its ability to embrace everyone from Dorothy Day to members of Opus Dei. Who gets to say what the Church is? Of course, there’s only one orthodox answer to that (the Pope) but I think most people will recognize that it’s more complicated than that in terms of how human institutions and faith communities work.

Thanks for the links to the Ursulines; the museum in Quebec City is really quite amazing to visit.