Dissident pro-abortion ex-nun leaves the Catholic Church

December 15, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - For over three decades Joanna Manning, a former nun turned lesbian feminist pro-abortion activist, plagued faithful Catholics, causing scandal, embarrassment and much frustration. On November 27 Manning was made a priest in the Anglican Church of Canada, a Church which has openly accepted homosexuality and abortion. It was a day when, as her friend and fellow dissident Catholic Ted Schmidt wrote, “I am sure God smiled and the angels danced.”

It’s a rare occurrence when I’m able to agree with Schmidt, but on this occasion, I do, and not for the reasons many would expect.

To be sure, I’m relieved that Manning will no longer, under the guise of a “faithful Catholic,” spout for the eager ears of the mainstream media diatribes against the pope - many of which she penned in her book Is the Pope Catholic. She will no longer be able to speak ‘as a Catholic’ representing the pro-abortion activist group ‘Catholics for a Free Choice’ – as she did during the effort to remove the Vatican from its official observer status at the United Nations.

She will no longer be teaching students (and teachers) at Catholic schools about the glories of gay sex, and how the Church must embrace it as “the creative energy of God.”

Believe it or not, this radically unorthodox ex-nun was head of Religion and Chaplaincy at Monsignor Johnson High School in Etobicoke, Ontario. Moreover, she reveals in her biography that she developed high school curriculum for the Catholic school Board and even for the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. She sat as an executive on the Catholic teachers union and was hired by the Faculty of Education at York University to teach theology to teachers working in the Catholic School Board.

However, this is not the cause of my joy at hearing of the latest news about Joanna Manning. I don’t regard Manning as an enemy; I do not wish her harm in any way. I wish her only the very best: happiness – eternal happiness. To get to that place however, she must still travel a long road, but with this move she has taken a first step.

While Manning was a professed Catholic she was causing much harm not only to the faithful and to society in general but also harming herself.

We should all live authentically, to represent faithfully what we profess. Although we may at times fall, we then acknowledge our faults and try to mend our ways, always maintaining the truth of the principles despite our weaknesses.

However, it is quite another thing to profess a religion and be regarded in the public eye as a representative of it and then misrepresent its teachings: to decide that a church should be different, more to your personal tastes, and then to try to subversively change it from within.

It is much better to be true to oneself and to reject the hypocrisy of claiming one reality and teaching another. Either call yourself a Catholic and embrace the teachings of the Catholic Church or else join another community of faith and be true to its tenets. There is honor in being true to one’s conscience in that way.

In leaving the Catholic Church and joining the nouveau Canadian Anglican Church (not to be mistaken for the pro-life and pro-family Anglican Network in Canada), Manning can now be true to herself and her professed religion. That spirit of rebellion which took hold of her many years ago has less of a grip on her in her new home.

Perhaps, and this is my fervent prayer, Manning will come to realize what she has given up and long for it once again. I don’t mean what she has given up lately in now embracing her status as a non-Catholic, I mean what she gave up many decades ago – her acceptance of God’s design for human sexuality, for life and family.

And what an amazing conversion story that would be! God would surely smile, and the Angels dance.

And was not forced to leave.

First things first: why was she tolerated in a position where she was instructing young people? Why was she producing "educational" material for the national bishops' conference?

The responsibility in these matters rests with the diocesan bishop; in this case, that's the Archbishop of Toronto, Most Rev. Thomas Collins.

A clue may be gained by looking at this "About Our Faith" page from the archdiocesan website.

Along with the amusing web design errors ("Cathecism"? And 5 numbered items in a list, all numbered "1"?) you'll note that it makes the church sound a lot like a social service organization. Apparently, Jesus died on the Cross to inspire us to help the poor. (And the parable of the loaves and fishes was about "sharing", etc.)

Of course, it's entirely possible that Sister left the church because she was being forced out of her position, and the Archbishop just took his time in acting, to have all his "ducks in a row," so to speak. I don't know what the backstory is. The archbishop was installed in 2007. I don't know how long Sister was in her position.

If you want to see smoke pour from someone’s ears as they realize the absurdity of their position, ask a militantly pro-abortion homosexual who believes in the “gay gene” if they’d be okay with parents aborting a child because prenatal testing demonstrated that he or she carried the “gay gene”.

So true.
There was no down side to amneocentsis until this "gay gene" nonsense came up. The absurdity reached its height when someone predicted an anti-abortion, pro-life rally with Catholics and homosexuals.
Totally weird.

there are ovarian problems that cause high androgen levels and a high percentage of these women are lesbians.

And if a child is abused, the tendency is developmental.

The choice is that one can chose behavior...

there are ovarian problems that cause high androgen levels and a high percentage of these women are lesbians.
And if a child is abused, the tendency is developmental.
The choice is that one can chose behavior...

Still, no "gay" gene, but, as you say, behavior is a choice.

P.S. And if a child is abused, the tendency is developmental.
Are you talking about "the tendency" is that of being one towards homosexuality?
From what I've gathered over the decades on homosexuality, the experts always end up saying that "a variety of components, relationships with parents, males, females, environment, developmental ... all contribute to a possible tendency toward homosexuality." They don't pinpoint ANY specifics because there really aren't any to pinpoint yet.
They do say that some people have a possible "proclivity" to homosexuality. I dunno. They say that about obesity, overeating, alcoholism and so on.
VAGUE, vague, VAGUE vague
Perhaps that's the nature of medical science.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.