Tuesday, July 29, 2008

One Final Mary Ann Collins Post

Candy writes: For those who've heard the gossipy rumors that Mary Ann Collins (the ex-nun who wrote the below article) does not exist, please know that what you've read/heard are nothing more than rumors. Mary Ann and I are in email contact - and I can attest that she is real, genuine, and truthful. God bless her heart for putting herself out there, in spreading the Gospel, in telling the truth, and in the sharing of her experiences.

This is a bit of a red herring. Clearly, someone is writing under the name of Mary Ann Collins, and so she does exist. He/She/They may be using a pseudonym, or that might really be her name. Maybe she was a novice at a convent for a while, and maybe she wasn't.

It really doesn't matter. You know why? Because the information in her writing is still wrong. As I've written before, just because a person used to be a priest or nun doesn't mean that that person is an accurate source of information about Catholicism.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button


Anonymous said...

Those deletions were mine. I said something, then thought better of it and tried to clarify. Then I just chucked it all because it's not clear in my mind at the moment; not clear enough to discuss, at least.

Kelly said...

Oh, I decluttered them. You can delete this one too, if you want.

I eagerly await your well-thought out comment at a later time. :)

Maggii said...

Or better yet ...just because one 'claims' to have been a nun or priest...doesn't mean they ever were....

nitromomof6 said...

I am copying here what I posted on KTH so everyone knows where I stand at least. Have a blessed night one and all.

Ok, I feel that I do not need to defend my self or my Lord but this is getting nuts. Let us remember that God is love and that we are all sinners in need of a Saviour. Christ came, lived as one of us and died a horrible death so that none would perish.

Well, I for one am appalled at the behavior I see here. Candy, we are to be salt and light, and if we are being judgemental even under the umbrella of fruit inspecting we are not being Christ with skin on, which is in fact what we are called to be. Anyone that is unsaved needs to know that God is love and He loves you enough to meet you right where you are, no matter what you wear, where you work or even how you talk. Once you come to Him you will see He does love you enough not to leave you there. For those christians trying to reach out lets remember that He does meet us first and then through a relationship changes our hearts. We must die daily. It doesn't happen over night, and that is ok.

I personally do not like the light that is being shone here. I am bold in my faith, but I love my fellow man first. That is in fact what I am called to do. I love the smoker, drinker, cusser, homosexual, and even murderer. Christ met me in my sin and touched my heart in such a way that I have nothing but love to give to others.

For those of you who do not know Him, He can and will do the same for you if you let Him. God doesn't care about your hair, clothes, where you live or even worship, He wants your devotion and love so that He can spill out His blessings on your life. Yes, even christians have trials, we have struggles, we are far from perfect and He still loves us. He tells us in His Word that we are coheirs, not only in the blessings but in the trials as well, so hold tight He can and will see you through.

Let me close by adding, I know Many Many Many, sold out, born again, on fire catholics, God doesn't care where we worship He only care who we worship and that who is Him. He always leaves a remnant, in every church every where, if He didn't who would tell others about Him. Take heart, pray for one another daily and lift one another up with words that edify, be Christ with skin on, be the salt and light in this dark world and show His Love. Anything else and the enemy wins. Let us remember, we are not fighting flesh and blood.
Melissa | 07.29.08 - 9:12 pm | #


Anonymous said...

OK, I am going to try again without detail to confuse myself.

I am currently reading the book "Confession" by Jim McGreevey. He is the former New Jersey governor who resigned when he came out as gay.

I didn't follow the story much at all when it happened but I came across his ex-wife's book in the library on the new release shelf and I like biographies, so I got it.

Before reading her book the little thought I gave to the situation was that I felt terribly sorry for her and all my sympathies were with her.

After reading her book, I was left cold and really didn't like her at all. I didn't like her self praise. I didn't like how she was a total and complete innocent, by her own determination, who never once did anything wrong and spent her whole life helping others.

For contrast, I ordered his book and am in the midst of it. And, although he has made many, many, many mistakes in his life he does something his ex-wife seems incapable of doing. He admits to them. Yes, after the fact, but he lays it all out on the table. The book is mostly about his political career and the things he did with his position in the state legislature, senate, as Mayor and Governor. He gives himself a lot of credit for those things.

Here's where I am trying to make the connections in my thoughts to this current Candy stance on Mary and her so called nun, or former nun.

Everything McGreevey says in his book can be verified. Every last thing he says he did for others, for the benefit of his town, his community, his state - is documented and can be verified by anyone at any time. So, as he talks of the good he's done, it's not hot air. Anything else he may have done wrong in his life, his personal conviction that he was a good, solid politician can be - and is - backed up by proof and evidence.

On the contrary, there is not a single way to confirm anything his ex-wife said in her book. It was all a lot of "oh, I tried so hard and gave so much" - over and over and over until I sometimes had to put it down out of irritation.

The connection and why I'm having a hard time putting it in words is - Candy's so called nun exists in a world just like McGreevey's ex-wife. There is not a single way to verify or confirm anything she says. She is, simply put, an unreliable source.

That in and of itself makes me discount her. But, even more than that, although I initially "sided" with the ex-wife, now that I've read his side of the story, I believe him to be more honest and trustworthy. Why? Because he did not make a single claim that couldn't be substantiated by many sources, from those who oppose him and dislike him as well as those who support him.

Maybe what I'm trying to say is that verifiable, credible sources are worth more than the opposite, simply because they can be verified? I don't agree with McGreevey on a lot of things and there are things that kind of get under my skin about him. But, I have more respect for him because he makes claims and can back them up whereas his former wife cannot do that, or won't.

Just like Candy's supposed former nun. There is no way to verify anything she claims? Even if every word she says is true, she automatically gets discounted because nothing is verifiable...

I know, it was long anyway. It just shows you how my mind works. I manage to make connections in totally unrelated things - I think because I have delayed reactions or something and come to a conclusion on a previous thought after I've already moved onto the next and the inexplicably intertwines them in my brain.

Tracy said...

Excellent perplexity!!!!

Nancy Parode said...


Your thoughts make total sense. And, you are right, it is important when you are writing anything - article, book, column - to make sure all your facts can be verified. There's a whole career path dedicated to this (it's called being a fact-checker).

Whether Ms. Collins was, in fact, a nun, or whether any of the incidents described actually happened needs to be independently verified (by a fact-checker) or corroborated by someone else who was there and who isn't tied to Ms. Collins in any way. Otherwise, it's just a story, not a history.

Also, when reading any kind of article or history book, it is important to realize that nothing is written without underlying purpose. Part of the reader's job is to figure out what that purpose is, because that's where bias comes in. ("Historiography" is the name of this process of understanding why people write and how to filter the bias.)

Ms. Collins deliberately misused some terms in her article. A careful reader will see this, but someone unfamiliar with Catholicism will not be able to detect these errors. For example, she cites the Church's dealings with Galileo as evidence that "infallibility" is, in fact, fallible. There are some problems with her statements. First, "infallibility" as related to "papal infallibility" means that the Pope has to speak from the Chair of Peter ("ex cathedra") on matters of faith and morals. (Not science.) Otherwise, the doctrine of infallibility does not apply. Period. As far as I have read, no Pope bothered to make an ex cathedra pronouncement about Galileo's teachings, so using this situation to prove infallity is fallible is a false argument.

I think Kelly has carefully refuted Ms. Collins' main errors...Hopefully some of Candy's readers will come over here and see for themselves what the Church really teaches.

Tracy said...

this article says nobody has ever been in contact with her in the world.. they can't find her etc. but Candy all of a sudden is in contact with her?? How convenient is that for Candy... not believing it for a second!!

Anonymous said...

Tracy, those are the same pieces I came across yesterday that threw the entire story of Ms. Collin's out the window for me. I wasn't confident in Candy's resources to begin with, but the little extra digging I did turned up the piece you linked to and others on the same site from the same group.

I have no evidence that she exists, or ever did. But, that is really a moot point when it comes down to it. The words credited to her are the bigger issue, and there is nothing to substantiate them either.

Another fallacy being perpetuated by people who don't check into things; they just read something that supports their existing belief and run with it.