Where have the Sisters Gone?

I’m not talking about the disappearance of the habits, nor am I talking about the tremendous loss of vocations – I’m talking about the defiance of the leadership of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) of the mandate of reform imposed by the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Imagine that. These sisters are so far off that the Vatican had to step in. But guess what? These same sisters have refused any iota of reform.

All of us love the sisters who devote their lives to Christ’s mission and service. Our minds and memories are filled with many lovely memories. But today, their leadership is so liberal (and that is an insufficient label) that they have gone beyond the pall so long and so far as to defy the Vatican.

I believe most of these ladies are Franciscan. Do they not have in their Rule to love and be faithful to the Pope and Magisterium as Francis was? What happened to their vows of humility, discipline, obedience? And what about the LCWRs membership? If I was a member, I would withdraw so fast my head would spin. Their inaction is a confirmation of their agreement with their leadership.

They are so consumed in their agenda that they are willing to separate themselves from canonical status and form a separate organization according to an article in the National Catholic Register dated 9/8/2013 .

I believe this is a major factor in the continuing loss of vocations. Imagine a young woman loving Christ, filled with love to serve, religious, prayerful. She explores how she may serve more faithfully (note faithfully) and she runs across these defiant, liberal, self-consumed women. Ah, no thanks, she will say, and walk away. You cannot love yourself, dear ladies, and God. You cannot serve the Church by defying it.

Am I going too strong against these ladies? I think not. I have read the mandate. It is available on the internet. These are serious things. Yet these sisters are ignoring it. Here is a sampling: “’corporate dissent,’ ‘serious theological, even doctrinal errors,’ ‘various theological interpretations that risk distorting faith in Jesus and his loving Father’ and commentaries that ‘undermine the revealed doctrines of the Holy Trinity, the divinity of Christ and the inspiration of sacred Scripture.’” As reported in the article cited above, and in reading the mandate myself. The mandate can be seen here: http://www.usccb.org/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&pageid=55544

In June of 2012 I wrote an open letter entitled: “An Open Letter to My Brothers of the Franciscan First Order and to My Sisters in the Third Order Regular” which can be read here: http://tomsfo1.blogspot.com/2012/06/open-letter-to-my-brothers-of.html in which I expressed my disappointments after I learned that the leadership of the First Order sent a press release in support of the LCWR. I told them how very scandalized I felt.

So a year later these sisters are still standing firm with their arms crossed before them in defiance of the Vatican, not making even the smallest concession like taking down their “Systems Thinking Handbook” from their website which the mandate directed be withdrawn pending revision.

I will continue to pray for these women as I do all religious. Because the direction they are taking is putting their very souls in danger. My faith calls me to correct my brothers and sisters when I see they error. The Vatican has attempted the same. It is now time for them to turn, metanoia.

The Truth about the LCWR You Won't See in the Media

The Church and Our "Religious Sisters"

Father Martin Fox at Bonfire of the Vanities has a very good post about the Vatican's Doctrinal Assessment of the Leadership Conference of Women Religions (LCWR). I have addressed this topic previously in a personal light. But I think Fr. Fox covers this matter much better than I as it is addressed without hurt or emotion taking his necessarily priestly perspective. I encourage you to read it in its entirety. It begins:

This isn't a subject I want to write about--but I think it's important that I say something.

As you probably know, there have been several stories involving some sort of disagreement between Church authorities and some of our religious sisters. What's that about, you may wonder?

Well, one story has to do with a series of concerns with a group called the "Leadership Conference of Women Religious"; the other has to do with a book authored by Sister Margaret Farley. In both cases, the concerns are being expressed by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith--i.e., the office in Rome that seeks to ensure that those charged with teaching the faith, do so faithfully.

So what's this about? To put it simply, some of the decisions and statements of the LCWR have, over the years, sure seemed to deviate from what we believe as Catholics. The CDF folks have cited a number of concerns, such as speakers at public events, statements about "moving beyond" the Church, and other ways that Church teaching and practice have been contradicted or called into question.

Now, of course, if the folks at the LCWR believe that's not true, they have been invited to respond. Some of their leaders just met, yesterday I believe, with officials in Rome. This has yet to work itself out completely. And it isn't just about direct challenges to the Faith, but also how these religious orders might best go forward, so that they flourish, rather than shrink--as, sadly, many of them are.

But let's not beat around the bush. This didn't come out of nowhere. There have, indeed, been very real causes for concern over many years. So serious were these concerns that in the 1990s, a group of women religious in the country sought, and received, from Rome permission to form a new leadership group to represent them--because they grew unsatisfied with the LCWR.

Now, just to be clear, the issue is not with all religious--although that's how it's being framed. My understanding is the LCWR has a membership of about 1,500--as it's name makes clear, it's made up of leaders; those leaders may, or may not, accurately reflect the views of all the thousands of women religious in this country.

By point of comparison, there are two groups that might be taken as representing priests in this country: the longer-established "National Federation of Priests Councils," based in Chicago, and the recently established, "Association of U.S. Catholic Priests." I have no particular issue with either group--but I am not a member of either one. Many of the priests of the Archdiocese are affiliated with the first group, and one of our priests is part of the leadership. If any of our priests are part of the second, I'm not aware of it. The thing is, if someone--either in Rome or elsewhere--were to find fault with either group, I might agree, or disagree, or have no opinion; but why would I take that as a criticism of me?

The other question that comes to mind is this. For those folks who are up in arms about Rome calling for changes in the LCWR, is it their position that Rome isn't allowed to exercise this oversight?

Go here to read his entire post.

The Anchoress on Amanpour's Interview with LCWR/John Chittister

The Anchoress has some good comments on the interview Christiane Amanpour and Sister Joan Chittister (read LCWR). These religious sisters, er, radical feminists, are in another world - their own world. Here is a blip:

First off — this whole brouhaha re the LCWR leadership is based on an 8 page document, quickly read, and more than a quarter of it is spent quite rightly praising the work religious sisters have done. When Sister Joan gets passionate about the ministry the sisters have embraced, she is right to be passionate, but since neither she nor Amanpour mention it, it seems only fair to acknowledge that the document recognizes all of that.

The assessment worries about a “radical feminist” turn taken by the leadership of the LCWR. Amanpour asks what that could mean. Sister Joan answers by defining radical feminism, rather narrowly, I think, as a mindset of extreme separatism; an idea that menfolk were irrelevant to women in the world.

Many might argue that extreme feminism is an outlook that is suspicious of men and their motives, oriented and agendized toward promoting superior feminine sensibilities throughout the culture, among both women and men. I was amused, though, I have to admit, when right after saying that no nun, no sister would ever speak badly of men as a whole, she immediately cites the real problem as being one of radical patriarchy.

Yes, yes, I know what she “meant.” But it came off as an ironic self-contradiction.

Amanpour then characterizes Benedict’s tenure — quite unfairly, or perhaps simply in ignorance, as “no more Vatican II”.

Oh, puleeze! If only the council recommendations had been implemented as written, rather than filtered through an amorphous “Spirit of Vatican II” that brooked no opposition and sometimes sowed a great deal of confusion, perhaps as a church we would all be in better shape, now. It disappoints me that Chittister allows Amanpour to get away with it, but I suspect it’s because she does believe it to be true.

Still, I found it amusing that Chittister describes the tension within the church as being between a “medieval” absolutism — that there is only one right or wrong answer to anything (“and [the damn patriarchy will] tell you what it is”) and then makes a big song and dance about the wisdom of modern relativism. And she’s absolute about it: “The modern mind, born in the scientific age, says there are many answers to many things.”

Until, of course, we’re told “the science is settled.” Then we’re not supposed to question it. It’s just a different sort of patriarchy, I guess.

I’m sorry, but I find so much of this to be prideful boomer conceit; everything that came before us is wrong, unenlightened and stupid. As Vizzini would say, Aquinas? Augustine? Ambrose? Morons!

Chittister also allows Amanpour to get away with the easiest and laziest of arguments: these men didn’t handle the sex abuse scandals well, so they have no credibility, anyway; “it hasn’t been nuns that have been responsible,” Amanpour blubbers. It’s a subject completely irrelevant to this issue, but since Chittister allowed it — and nods in agreement — I have to call her on it; she knows perfectly well that religious orders of sisters have made huge payouts after accusations of abuse and have not always been quick to co-operate with investigations, which is a story the American press hasn’t liked to cover. The subject didn’t even belong in the interview, but once it’s broached, it’s a pretty bad moment, all around, for Amanpour who took the cheap route, for Sister Joan, who let her, and of course, the church, who may do penance for it all throughout all our lifetimes.

Amanpour then gets into the “life issues” and Sister Joan, bristles with offense and says she wants to laugh in irony, or something. She starts off fairly well, but I think she’s a bit disingenuous to say that the reason abortion is not specifically addressed by so many of the LCWR leadership is because they want to treat “everything” as a life issue, and that she doesn’t want to call social justice “social justice” because everything is a life issue.

Okay. Fair enough. But neither woman addresses what has upset Rome, which are instances — admittedly not widespread — where sisters have acted as escorts to abortion centers or suggested that abortion cannot be defined as really evil, because you know…everything is relative; marriage cannot be defined as being solely between a man and a woman because, you know…everything is relative....

Read the rest here.

An Open Letter to My Brothers of the Franciscan First Order and to My Sisters in the Third Order Regular

I am scandalized by the presumptiveness of the leaders of the various First Order American Provinces in their recent press release of their support for the leadership of the Leadership Conference of Women Religions (LCWR) in light of the recent Doctrinal Assessment. I must ask, have you read the assessment? Had you, I cannot fathom how you could privately, let alone publicly, support these wayward ladies. Your support denigrates your own Order.

I approach you with as much humility as I can notwithstanding the extreme agitation and anxiety I am feeling over your leaders support contrary to the assessment. My own formation has taught me that when a brother or sister errors to approach them, in my love for you, so that you may amend yourselves.

In so an elementary foundation of our charism, the very teaching of Francis himself and by his example, by an expression of our humility and obedience and love, we are to be in union with the Magisterium of the Church. From where, in your vowed humility did this elitistism come? You put yourself before the Magisterium in support for the LCWR. Having the least compunction in scandalizing your brothers and sisters in the Orders, I must question your ability to properly lead them. You have fallen prey to the culture in which you live; one of hedonism and individualism.

We are called to be in conformity and give allegiance to the soul and heart of the Magisterium, as the assessment indicates.

Before I go further I extend my heartfelt appreciation for the instruction the nuns provided me, in concert with my parents, in establishing within me a love for God and my Faith. I would probably be a candidate for hell if it were not for them. I also extend my thanks to all the religious who have worked so tirelessly to bring to the world peace, charity, and social justice.

But Franciscanism, Father Francis, was not only about creation and peace and love – important as they are – but he was Christocentric and faithful to the Church and its teachings. Should we be anything less?

The assessment’s reports on the addresses given at the LCWR assemblies present a pattern of obstinacy to Church teaching. They dismiss their responsibility by saying they did not know the content of the presentations, but the pattern indicates their – if not spoken, their hidden – agenda. In addition, even if they were ill-informed as to the content of the talks, they remained unchallenged as brought to light in the assessment.

Their policies prove a corporate dissent of Church teaching: they protest the inability of the Church to ordain women; they embrace homosexuality, they continually take positions against the Church’s teachings on human sexuality. They present radical feminism and undermine our doctrines of the Holy Trinity, the divinity of Christ and the inspiration of Holy Scripture. They’re silent on right to life and natural death; they challenge positions taken by our Bishops who are our authentic teachers of faith and morals. To grant their wishes would mean to discard the essence of the Catholic Church’s Tradition. These are all serious concerns and I can only wonder and pray for the friars and religious who support the LCRW.

I understand on all our Orders there appear individuals with unorthodox ideas, opinions and agendas. But it seems these errors are pervasive. Part of the failure is in the formation process, the weeding out in the inquiry process. The infiltration of the radical liberalism in the Orders is an extremely dangerous situation. Rather than turning to Scripture and Teachings, our Rule, they are led by dissident voices who are not happy with the Church, the Order, or themselves. We are called to build the Church, not destroy it. If you are short of vocations ask yourself, why? Have you not seen the communities that are in-line with Church teaching, wear traditional values as well as their habit are thriving, while the others are dying?

My brothers and sisters need to turn back to our basic tenants of humility, obedience, and discipline. My love and prayers for them continues.

If you would like to read for yourself the Dogmatic Assessment, please go here.