One need only at the state of women religious today to realize that “modernization” was a total mistake. The religious orders that chose to adopt a modern approach in living out their vocation are dying out. I cannot tell you how many times I have been exposed to radical feminism and new age theology. Thank God there are new religious orders of women who desire to live out their life in humility and simplicity and obedience. The Dominicans and Mother Angelica’s orders are two that come to mind. These communities are bursting at the seams with vocations. Much harm has been done to the Church with this so-called modern approach to living ones vocation as a religious. Thank God we are turning the corner.

I totally agree with Amy!!!  I am teaching my younger set of children as I am a recent convert to the Catholic Church to pray for nuns and priests to bring back the Rosary. If this were a priority then maybe the many sins of secularism would be abolished???

“No one can live continually in sin and continue to say the Rosary: either they will give up sin or they will give up the Rosary” -Bishop Hugh Doyle

“Never will anyone who says his Rosary every day become a formal heretic or be led astray by the devil.” -St. Louis Marie de Montfort

“Never will anyone who says his Rosary every day be led astray. This is a statement that I would gladly sign with my blood.” -St. Louis Marie de Montfort

May God have Mercy on her poor soul.

The Order’s judgment on many matters may have been faulty. 

The Archbishop attempted to dictate the internal governance of the order, which is not his right, however misguided the nuns were.  The Vatican never supported the Archbishop’s attempt to take over the internal governance of the order (something male religious orders never suffered from).  He did have the canonical right to expell them from the Catholic schools in his archdiocese, and that was the breaking point.  The women, while remaining Catholics in good standing, were relased from their vows and formed a new community that did not seek canonical recognition. 

The remaining 50 nuns still under vows left the archdiocese and moved far away from Archbishop McIntyre.

Let us who love Christ and His Holy Catholic Church do just diligence in being faithful stewards by practicing the Faith and teaching to others according to tradition instead of novelties that only cause confusion and ultimately a loss of faith.

I read about this when the nun died a few weeks ago, but my attention was drawn to the Human Potential Movement along with “Sensitivity Training” which was allowed by well placed church leaders. In Michael Rose’s 2002 bestseller “Goodbye Good Men” there was a place in there were this was discussed in relation to both the “Vocation Crisis” but also the Sex abuse crisis. This kind of bad Philosophies that happened after the Council was not approved of by Pope Paul VI or the Council Fathers. There are however still some members of this orders who are still faithful and they cooperated in the recent visitation of the women religious orders and according to Mr Rose LIBERALS brought the Corruption into the Church and caused all the confusion and uncertainty which is slowly being corrected.

The article would benefit greatly from some information on what happened to the lay institute in the long run.

I remember “Vatican II”... many, sadly wrongly, took this to mean “go create your own ‘vatican’.”  This was evident as the whole community of Religious was exploded from within.  As a young man, I saw and understood the ‘good and holy’ men and women religious were ‘in shock and awe’.  All round them, the flames licked at their souls…  I cannot recall one single priest or religious who smiled.  They were all witness to terrible “liberal injustice”...  On the ‘positive’... as a child, I was ‘put off’ for religious life, although I had a sincere desire for it, much to my father’s chagrin.  But, “God paints straight with crooked lines.” because I have been Happily sharing the Sacrament of Matrimony with my wife for almost 35 years and have been blessed with 3 sons, good holy Daughter-in-Law’s and grandcritters!!!!  Had I followed the (at the time) darker path into priesthood or religious life, I would have made a huge mistake…Instead, God protected me by nuturing my obedience to HIS Holy Will, yes ‘HIS’, for my life.  But, what does a ‘kid’ know?  =)  Let’s pray for the souls of all who were felled in this terrible, dark time…. may God have mercy on their souls… welcome them into His Infinite Mercy embrace… and that we someday stand with them as Saints before the Throne of Grace.  Jesus Christ be PRAISED!  Forever!  Amen.

I really love this online paper!  I also want to write that in this woman, I see my own mistakes and sin of pride in different ways, and I will pray for the repose of her soul.  Pride is a terrible sin, the worst of sins because it’s the sin that led Lucifer to rebel against God.  Let’s all pray that none of us faces our maker with it obscuring or overshadowing any of our other good works.  It’s very, very difficult to be humble in this day and age.

The great evangelization right now is to help bring back former Catholics.

This new identity that Carl Jung and others brought to the Immaculate Heart Sisters was about discovering themselves, not about having communion with Christ.

Some modernization works.  Modern people don’t always relate to religious wearing monastic, medieval habits, but I also believe such habits light up a spark in people to begin to ponder there is something greater than themselves to live for.

I live in the city which also includes the motherhouse of the eastern part of the IHM orders. The order recently consolidated its senior care center, active nuns’ living quarters, and novitiate in one building, because a) they have practically no novices; b) the senior nuns, God continue to bless them, are going home to Him, and 3) most of the active nuns (they are very few) prefer to live in their own apartments and reject the communal life. This is progress in religious life? In addition, after 11 years under the guidance (loving and strict) of the pre-Caspary style nuns followed by 6 with those who adopted her attitude as a prelude to adopting her life style, I can tell you: the devil doesn’t wear Prada, he wears pierced earrings shaped like crucifixes and designer pantsuits. When I entered college (an IHM institution) 6 young women I knew entered the novitiate. None of them stayed. The contrast between what they expected, based on what had been, and what they got was just too great.

The article is most informative, especially the link to the Coulson interview. Although his contrition was real, the story of what he was party to was sickening to read.  Their deadly efforts taint the Church still.

@Mary Elizabeth Williams: Indeed, the devil doesn’t wear Prada; he wears a smile but only for now - he knows what his end is like.

Katherine
    Glad you filled in some pieces the author left out.

God have mercy on her soul indeed!  And she is down on record as not regretting a thing she did.  In fact, if I remember correctly, she said she would have done the same thing all over again.  The religious did themselves in, and I have no pity for them because they still refuse to admit they made grevious errors.  Instead, they blather on about the seeds they have planted lying dormant in the ground for future generations to reap.  Right.

Wow, where to start!  I find the rush to judgment of those who never had the opportunity to know the IHM nuns pre-Vatican II most interesting.  I have been blessed with 16 years of Catholic education through the generosity of my wonderful parents.  My bachelor in Chemistry degree is from IHC, class of 1960.  Not only did I have the requirements to land a great job, I had the philosophy, psychology, ethics and appreciation of literature, art & music to provide the basis of a very rich and deeply spiritual life, faithful to the teachings of our Church.  The mind-set of those wonderful nuns showed me the way to appreciate the richness of God’s blessings and the ability to make judgments after exploring all the facts.  I was a bit surprised about the changes in the community after my graduation but I completely understand.  It was during those days that my parish priest said in homily from the pulpit at Sunday Mass that it was not wrong for married couples to practice birth control.  Now we hear that the pedofile scandals can be attributed to the liberal thought of the ‘60’s.  Those were rough times, now we are seeing a time of purification.  I still love my college days and my teachers.  I pray for all those who have not worked at their faith and gone by the wayside.  I feel it is unfair to blame others for this - we are each responsible for our own salvation and must make the effort to learn at least as much about our Faith as we know about the things of this world.

I attended a Catholic grammar school run by the IHM nuns in the 1950’s. They were wonderful teachers of both academic and religious subjects. One Sister in particular stands out for the insights she gave us in the fifth grade. She told us that there were foolish and dangerous people within the Church who would do us great damage. How right she was.

May God have mercy on her soul.

Jack,

The lay community still exists.  It has 160 members, which would make it no better/no worse in membership than most religious orders in that time frame. 

And the lay apostolate they do still serves the Church.  Maybe not in your or my style or priorties, but they remain faithful Catholics in full communion with the Church doing apostolic work.

Sadly, she may now understand and rue what her challenge accomplished.

Katherine,
It seems you have been reading the Anita Caspary myths and not the actual history of events.  Cardinal McIntyre did not “expel” the sisters from the schools, though Caspary tried to give that impression. In Msgr. Francis Weber’s biography of McIntyre, His Eminence of Los Angeles, Weber wrote:  “... at no time did McIntyre do anything more than acknowledge the decision of the Immaculate Heart Sisters to withdraw unless certain conditions were met. He didn’t fire them. They withdrew.” And the diocesan paper, The Tidings, reported at the time: “The decision as to whether they will withdraw from the schools is in the hands of the Sisters themselves. It was they who took the initiative; it was they who laid down the conditions; it was they who issued the ultimatum.” Nor did the 50 remaining IHM sisters move to get away from McIntyre. McIntyre had retired in early 1970, before the Caspary exodus, and Cardinal Manning was their new archbishop. The IHM sisters eventually established a house in Wichita, Ks., in 1976, and in 1979, they became autonomous.

Ann,

You can spin it different ways.  The Archbishop did not have the canonical authority to direct the internal affairs of a religious order.  However, the Archbishop decreed that if they made the reforms they intended, they could no longer teach in the Archdiocesan schools.

My education by Immaculate Heart sisters from 1969 to 1973 remains one of the most treasured experiences of my life. These highly educated, intelligent, gifted and inspired women taught us to become strong, independent, and generous young women who would boldly strike out into the world to achieve our highest personal goals and to dedicate our lives to making a positive difference in the world and to seek justice for all people. Their philosophy in no way detracted from their devotion to thier calling to serve and be faithful to the Church.

It would seem that the IHMs were not lacking in education or inspiration but from my perspective they were lacking in the virtue of obedience. That one very critical virtue that is found lacking even today has been and continues to be the demise of many of the religious orders.

Amy,

How so?  The Archbishop did not have the authority to take over the internal governance of the order, so there was no disobedience there.  However, he made their continued apostolate in the Catholic schools conditional on the order acting as he demanded in regard to their internal governance.

The Archbishop respected the canonical right of internal governance for every male religious order in LA, just not these sisters.

@Katherine -  “First, the sisters’ interpretation of the renewal called for by Vatican II was highly questionable. The order’s renewal decrees of 1967 stated, among other things, that sisters could choose whatever work they wanted, dispense with regular community prayer schedules, and wear any style of clothing.

However, the 1965 Vatican II decree on the “Appropriate Renewal of Religious Life” (Perfectae Caritatis) said nothing of the sort, but, rather, called for orders to adjust their rules and customs to help them carry out “the apostolate for which they were founded.” The decree also affirmed the “importance of common life, as expressed in prayer” and called the habit a symbol of consecration.”

Pride and disobedience never have good results. The decline in vocations in the “modern” religious orders is all too evident.

Amy,

You may think the Order’s discernment in the reforms they adopted was highly questionable, but their internal governance was still their question to answer.  It is not the canonical right of a local bishop to decide an order did not use good judgment as to internal matters.  And, in fact, no male religious order was ever so treated.  McIntyre tried to dictate everything to the sisters’ bedtimes.

Let’s put it this way.  Say a parish in Los Angeles under an Eastern-rite jurisdiction was doing something that was highly questionable as to their good judgment.  Do you support the Latin-rite bishop ordering them to conform to his judgment?  Or do you respect the proper governance of the Eastern-rite churches in their internal affairs?

@Katherine - I think that Ann Carey made it very clear when she said that the sisters made the decision to withdraw from the schools. You mention once again that male religious orders were not subjected to the same scrutiny. I can’t comment on that because I don’t know the details. I can say with certainty that the IHMs refusal to follow the 1965 Vatican II decree was an act of disobedience. That disobedience resulted in their decision to withdraw from the schools.

Amy,

I think Ann mischaracterizes the situation.  They were not disobedient to any Vatican II decree.  Let’s not have a pointless discussion about our interpretation of this decree (however brilliant and learned each of us may be).  Religious orders all over the world (for good or ill) made the same changes as the IMH sisters and no Vatican official ever disciplined them or found them in violation of the Council decree.  Nor did the Holy See every direct the IHM sisters not to proceed with their proposed reforms.  The interpretation of this decree was to be discerned by each religious order subject to correction by the Holy See. 

It was Archbishop McIntyre who opposed the reforms, not the Holy See.  A canonical religious order is not subject to the authority of the local bishop as far as their internal governance, therefore there was no act of disobedience to a lawful authority (doesn’t mean their decision was prudent, just that it was lawfully their decision).

McIntyre did decree that if they made these reforms, they were not welcome to teach in the schools.  If you want to twist that into saying the sisters made the decision to withdraw because they made the decision to reform, I think that is rather tortured logic.

Let me repeat, I’ve made no arguement that the sisters’ decisions were good or prudent decisions.  I’ve just stated the clear truth that they operated lawfully and within the Church.

@Katherine - I think we are “arguing” from two different points. I’m not concerned with the legalities of what transpired. The question at hand is this, is Anita Caspary a Dissenter or Pioneer? Her disobedience is to the 1965 Vatican II decree. How could she or anyone think that modifying the decree would be for the good? Just look at the religious orders that are in existence today that have adopted the same philosophy. Where has this strong, independent, educated spirit brought them? No where except perhaps to New Age practices, neutral gender preferences for references to God and a deep-seated resentment of men and on their way to extinction. God bless the young women who enter religious life today and who embrace the spirit of humility, live simply and who wear habits!! They are future of the Church.

Amy,

Yes, we are making different points.  She is not a dissenter because she has not violated any law.  However, not dissenting is not proof that one is a pioneer.  You seem to have a particular understanding of the Council decree.  That is your right.  But no legitmate authority in the Church ever found her or others who acted likewise to be in violation of the Council decrees.  But you are free to believe the path she took was one of poor judgment.  Just remember, poor judgment and dissent are two different things.

@Katherine - An Archbishop is in charge of the archdiocese and he needs to make prudent decisions.It is also clear that the Vatican supported Archbishop McIntyre. Call it whatever you like but it is pride that brought ‘them’ to make the decision that they did. Many religious orders took the same route. Did they use poor judgment? Yes. Did the poor judgment lead to dissent? Yes. If I am subjected to anymore “reformers” in suits and jewelry who refuse to use the masculine pronoun for God I will scream.

So very sad that it is more important to some to be correct in their opinion than to admire to good that people do.  Anita Caspary was a supurb teacher.  She accomplished much good in her life.  Why do we choose to play God?

@Rosanne - Yes,we all have opinions and I guess you have yours.

@Rosanne - Yes, we all do have opinions and I guess you have yours. I didn’t notice anyone playing God. I thought we were giving our opinion to the question posed - is Anita Caspary a dissenter or a pioneer.

Amy, yes an Archbishop is in charge of the archdiocese and a religious superior is in charge of religious order.  An Archbishop is not a dissenter when he does not run his Archdiocese the way a Superior thinks he should.  And a Superior is not a dissenter when she governs her Order the way an Archbishop thinks she should. 

The Holy See never interfered in the Order’s right to govern itself and make those reforms they thought prudent.  The Holy See also allowed the Archbishop to decide who could teach in Archdiocesan schools.  My point is that the accusation dissenter is unfounded and I think I have more than proven my point.

@Katherine - It seems like you are going around in circles and I don’t understand what point you have proven since you are expressing an opinion.
I have expressed my opinion as well and we clearly disagree. On that I’m sure we can agree.

Amy, I appreciate you are clarifying that you are expressing an opinion.  You have every entitlement to have an opinion Anita Caspary made poor judgments.  Of course, calling her a dissenter for a difference of opinion is not something allowed to a faithful Catholic.  She did not dissent against a legitmate authority of the Church.

Being a vowed religious woman who came to a decision to live my life in love and service, through the Church, in the world I give thanks to God every day for Anita Caspary and others like her. The litany of women and men who have freely chosen to live in faithfulness in response to the Living God is LIGHT and GRACE. They are - and continue to be - a gift to the Catholic Church, to Religious life and to the human family. Labels don’t usually fit such courageous people…nor are they necessary.

Katherine, who commented above, is simply wrong about what she writes.  in fact, the Vatican sent examiners to look at the “reforms”, and they (and the Vatican) supported Cardinal McIntire 100% in not allowing the ultra-radical changes that ms Caspary and her dissidents wanted.

The IHM Community left the 50 who remained IHM Nuns utterly destitute, with no homes, no funds, no assets of any type.  Those Nuns did NOT leave Los Angeles, they remained there.  Cardinal Manning, the new Archbishop of Los Angeles provided those 50 with a residence, and $275,000 to help defray their espenses.

The IHM had been disuading Vocations to other religious communities for a long time.  My wife was a student at St. Anthony School, and when the IHM Nuns discovered that she was applying to become a Holy Cross Nun, they “counseled”  her NOT to go with that community, to join them instead.  When she persisted, they wrote “scathing” referral letters to the Holy Cross community, stating that my wife was unfit to become a Nun.
(Oe of the older IHM Nuns, the Choir Director, discovered this had happened, and wrote to the Holy Cross Motherhouse, and corrected the record.  My wife was accepted by that community.)

Once it was learned that she had been accepted, my wife was required to report daily for “counseling”, which consisted of making every effort possible to convince her to not go with the Holy Cross.

This group was NOT one that any Catholic should ever consider emulating.

Let us not miss the point, brothers and sisters.

The title and the premise of this article make no sense:  a dissenter can also be a pioneer and vice versa. 

There was a man who walked the Earth 2000 years ago. 

He said things like: 
Love they neighbor as thyself.
Judge not lest ye be judged.
and
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

They crucified him on a cross.

He was both a dissenter and a pioneer.

Yes, Jesus was a dissenter.  And yes, Jesus was a pioneer.  But, to even compare Anita Caspary to Jesus is an abomination.

Jesus did not leave 50 primarily elderly Nuns with absolutely no means of support, no residence and no assets.  Anita Caspery, and her “IHM Community” did EXACTLY that.  She also drove another 130 of her sisters to totally leave religious life, because they no longer had a Community that meant anything, and they were NOT going to follow her into rebellion against the Church.

Jesus did not turn against his own church.  Anita Caspary and the IHM did EXACTLY that. It was NOT Cardinal McIntire that insisted that the IHM comply, it was Poop Paul VI, and the Vatican that ORDERED THEM TO COMPLY, and they refused.

Jesus never drove people out of their communities.  Anita Caspary, and the IHM Community not only did that, but they continued to advocate such behavior for many years.  Of the more than 300 that wen with her, how many were still a part of the “Community” 10 years later?  Less than 100 remained with her (she had “picked up another 75 men and women from various other religious communities (several of which were excommunicated), as well as some lay persons).

When she died, there were approximately 120 people that were still “identified’ as being a part of the “IHM Community”, most of which did not live with the community; did not work with the community; and who had at most a very tenuous connection to it.

And why has this “Community” that was such a “PIONEER”, effectively been dying out for over 20 years now?  Not ONE person has been admitted to it for OVER 20 years.

Not much of a pioneer, when what she started is dying, it has had ZERO influence on the Catholic Church, and it effectively ends up being nothing more than another failed experiment.

Or, as myself, and many others that were scandalized by this woman and her supporters would put it, the egos that drove these people to decide that they knew more than their church, more than the Vatican, are slowly being silenced by the greatest judge of all.

I had the privilege of living with the IHM sisters who followed Anita Caspary for a year in 1972-3. The malicious misrepresentation of these kind, pious and devoted servants of Christ does great discredit to the National Catholic Register. This is a shameful revision of what happened.

Since you believe that Anita Caspary was such a “Christian”, explain how any Christian person could abandon 50 of their sisters, and leave them with absolutely NOTHING. 

They were left with no assets of any kind, no property, no ability to maintain themselves, while Ms Caspary and HER followers sold off what had been donated by Catholics, and lived off of the proceeds of those sales.

Please provide your evidence that any “misrepresentation” has happened in this discussion, other than by those that wish to sanctify Anita Caspary.

They weren’t left with nothing. They had all the assets except for Immaculate Heart Middle School, where I was the secretary, and the College, where I was a student.

Anita’s group were left caring for the elderly and infirm sisters who followed them. They helped the women who had give their lives to the church apply for social security and medicare while providing them with round the clock nursing care at the apartment building they rented on Garfield. Many of the sisters who had worked in the hospitals took private sector jobs to get health care benefits and turned over their salaries to support the others. The 50 who chose to stay were given every asset that it was in McIntyre’s ability to give.

You see, I WAS THERE when Cardinal Timothy Manning came to visit. He often joined the sisters for meals and prayer-offering his support and kindness.

My how you distort reality.

In fact, those that remained as Sisters got NONE of the property at all, not even a house.  Anita Caspary had transferred 100% of the real property out of the control of the IMH.  There was nothing for Cardinal McIntire to distribute to them.

Cardinal Manning DID provide those Sisters with a home, worth some $250,000 in those days, so they would have a place to live.

Ms Caspary and her group left them with absolutely NOTHING in the way of assets.  Even the religious items were taken by her group.  They had literally the clothing that they wore, and NOT ONE SINGLE ITEM OTHER THAN THAT.  It is an outright lie to claim that Anita Caspary, and her group, did ANYTHING to assist those Nuns who chose to remain as Religious.  They were punished, and left totally impoverished, by their leader and her cabal.

Yes, Cardinal Manning DID meet with them, more than once, in an attempt to bring them back as a religious order, but Ms Caspary would have none of that.  SHE was in control, and those women were NOT going to allow the Vatican, or ANY Church authority, have any control over them at all.

And yes, he did indeed pray for those women, pray that they would be enlightened and return to the fold.

Your memory is very, very distorted.  Those elderly Nuns could NOT have gotten Social Security, because they never paid anything into that system.  The elderly and infirm, in that era, MIGHT have qualified for California’s “Aid to the Disabled” program, but not for Social Security or for medicare.

Since I have represented literally thousands of clients, over the past 40 years, that have applied for SSI, Social Security Disability and with Medicare claims, that IS a subject that I know a great deal about. 

Not ONE of those ladies that were elderly or infirm could have possibly gotten those benefits back then.  So that alone proves that you simply do NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

Every piece of real property, every object of art that had been donated to the IHM, every vehicle and every monetary asset was taken by Ms Caspary’s new Corporation, including the retreat house in Montecito.  Those Nuns that remained faithful to their vows, were actually left with absolutely nothing, and had to live off of the charity of the Cardinal.

Please do not distort reality in the manner you are attempting to do.

I graduated from IHC in 1963. So as a student there for 4 years, I personally knew Sister Humiliata, the religious name of Anita Caspary.  I remember thinking that her name was not a good fit for her, as I felt even then she had a somewhat haughty air about her.  She was a pioneer alright, a pioneer in helping to destroy a wonderful Catholic education system.  After her rebellious actions, it seemed that many other religious in teaching orders followed suit, like dominoes falling.  As a result, my own 4 children never got to receive an excellent education from selfless, dedicated religious teachers that my parents, who weren’t wealthy, could conveniently afford for their six children.  And because tuition is now so expensive to pay lay teachers and there are much fewer Catholic schools today, many children baptized as Catholics don’t have the opportunity to get a Catholic school education and often receive little or insufficient instruction in their faith, in spite of the best efforts of parents and CCD programs.  As a result, many young people fall away from Church attendance once they are on their own. Helping to accelerate this exodus is the anti-religious bias of the public schools, where kids are being subjected to all kinds of social engineering and parental rights don’t seem to matter.  Yes, Anita Caspary was a real pioneer alright.