-255x185.jpg)
WASHINGTON — In the 1950s, the Vatican established the Conference of Major Superiors of Women in the United States to provide a forum for women religious to develop educational, spiritual and apostolic resources and discuss their common interests. Its name was changed in 1971 to the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR). The LCWR would serve as a communications channel between the Vatican and women religious in the United States. Its purpose, responsibilities and statutes were approved by the Vatican.
Since the early years of Christianity, religious women in the Catholic Church have been consecrated to the love of Christ, brides of Christ, whose primary calling was to remind all Christians of the ultimate goal of life on earth: union with God in heaven. Apostolic works are secondary to the sign value of consecration to Christ in the Church and can be fruitful only to the extent that the consecration is lived faithfully within the Church. As Blessed John Paul II noted in 1996, the Church expects its publicly consecrated religious to be distinctive in their “allegiance of mind and heart to the magisterium of the bishops …which must be lived honestly and clearly testified to before the people of God by all consecrated persons” (Vita Consecrata, 46).
Now, six decades after the LCWR was formed, its officers and the Vatican are engaged in an increasingly public dispute about whether the organization has adhered to its mission and statutes.
The recent headlines were prompted by the release of the Holy See’s doctrinal assessment of the organization, followed by the LCWR’s statement in response. The LCWR complained that the process had not been transparent, the allegations had not been substantiated, and the remedies were out of proportion to the problems. It said that the doctrinal assessment had “caused scandal and pain throughout the Church community and created greater polarization.”
The controversy has left some Catholics puzzled about why the Vatican would be issuing a doctrinal assessment of such a group, but the concerns outlined by the Holy See are not new.
In the wake of the Second Vatican Council, some religious women took the call for renewal as a summons to feminism and an emphasis on social work, and there was a loss of the Christological focus necessary to the consecrated life and a drift toward a secular and political viewpoint. Over the years, the LCWR has shown a marked trend toward fringe — and even decidedly un-Catholic — positions and interests, such as ordaining women and encouraging the homosexual lifestyle, while neglecting the legitimate development of Catholic spirituality among the members of the congregations belonging to the LCWR.
Speakers at LCWR annual assemblies have espoused New Age fads, politics reflective of our morally relative culture and “feminist theology,” but scarcely anyone could be found to speak out against the primary injustice of abortion, offer an enriched understanding of religious life, or affirm the Church’s teaching on family life and human sexuality.
It is important to note that not all members of the religious communities that are members of the LCWR agree with the leadership. There are many accounts of the acute suffering of those who have not agreed. Ann Carey’s book Sisters in Crisis: The Tragic Unraveling of Women’s Religious Communities explains what happened to many communities as the leadership abandoned such elements of community life as communal prayer, common apostolates and religious habits. These elements of religious life were meant to promote and protect the consecration of religious as “in the world but not of it.”
The situation got so bad that in the 1980s those religious communities that did not share the political and religious views of the LCWR petitioned the Holy See to allow them to form their own association. This was finally done when the Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious (CMSWR) was established in 1992.
Just the name tells you they are different from the LCWR. They have superiors, whereas the communities belonging to the LCWR tend to have “leadership teams.” The statutes for the CMSWR were approved by Rome in 1995. The council has about 100 member communities.
As the Holy See is ultimately responsible for the activities of organizations like the LCWR, it is not surprising that it should eventually evaluate what they are doing. Now the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) has issued a “Doctrinal Assessment of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious.” The document includes an account of the events leading to its publication. It fully acknowledges the good works accomplished by the women religious of the LCWR communities, but finds that there are serious problems with the LCWR activities.
Four years ago, the CDF notified the LCWR that it was concerned about the speakers at the annual assemblies, corporate statements issued by the LCWR and its member congregations, materials provided for the formation of novices, and “the diminution of the fundamental Christological center and focus of religious consecration.” Themes of radical feminism were prominent “in some of the programs and presentations sponsored by the LCWR, including theological interpretations that risk distorting faith in Jesus and his loving Father who sent his Son for the salvation of the world.” Statements by LCWR officers advocated women’s ordination and protested Church teaching about the pastoral care of homosexual persons.
In February 2009, the CDF appointed Bishop Leonard Blair of Toledo, Ohio, to conduct a doctrinal assessment of the LCWR and its programs. Several exchanges of documentation and responses occurred during 2009, ending in Bishop Blair’s reports to the CDF in December 2009 and June 2010.
The documentation showed much activity for social justice in harmony with Church teaching and praised and thanked the sisters for their contributions and dedication in education, health care and aid to the poor. But despite the sisters’ emphasis on social justice, the assessment found silence on the right to life from conception to natural death, an issue of huge public importance in the United States.
The LCWR agenda differed from the authentic teaching of the bishops in matters of family life and human sexuality, and there were even public statements by the LCWR disagreeing with or challenging positions taken by the bishops on faith and morals.
The doctrinal assessment provides specific examples of the problems. It also reports the responses received from the LCWR. For example, the LCWR said that it does not preview the speeches given at its annual assemblies, so it does not know that speakers are going to take positions contrary to Church teaching.
That explanation seems disingenuous: Speakers are preceded by their reputations, and what they say can hardly be surprising. In any case, the LCWR has not repudiated such speeches after they were given, leaving the clear impression that the views expressed were acceptable to it.
Another issue concerns the materials provided by the LCWR for the doctrinal formation of superiors and those charged with the formation of new religious. These materials are focused on process and group dynamics: how to discuss differences, rather than how to seek understanding of Catholic doctrine and life. In general, the CDF concluded that the materials lacked doctrinal content on which to build a life of faith and consecration in harmony with the sacramental and mystical life of the Church.
The CDF considered all of the documentation and the responses from the LCWR at a meeting in January 2011. It found that the doctrinal and pastoral activities of the LCWR were a matter of serious concern, not only because of the potential negative impact on the women who are members of LCWR communities, but also for their influence on religious communities around the world. Consequently, the CDF recommended to Pope Benedict XVI and the Pope agreed that the Holy See should intervene to reform the LCWR.
The Holy See will now carry out a five-part process, directed by Archbishop J. Peter Sartain of Seattle:
- revising the LCWR statutes to provide greater clarity about its mission and responsibilities;
- reviewing LCWR plans and programs, including speakers invited to the annual assembly;
- creating new materials for initial and ongoing formation that provide deeper understanding of Catholic faith;
- reviewing and offering guidance on liturgical texts and practices, putting the Eucharist and the Liturgy of the Hours at the center of LCWR events and programs; and
- reviewing affiliated organizations, namely Network and The Resource Center for Religious Institutes.
On June 1, the LCWR issued a statement in response to the doctrinal assessment. It complained that the process had not been transparent, the allegations had not been substantiated, and the remedies were out of proportion to the problems. It said that the doctrinal assessment had “caused scandal and pain throughout the Church community and created greater polarization.”
The statement said that LCWR officers will be meeting with Cardinal William Levada, prefect of the CDF, and Archbishop Sartain in Rome on June 12 to discuss the concerns of the LCWR board. During the summer, members of the LCWR will hold meetings around the country to determine the response to the CDF.
Judging from the statement, that response will not be conciliatory. The LCWR statement contains no hint that the CDF might have any reason at all for concern. Instead, it attacks the CDF for causing scandal, drawing unjustified conclusions and overreacting.
Yet there is no factual refutation of the matters cited in the doctrinal assessment. Rather than acknowledging the authority and responsibility of the bishops and the CDF, the statement appeals to the support of “many people around the world,” as if they were the source of authority in the Church or the competent finders of fact. For all of their talk about listening and sharing, the LCWR is not listening to the CDF or sharing its legitimate views.
In other words, the statement could serve as the next exhibit in the CDF’s portfolio of what is wrong with the LCWR.
This sad tale might not end soon, but it will end. The average age of the members of LCWR communities is 73 and increasing, while their numbers fall. Meanwhile, what of the CMSWR? They represent 20% of all the women religious in the U.S., more than 11,000 sisters, but they are young, with an average age of 35 and falling, and they are growing fast. They are happy to state their fidelity to the magisterium of the Church, to pray together as the central focus of their lives, to work together in community apostolates, to wear recognizable religious habits and, above all, to promote and protect their consecration to Christ as the source and goal of the Church’s life.
Donna F. Bethell is chairman of the board of directors
at Christendom College in Front Royal, Virginia.
Benjamin Wiker: Benedict XVI: Doctor of the Church
Comments
Post a Comment
Thank you for writing this. I’ve been getting bits and pieces from people and trying to make sense of it. Now I have a concrete factual document to start from.
It won’t take long for these younger nuns to decide they are sick and tired of being treated like second-class citizens by men who have earned no respect.
Wow, sounds like my kids when I try to discipline them, “It’s not fair! I don’t deserve this! You’re mean!” and on and on. But as a parent, you know better and you know what is best for your children, even when they don’t agree with you. There will be pain, but no pain, no gain, right? Keeping all religious in my prayers.
On the contrary - this article’s clear support for the magisterium to the ostentatious exclusion of the LWCR mission since Vatican II reveals it to be as biased as any other article closed to any discussion of what it means to have Christ at the center of one’s life. “Christ as the source and goal of the Church’s life” *does not* mean love of the magistrate at the center. It means fighting for the lives of those on the margins - the gay community and women in their assertion of their unique leadership capabilities. If the LWCR became seems political, it is because to love Christ, and therefore the marginal, is absolutely political.
Thank you for this article but want to make a small point of distinction. While most of the religious communities loyal to the Holy Father, the Magesterium AND members of the CMSWR wear ‘distinct’ habits, I know of at least one that does not.
-
The Sister Servants of Mary Immaculate was founded in Poland in 1878 and from their website: “The Sisters wear no distinctive garb, that is, the community is non-habited. We strive to imitate Jesus, our Lord and Bridegroom, in the mystery of his HIDDEN LIFE, which he practiced in Nazareth and continues to practice by his hidden presence in the Church today-hidden in the sacraments, especially in the Eucharist, and in each of our neighbors…. Sisters strive to exert influence on the Christian formation of human society from within-after the model of evangelical leaven. Sisters profess the vows of chastity, poverty, and obedience.”
-
It is vital that we do not make the mistake or judgement (as I once did) that the lack of habit is an immediate sign of a ‘problem’. When my dh’s grandmother was in their care in Baltimore, every visit we made to Nannie revealed their love for the Church and the elderly. When she went into a coma during her last days on earth, Nannie was never left alone as a sister was always at her side, saying a Rosary, doing her prayers or just reading so that Nannie would not die alone, and she didn’t.
-
The CSMWR is amazing group of wonderful orders and any family looking for information on religious orders for their daughters should be encouraged to check out their website first, and perhaps, only. http://www.cmswr.org
The Vatican’s actions were long overdue. For too long there have been those in the church community who have spouted rhetoric contrary to church teaching, and being that they are members of the church community, their support for things like gay marriage and abortion has been taken by some to mean that the church itself promotes those ideals.
The fight against Obamacare is a perfect example of that. The USCCB stated its opposition to the health care provisions that would require religious-affiliated institutions to provide birth control and pay for abortions, yet this very same group of outlaw nuns immediately contradicted the council’s position in releasing statements in which it made it seem as if the council had changed its stance and would go along with the provisions.
The Vatican, as well as bishops from across the world, need to start weeding out those who endorse values contradictory to the Catholic faith. If not, it will eventually lead to the end of the church as we know it, one where it is ruled by secularist and liberal ideals.
Excellent summary of the situation of Women Religious. Very factually stated without bias. Good work!
I am not surprized at the response of the LCWR. Their answer is really a non-answer meant to shift blame to the accuser. I only hope that some sisters and some communities will take this opportunity to reflect on the charism of religious life and conform to the truth revealed by Jesus Christ to His holy Church. I suggest that we all take time on June 12 to prayer for the sisters and for Cardinal Levada.
I have posted this before. It shows the New Age directions of this group. And their highlight speaker this summer Barbara Max Hubbard says much of what she thinks is sacred in a new age or Gnostic way but where is the mention of the sweet name of Jesus our only way to salvation?
On the Vatican response to LCWR is this article showing some of their crazy new age directions.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/media-and-nuns-colluding-in-deception-says-expert-vaticans-reform-no-david
And their conference this year
https://lcwr.org/assembly
showing the new age tendencies of their group.
And as you will note this one is in St Louis this Year.
And this is some info on their lead speaker Barbara max Hubbard.
http://www.barbaramarxhubbard.com/site/
After reading this I felt the need to stop at the chapel for Eucharistic adoration.
And some additional thoughts:
And some will talk of the good works of some of the nuns. And the Mormons do some good works, as do the Jehovah’s Witnesses as do the Masons as in the Shriners hospitals but this is a doctrinal assessment. We are not questioning some of the works but the errors in their beliefs and the effects these false teachings may have on the faithful. .
God Bless Bob.
By forming separate groups (religious orders) there is always the natural tendency to move toward independence over time. Hence, Catholic history is filled with the reformation of orders by a reformer “saint”. Ironically, the Church has never reached the conclusion that the idea of religious orders is the issue. Let the flaming responses begin. Sure, lot’s a good from orders… but in my view way more problems. They are “churches within the Church”. It’s our version of protestantism, “internal schisms”. Before long some of the ‘young faithful’ will become “lax” or “unfaithful” as the cycle goes. The Church has too many “layers”. In holy orders it was porter, exorcist, tonsure, acolyte, lector and subdeacon. In religious life it’s “consecrated” as though they can improve upon what is expected in Baptism. We need to get back to the Apostolic model. BAPTISM is the primary order. Life is lived among all people in holiness. One does not need an association or “separation” (which is what the word pharisee means). We need to live our baptisms (clothed in Christ).
@ Andrew - Don’t be so presumptious that the younger obedient nuns will follow the footsteps of the disobedient LCWR ones. The younger Sisters had a choice to join LCWR and obviously took note of the groups pathetic dissent disguised in social justice! Clearly, the LCWR Sisters seriously lack in many virtues - obedience and humility being just 2 of them.
How can these women say that they are not in disobedience when the proof is concrete! Consider this video. In it she states that the Church today sounds like the Church of the 19th century…hello…it’s the Church of the 1st century, unchanging and uncompromising. I cannot believe that after going on a major network for a 5 minute, uninterrupted interview, clearly stating that she disagrees with Church Teaching and does not respect Church authority, is not enough evidence to close this case.
http://d.yimg.com/nl/ytv/cbs/player.html#browseCarouselUI=hide&vid=29518838
@ Andrew - you are deeply mistaken. The religious orders in the leadership position in LCWR have NO YOUNG NUNS. The average age of these orders are in the mid-sixty. The younger vocation is booming in the traditional Dominican and Carmelite orders who are actually in opposition with the LCWR leadership. I am confident that this will all blow over very soon. The current leaders of LCWR are long past retirement age.
@ Dai - I keep seeing comments all over the web justifying the illegitimacy of the LCWR based on their looks and age! Is anyone hearing themselves? The same people who say the vast age of the Church is a valid citing for its doctrine. These nasty comments simply justify anyone’s criticism of the church’s absurd prejudice toward the marginalized. They are the words of fascism! - “soon the LCWR will be too aged to speak up, and then we will be right”
??
Andrew,
We younger women have seen the fruits of the 60 and 70’s feminist, and now are rejecting the falsehoods about women they proposed. We are not interested in being just like a man, and we are happy in our true femininity, glorifying in the life giving abilities of our bodies. I am so sad when I hear young girls talk about their fertility as if it was a disease and how you have to be having sex to be happy and fulfilled. These girls struggle with poor body images and are hurting after being used by boys. The false victimization and hatred of men just doesn’t appeal to us, Andrew.
A sad reflection on this is that there are so many Catholics, ages 50 and younger, who have no clue what this is about. Catechesis went into the toilet in the early 1970’s and then someone flushed. Understanding of doctrine, even in a limited way, was considered passe and the youth were taught a version of the Gospel, rapidly becoming secularized, which amounted to a preferential option for the poor without any serious theological base. The radical changes within orders lead to a very rapid decline as women, having professed to an order which no longer made any sense and had no obvious connection to the group they originally joined, left in droves. This study was at least 30 years overdue. Had it taken another 15 years to accomplish, time would simply have solved the problem as the recalcitrant orders are now dying off.
But the damage has been done. Oh, the damage…
Alyssa, there was nothing nasty in what Dai stated- she was simply stating a fact from what we have all observed. Instead of addressing the statement you resort to calling people nasty and fascist. Typical of those on the left who just have no real clue what and who Our Lord Jesus is. Your earlier comment of yesterday also shows this lack of understanding. We must first work on ourselves and our own relationship with Jesus and God, we must learn to love God and wish to do His Will and serve Him and His Church before we can turn and give that love to others, love that cares first and foremost to the person’s soul and salvation. Seek first the Kingdom of God and all else will be given to you. These nuns are not doing that anymore.
@Dai Yoshida, DK, & Maria,
I am not talking about hatred of men in general and of course I’m not talking about young nuns in leadership positions in LCWR. You probably are not old enough to know that it wasn’t “feminism” that drove the older nuns to seek their independence. It was being treated like 2nd class (or dirt) by priests and bishops who were put in authority by no other justification than what hangs between their legs. They saw themselves being pushed around by arrogant, scotch-swilling pedophiles.
What I am predicting is that these younger vocations in the traditional orders you mention will mature as time goes on and they will resent not necessarily orthodoxy, but the fact that they are subjected to earthly obedience to men who simply are not qualified to be their superiors.
You’ll see…
Andrew, is it possible that there were and are some bishops and priests who treat Sisters as second class citizens? True, but is that accusation just to the vast majority of priests and bishops and even Rome? You bring the issue of pedophiles and here you are, a Catholic, in a Catholic family, hurling insults upon the very Church I presume you claim to belong to. Is 1% of pedophile priests the “whole” priesthood and if your goal is “justice” for the rebellious Sisters, where is your sense of justice when you openly disparage the priesthood and episcopal authority, and in terms that are, anything but Christian?
Many of the rebellious Sisters by their own words and actions have already told the world and the Church they have gone “beyond” Jesus, so their social work, praised by the Vatican document, is a secular enterprise devoid of a spiritual foundation since they have moved “beyond” Christ.
Also, a Catholic who loves Christ is not independent of His Vicar on earth and those Catholics who believe so, should find another church, because in the Church that Christ founded, one is not at liberty to deny the authority of the Holy See or the Bishop of Rome, all the while claiming to be loyal to Christ.
@Antonio A. Badilla -
I take my views on the primacy of conscience from the very words of St. Thomas Aquinas and a German Theologian named Joseph Ratzinger:
“Conscience is more to be obeyed than authority imposed from the outside. By following a right conscience you not only do not incur sin but are also immune from sin, whatever superiors may say to the contrary. To act against one’s conscience and to disobey a superior can both be sinful. Of the two, the first is the worse since the dictate of conscience is more blinding than the decree of external authority.” [St. Thomas Aquinas, De veritate, q. 17, a.5]
I suggest you might do a little reading.
“Over the pope as expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority, there stands one’s own conscience which must be obeyed before all else, even if necessary against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority. This emphasis on the individual, whose conscience confronts him with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and one which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even the official church, also establishes a principle in opposition to increasing totalitarianism.” (Josef Ratzinger, Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, 1967)
Andrew,
I recently visited the Dominican Sisters in Nashville (a thriving, young, and very orthodox community). The young, middle-aged, and old sisters were all radiating with genuine joy. There were also Dominican priests there who treated the sisters with the utmost respect. They did not act “superior” to the sisters, but regarded themselves as equals. Lay people we met at their schools, both men and women, also treated the sisters with great respect. One gentleman even commented that “Every sister’s first name is “Yes” (because you’re always saying “Yes, sister!” whenever she asks something of you).” One of the old sisters said that a lot of confusion followed Vatican II because many sisters in other communities did not receive all the explanations of the teachings of Vatican II, and others just did not understand it. The Nashville Dominicans lost 1/3 of their order in the wake of Vatican II due to misunderstanding, but now that women know the truth about their feminine genius and gifts, their conservative community is expanding. It may just surprise you how well they’re doing in 10, 20, 50 years. I appreciate you wanting women to see themselves as worthy and wanting priests to respect women. I just think you haven’t really seen how beautiful the lives of sisters living out their vocations authentically are. Or how happy they are. Nor do I think you’ve seen how men in the Church treat those women. I just hope what I’ve said helps a little.
A magisterium of nuns
Posted on 20 March 2010 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf
In this matter of contingent, prudential judgments, whose judgment will in time prove to have been the more prudent?
The Catholic bishops with pro-life groups or their opposition, the LCWR and CHA and NCR, etc?
I happen to think the bishops are right and the CHA and NCR and LCWR are wrong. I think the bishops are right this time, not because they are bishops, by the way, but because they happen to be right. Even if there really is a barrier between federal money and the procuring of abortions, a barrier which might allow a Catholic legislator in this byzantine tangle to vote for the bill, is that barrier going to stand?
Or will it – as I fear it will – open the gates to direct federal funding for abortions?
At this point I doubt many people are going to change their minds about their positions.
Therefore, I have this to say to those Catholics who support the passage of this bill.
I am speaking especially to the women of the LCWR and the CHA and the dissenters of the NCR.
No one is going to forget that you supported this bill when, in years to come, your barrier did not hold and children are being killed with tax-payer funding.
In years to come, you will be held accountable by Catholics on the street.
You will be held responsible for this and you will be made to answer for this down the line.
You will be responsible for federal funding of the most extreme form of child abuse.
You are in for a Dante-esque contrapasso in decades to come.
@ Andrew:
The Church teaching on the primacy of following a well-formed conscience is a little more nuanced than you may realize:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/CONSC.TXT
Truly, we all need to do a little reading.
I guess social darwinism is alive and well. Survival of the spiritually fit. These orders have an extinction wish. Just like contracepting Catholics, they will not leave enough offspring to continue their perverse spiritual life.
Andrew,
-
You can look up De veritate, q. 17, a.5 and it does not say “exactly” what you quote, in fact your quote is not even similar. Somebody is doing a “little” misinterpretation here from wherever you got this quote. People have been taking St. Thomas Aquinas out of context for some time and do not look at his other writings when trying to form some interpretation.
-
I’m not familiar with Pope Benedict’s quote but I’m inclined to believe it’s being used out of context as well.
-
God’s blessings to you.
From secular-organizational perspective, there is nothing wrong with what the Holy See did.
The LCWR was an Organization erected by the Holy See. Thus the Holy See can and able to terminate, rework, change its constitutions, ask for assessments, demand its members to adhere to rules legislated by the Holy See.
So why the fuss? The sisters must understand that they do not own the LCWR. They freely join the LCWR and free to leave.
There is a difference between primacy of conscience and supremacy of conscience. Conscience is the discerner of moral law, not its creator. For example, saying abortion is morally acceptable because one’s conscience says it is acceptable is like sitting in a living room engulfed in flames and saying there’s no fire because the smoke alarm isn’t beeping. Such a conscience is objectively in error. Primacy simply means we can’t force someone to accept the truth. BUT, and this is most important, if they can’t accept the truth, they cannot have a position that in anyway claims to speak for Our Lord’s Church. The modernist nuns have made whole careers out of turning “primacy of conscience” into code (and not very deep code at that) for moral relativism. At every turn the LCWR proves the necessity of this intervention.
I have a different interpretation of conscience. What is conscience ? It has tremendous relationship with surroundings, experiences, people like parents, teachers etc. That is why monogamy is the right thing for Christians and polygamy is not wrong for Muslims. However those who cast away all such relationships to form their conscience, some natural laws are applicable, like admitting rape, robbery etc as wrong.
As far as Christians are concerned their conscience has to be formed taking into account their faith in Christ and His Church. That is why Christians have to assert their rights when the Govt or any other agency try to trample on them
Unfortunately, I see little “Christian” charity in these postings but a lot of snap judgements. Jesus stood with those who were pushed to the margins and he struggled with the closed mindset of the Pharisees. Right to Life protests seem to stop after birth despite claims that they support life until natural death. Where are the protests from this group for just wage, good housing, health care for the living, support for the single mom who has been abandoned, the millions of innocent victims of war (which also include babies and children). Once the baby has been born, he or she needs food, a secure home, a healthy environment, respect and good health care. Right to Life also should include RESPECT FOR LIFE - all of it! Maybe there are a few sisters in LCWR who have gone into uncharted territory, but you cannot condemn a group that has faithfully lived their Christian commitment to care for those Jesus would have also attended to.
@abimopectore - I have studied Aquinas quite extensively formally and informally. I won’t disagree with you that people have mis-quoted Aquinas to suit their own needs for 100’s of years, that is precisely why I quote DIRECTLY from Aquinas (in lingual translation of course). You are wholly incorrect and your post is gravely misleading.
@Maria - I quote from a Saint and a Pope. You quote from a young Australian Bishop.
For another example of where the LCWR has gone off is this example, of Sr. Farley saying some wrong teachings about sexuality in her book, Just Love: A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics and the president of Mercy sisters,Sister Patricia McDermott, comes out defending her, instead of agreeing that she has taught wrongly in her book. As for this type of thing I saw the real dangers of false teaching in that I had a friend, who as a young male, with strong sexual desires, could act out sexual sins, and could find the teachers who would “tickle his ears”. This assessment is about truth and not about some misguided idea of compassion or of the degree of education a person has. And I am sure that many in LCWR believe they are acting out of compassion and are well educated. But “compassion” without truth could ultimately lead some into slavery and ultimately to hell.
While sisters and nuns should wear a habit, unless they have an explicit exemption in their constitutions for a good reason(constitutions are approved by the Church), wearing a habit doesn’t make a sister immune from error.
But my opinion is that societies who ended up without a habit due to persecution or whatever, should adopt the habit now that they are not in that danger…because not wearing one is so much associated with unorthodox communities
because the sign value of the habit is extremely powerful and important for sisters and those who see the sisters alike,
because it is much easier to “leave all things” for Christ if you have one or two simple habits which you make yourself than if you shop for clothes and have various outfits (note I said SIMPLE habits)
because the Magisterium has repeatedly said that religious (male or female) should wear a habit,
and because many a religious has suffered persecution for the privilege of wearing the habit, and I think it insults their memory to reject the habit.
And a little pin on a business suit is not a habit!
Donna and all readers, go to: Timeline of Vatican relations with US women Religious since 1950’s - Catholic News Service
@Andrew,
-
You’re are not quoting Aquinas. You can google search your quote and you won’t find it except from folks who have “re-interpreted” the whole section and cited it as a direct quote, which is intellectually dishonest, misguided, and hence can’t be attributable to Aquinas. Here’s the Latin for what you cite which is De veritate, q. 17, a.5:
-
http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/qdv15.html#55441
-
Here’s the English translation:
-
http://www.josephkenny.joyeurs.com/CDtexts/QDdeVer17.htm#5
-
No where is your “quote” found. I’ve just shown you out of Christian charity so that you don’t confuse others with thinking that you’re quoting Aquinas. Please have the Christian charity to admit your error.
Andrew: I looked up your ‘quote’ from De Veritate question 17. The heading reads: Q. 17: Conscience
ARTICLE V
In the fifth article we ask:
Does conscience in indifferent matters bind more than the command of a superior, or less?
First- it asks if conscience binds more than the command of a superior in INDIFFERENT matters, ie morally benign.
I have copied and pasted the entire quote here:
It seems to bind less, for
1. A religious subject vows obedience to his superior. But he is required to keep his vow, as is said in Psalms (75:12): “Vow ye, and pay [them] to the Lord your God.” Therefore, one seems to be obliged to obey a superior against his own conscience, and, thus, one is more obliged to obey a superior than conscience.
2. A superior must always be obeyed in things which are not against God’s will. But indifferent things are not against God’s will. Therefore, one is obliged to obey a superior in these matters. We conclude as before.
3. The higher power should be more obeyed than the lower power, as the Gloss says. But the soul of a prelate is higher than the soul of a subject. Therefore, the subject is bound more by the command of the superior than by his own conscience.
4. A subject should not pass judgment on the command of a superior, but the superior should judge the acts of the subject. But the subject would judge the command of the superior if he refused the command because of his own conscience. Therefore, no matter what conscience dictates in indifferent matters, the command of the superior should prevail.
To the Contrary
A spiritual bond is stronger than a physical bond, and an intrinsic bond stronger than an extrinsic bond. But conscience is an intrinsic spiritual bond, whereas the office of the superior is physical and extrinsic, as it seems, because all his authority is based on a dispensation which is limited to time. Hence, when we reach eternity, it will cease, as the Gloss indicates. Therefore, it seems that one should obey his conscience rather than a superior.
REPLY
The answer to this question is clear enough from what has been said. For it has been mentioned above that conscience binds only in virtue of a divine command, either in written law or in the law inherent in our nature. Therefore, to compare the bond of conscience with the bond resulting from the command of a superior is nothing else than to compare the bond of a divine command with the bond of a superior’s command. Consequently, since the bond of a divine command binds against a command of a superior, and is more binding than the command of a superior, the bond of conscience is also greater than that of the command of a superior. And conscience will bind even when there exists a command of a superior to the contrary.
Nevertheless, the situation is not the same in the case of a correct conscience and that of a false conscience. For a correct conscience binds absolutely and perfectly against the command of a superior. It binds absolutely, because one cannot be freed from its obligation, for such a conscience cannot be changed without sin. And it binds perfectly, because a correct conscience binds in the sense not only that one who follows it does not commit sin, but also that he is free from sin, no matter what command of a superior there is to the contrary.
But a false conscience binds against the command of a superior even in indifferent matters with some qualification and imperfectly. It binds with some qualification, because it does not bind in every event, but on condition that it endures. For one can and should change such a conscience. It binds imperfectly, because it binds in the sense that the one who follows it does not commit a sin, but not in the sense that one who follows it avoids sin when there is a command of a superior to the contrary, and the command of the superior still binds to that indifferent thing. For in such a case he sins in not acting, because he acts against his conscience, and in acting, because he disobeys the superior. However, he sins more if he does not do what his conscience dictates, as long as that conscience remains, since it binds more than the precept of the superior.
Answers to Difficulties
1. One who vows obedience must obey in those things to which the vow of obedience extends. He is not freed from that obligation by a mistake of conscience, nor, on the other hand, is he freed from the bond of conscience by that obligation. Thus, there remain in him two opposite obligations. One of these, conscience, is greater, because more intense, and less, because more easily removed; the other is just the opposite. For the obligation to obey the superior cannot be removed, whereas a false conscience can be changed.
2. Although of itself the work is indifferent, it loses its indifference because of the dictate of conscience.
3. Although a superior is higher than a subject, God, in virtue of whose command conscience binds, is greater than the superior.
4. The subject does not have to judge about the command of the superior, but only about its fulfillment, which is his concern. For each is bound to examine his actions according to the knowledge he has from God, whether natural, acquired, or infused. For every man should act according to reason.
Here is the link to the site I used:
http://josephkenny.joyeurs.com/CDtexts/QDdeVer17.htm#5
I’m certainly not getting from this, if I understand it correctly, that conscience always binds over that of a superior’s commands. Read what he says about a false, or malformed conscience.
Pat, my 60 years of living experience do not support your statements. Your standard straw man argument that Pro-lifers care only about birth and not about the human being after she is born is unfounded, biased, cruel and FALSE.
I had 16 years of Catholic education, starting in 1958. My oldest sister was a junior professed nun during the second VAtican Council - she left for the New Age movement. My six children spent many years in a pseudo-Catholic parish school. I have faithfully attended Mass my entire life. I teach in a Catholic girls school, where the chapel was protestantized - no pews, no Eucharist for many years.
MY EXPERIENCE: The nuns (multiple orders) have become self-centered, rather than God-centered. The radical feminism has destroyed any knowledge of what true Catholicism is. The students are left with no spiritual tools to face the harsh secular, hedonistic realities of life in our society. They get yoga meditation on “Wellness DAy” rather than true meditation as St. Teresa of Avila teaches. Students leave our Catholic school (my daughters, included) thinking that the Catholic Church is nothing but an organization of power-hungry old white men (their words). The seniors deny ever having heard of Natural Law or the Catechism of the Catholic Church. This is such a false and destructive legacy. These nuns have robbed at least two generations of knowledge of Jesus and the relationship he wants to have with us through his church. The Vatican has been delinquent in waiting so long to address the heresies that have led so many souls astray.
Unfortunately, I see little “Christian” charity in these postings but a lot of snap judgements.
Then it is a good thing we don’t worship Pat.
Nice work on the quotes abimopectore and Joanp62. I’d also like to see the context and translation surrounding the Ratzinger quote as well. Where there is one fishy smell, there is usually another.
Discipline has only been in the wings far too long since VCII.
@Therese - I am sorry that has been your experience. It has not been mine. The many sisters I know have a deep love for Christ and the Church, and they have given their lives to it. They have a prayer life to which they bring a lot of pain that our brothers and sisters are suffering around the world. They have listened to the wounded spirits and attended to their suffering, even if called out in the middle of the night. And they are accutely aware of the causes of much of the suffering and our own complicity to it and are doing their part to make the injustices known. Many do not wear the habit because of the negative impact it has on some people who have suffered at the hands of the Church (members of the Church are human after all and have erred in charity also, despite their formal prayer life. Look at the cases of pedophilia). Clothes do not make the nun! “Catholic” means “universal” or “all-embracing” - there is room for all styles of religious life: habited and unhabited, cloistered and apostolic (Which is what the unhabited sisters are, generally). There are many accepted styles of prayer - the important thing is that it brings the person closer to God. Whether or not it does is NOT for us to judge! We are not God, but please, let us live with the compassion Christ modeled for us. All religious orders have a constitution that was approved by Rome. As far as no Eucharist in your Catholic school - is it because there are no priests willing or able to celebrate? The priests I know are spread thin and cannot attend to every chapel. For example, where I live, there is no priest attending the county jail with over 500 inmates - that is left to volunteer sisters and people of other faiths. On the very rare occasion when there is a Mass every four or five years, the inmates flock to it. They ask for confession, but no priest can come to hear it. Again, in desperation, they “confess” to the sisters who clearly let them know they can’t officially absolve. I do not minimize the work of the habited cloistered or semi-cloistered sisters - their work is extremely important also, but in a different way. God is bigger than the boxes we want to put Him into and the world is a very different place than it was even 20 years ago. As Catholics, we were confirmed - the Spirit is in us! We all have a piece of the truth, but that is known with discernment, which comes about with dialogue (with the Church, with each other). The Church condemned Galileo, then admitted he was right and Joan of Arc was declared a heretic by the Church and then declared a saint (just 2 examples among many!). Women and men were created equal by a loving God.
I wish you peace.
Maybe I misunderstood Andrew’s post (6/4) but the younter nuns have been the ones who have been treated as second-class citizens not by men, but by a liberally-bent hold-over group from the early days immediately after Vatican II swho have a great disdain for those religious who are in fact traditional and uphold the Teaching of the Church through its Magesterium. The basic contention, it seems, is the existence of a parallel magisterium of teaching that they claim is rooted in other areas of the Church, notably the religious and laity. They call it a “prophetic voice” and is as important to discern as that of the bishops and pope who by themselves do not have a monopoly on Truth or teaching of the Faith. This goes counter to Vatican II itself which emphasizes that it is the pope with the bishops who constitute and who has been given the responsibility of discerning the teachings of the Church. What more can be said?
Regarding Andrew’s logic about the “young sisters” eventually becoming “sick and tired” of their treatment-The CMSWR was not initiated by young sisters and many in it are older (thus the average being 35 and not the oldest being 35). In the early 80s I served as a nurses aid in a nursing home for the ssj and spent countless hours with sisters in their 70s and older who were filled with great dismay and sorrow at the direction their order took. They insisted on wearing their veils and habits despite the awkwardness when they were in a wheelchair or bed. They never talked of being “sick and tired” of treatment by priests. Interestingly, in my three years of working their full time, I only remember one young sisters visiting, however I remember countless priests who returned to thank the sisters who had so lovingly taught them as young boys. Yes, they were very lonely and I attribute my conversion to the many rosaries they promised to pray for me.
Posted by Pat on Wednesday, Jun 6, 2012 9:59 AM (EST):Unfortunately, I see little “Christian” charity in these postings but a lot of snap judgements. Jesus stood with those who were pushed to the margins and he struggled with the closed mindset of the Pharisees. Right to Life protests seem to stop after birth despite claims that they support life until natural death. Where are the protests from this group for just wage, good housing, health care for the living, support for the single mom who has been abandoned, the millions of innocent victims of war (which also include babies and children). Once the baby has been born, he or she needs food, a secure home, a healthy environment, respect and good health care. Right to Life also should include RESPECT FOR LIFE - all of it! Maybe there are a few sisters in LCWR who have gone into uncharted territory, but you cannot condemn a group that has faithfully lived their Christian commitment to care for those Jesus would have also attended to.”
********
Dear Pat,
I agree with you that a Christian respect for life should not end at birth, but if birth itself is denied there is no life to follow.Prolifers target the most egregious violations of the sanctity of life, but you are correct that we need care for each other through all stages of life. And that charity should be followed in comments,especially on a Catholic site.
Just curious, what “uncharted territory” have the sisters you mention gone into?
As Blessed John Paul II noted in 1996, the Church expects its publicly consecrated religious to be distinctive in their “allegiance of mind and heart to the magisterium of the bishops …which must be lived honestly and clearly testified to before the people of God by all consecrated persons” (Vita Consecrata, 46).
Having been in formation in one of these LCWR Orders during the years of Vatican II and having been schooled by them in high school, I think the statement above shows that this particular Order of Sisters over the last at least 30-40 years has not lived out in community life what was expected of them. This particular order was a fantastic teaching order in the USA and had formed schools clear across the midwest and west, southwest forming young women in strength and dignity. They clearly “took the ball and ran” as their major superior at the time was quoted as saying and left teaching. Many of my friends who were once in the Order have told horror stories of how community life was destroyed and thrown out the window. This same order has embraced a known lesbian Sister silenced several times by the Vatican and welcomed into its order countless protestant members who surely cannot say that they are in union with the Holy Father or in union with the apostolic college of bishops much less the Magisterium of the Church. This particular Order is a classic example of what Mrs. Bethell is commenting on in this particular article. There are countless men and women who could have benefited from the Catholic teaching of this Order but instead it was wasted while they demonstrated outside of military installations and had at least one member chain herself to the door of a university while another threw blood on files in the pentagon along with others in protest of the Vietnam war. Instead of noticing the results of what has happened because of their total neglect of teaching countless children in the United States, they continue along with their other LCWR Sisters to thumb their nose at the Vatican.
This reminds me of the rebellion of the sons of Korah Numbers chapter 16, in which they rebelled against the Magisterium which God had set up at that time and God punished them. Are not these nuns and their leaders as in the recent case of Margaret Farley and her supporters, even in her order and even in the Catholic Theological Society of America
http://www.catholicleague.org/embracing-moral-depravity/
acting as if they can establish a separate moral authority opposed to that given by the Pope and those speaking with him? And I Pray that God will separate the sheep from the goats. It is a matter of truth and obedience, for God speaks His truth through obedience and in this way He can protect us from the wolves in sheeps clothing and the “Useful idiots of Satan”.
I was a novice of a community of sisters that became very liberal in the 1980s. It began with an Ignatian retreat and I remember the teaching about the rules for discernment left out the part about thinking with the church. The Enneagram and other psychological techniques were viewed as semi-infallible. If you questioned the changes or enneagram, you were ‘preVatican 2’ and needed psychological help. Vatican 2 was stated to be the most important church council since Acts! The pope was regarded as hopelessly behind the times. Prolife people only cared about life before birth, so it was best to avoid such heretics.
....l left religious life, married, had children, and still wonder how so many religious sisters so quickly left the orthodox faith of the Catholic church in the decades of the 60s and after. I think it is because the theology before Vatican 2 emphasized the following the law ...instead following the person of Jesus, with faith and reason as the two wings of truth, and the pope as the vicar of Christ. So when these nuns heard that the laws were changing in the 1960s…they lacked the intellectual and spiritual foundation and threw out the baby with the bath water.
Regarding the Margaret Farley incident this article from the Cardinal Newman Society
http://blog.cardinalnewmansociety.org/2012/06/04/rome-mercy-sisters-book-contains-erroneous-propositions/
shows that she was a signer of the 1985 document which stated belief that a “pro choicer” could be a good Catholic and she later supposedly retracted her statement but later denied her retraction. Also she, was mentioned in the same article as being on the team of LCSW in 1986 when several good bishops refused to speak at their gathering as she was a speaker. And we have only the most recent errors in her book and those who support her have proposed to agree with.
As I referred to the “Useful idiots of Satan” yesterday as those who are either stupidly or willfully ignorant who Satan can use I cite here a paraphrased homily that Paul 6 gave in June 1972
http://the-american-catholic.com/2011/12/04/pope-paul-vi-and-the-smoke-of-satan/
in which he referred to the “Smoke of Satan” entering the church and the red highlighted part gives us an idea of how some can so easily run after errors and confusion. He also gives the solution to remaining strong in our faith as
“Precisely for this reason, we should wish to be able, in this moment more than ever, to exercise the function God assigned to Peter, to strengthen the Faith of the brothers. We should wish to communicate to you this charism of certitude that the Lord gives to him who represents him though unworthily on this earth.” Faith gives us certitude, security, when it is based upon the Word of God accepted and consented to with our very own reason and with our very own human spirit. Whoever believes with simplicity, with humility, sense that he is on the good road, that he has an interior testimony that strengthens him in the difficult conquest of the truth.” Paul 6, June 29,1972 quoted from article.
So will we follow the Truth or will we follow errors?
@Therese, your June 06 comment—thank you so much for that. I have copied-and-pasted that to one of the blogs on CathNewsUSA—the blog titled “Vatican Reprimand Sends American Nun’s Book Up Bestseller Lists.” Your observations validate my own. Again, thank you, and let us keep praying. I believe our world is in very dangerous waters.
The LCWR have gone the way of all the LEFT religious orders. So whats new ? Whats so damaging, is that they have been allowed for so many years to spew their secular beliefs onto so many students that they have taught thru the years.It has taken a left wing President to finally expose them {they back his health care program }, so that Rome finally has said enough is enough .Why does it take so long for them to act ? Like always, great damage has been done ! The end times are about us now .Just look around ! “there will be but a Remnant left “.
Austinne’s comment on overfocus on the law aspect is good. I too lost my way after a good Catholic grade school upbringing. As St Paul teaches, especially in Romans, but in most of his letters, without grace and a living relationship with Christ, most of us will fail in trying to live like Christians anyway. Especially poor sinners like me are especially in need of God’s grace and help.
I will keep everyone in this group called the LCWR to see the truth in the fact that Satan has entered their group and enticed them to accept a belief that women should be priests or whatever. They feel slilghted, but they have forgotten that the Lord is whom they serve and it is the Church whom they have offered their lives to serve and be obedient to. Everyone has to be obedient to the Church as it is the Church founded by Jesus Christ and is guided by the Holy Spirit. When we truly believed that the Church has the authority to make decisions on certain matters such as there should be no women priests and we should accept that as authority coming from the Holy Spirit. Who are we to say I think otherwise???? WE are not the Holy Spirit and we are not the Pope or the Magisterium. WE can’t follow our own thinking against the Church, because the Church and Jesus are One and to teach something different from the Authority would be a big mistake on our part. That is exactly how Judas got into trouble - he thought he could make his own decisions other than Jesus. Women should be whom they are and nuns should be whom they are and priests should be the priests that they were called to be - which is chosen by God. We all have important rolls to follow, and that will be what will make us a saint. Remember we don’t have more authority than the Holy Spirit. Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit and He said that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church. Let us not act lilke the gates of hell in this matter.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.