Communique of the CDF concerning meeting with LCWR

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rocky24
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Offdoodykcrn said:
I don’t think LCWR is related to New Ways Ministry…

I don’t know if the LCWR is a feminist front - but there are some very hard working nuns there.
Click to expand...
LCWR is a blanket organization. Some of its member groups HAVE been associated with NWM.

Of course we should celebrate and support all the good work the sisters have done and continue to do. The concerns of the Church focused on the areas where the LCWR has strayed from the Church. There were specific concerns raised about their conventions where speakers have been promoting contraception, women’s ordination, “rights” to abortion, accepting same-sex unions, etc. Those we must never support or “celebrate”.

The Vatican document called for a re-writing of the LCWR’s constitution to make sure that these appearances, which only serve to confuse the faithful and drag them further from the truth, do not continue to occur.
 
Carolus_Martell said:
I’ve been told the LCWR are feminists movement under cover of a religious order.
Click to expand...
The LCWR is not a religious order. The LCWR’s membership doesn’t contain most religious sisters and none of the nuns. It is a group that consists of the leaders (one or two sisters) of each of a group of religious sisters. In many, if not most, cases, the orders themselves have not been a problem.
 
There is another fully recognized group for leaders of American convents, the Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious. They work fully in cooperation with the Pope, the bishops, pastors, and the laity. They focus on direct service to children, the poor, and other ministries, all in the context of evangelism in unity with the magisterium. They don’t get millions of dollars worth of free publicity from the media, or support from secular politicians, like certain other religious groups. They support Catholic Social Teaching, rather than the Peace and Justice Movement. They have dozens of religious congregations affiliated, who either broke off from the LCWR or are new. Their congregations, including Mother Theresa’s sisters, the Sisters of Life, and many others, are attracting almost all the new vocations to the convent in the USA.
 
This:
Theophorus said:
I always knew the mainstream media would eventually realise that this Pope is as Catholic as the last one was. I wonder if this marks the begining of the end of the media honeymoon period where Pope Francis=good, Pope Benedict=bad?
Click to expand...
 
Offdoodykcrn said:
I watched the 60 Minutes episode featuring the LCWR. It is my understanding that Church leaders are unhappy with the LCWR because they voice support for health care, which covers birth control - although this is not why the LCWR is in favor of it.

The women represented by the LCWR work closely with the disenfranchised - people, who for whatever reason, are in desperate need of health care and support. These women do that selflessly, and in accordance with their vows to Christ. They see the health care mandate as a way to fill a need that right now, is not being met. People who struggle with homelessness, poverty, mental illness - can not hope to improve their quality of life until these needs are met. It is a vicious circle, and it’s been going on for a long time. We know if you take someone who is struggling at the bottom of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and help them, their outlook on life and potential for success improves dramatically.

Shouldn’t we celebrate their work? Don’t they deserve our support? It’s like picketing a soup kitchen because at the end of the line there is a basket of free condoms. People don’t have to take them, but they are there for those that want them. Those providing the soup want the basket there because they believe it can help reduce disease. Are you really going to tell people who volunteer to work (LCWR) in the soup kitchen that they are bad because of the basket? They just want to help feed hungry people.
Click to expand...
Rule 1) Never believe everything you hear from a secular source about the Catholic Church.

This is because secular sources often can’t seem to grasp the difference between doctrine and policy, and don’t understand that it’s entirely possible to lament one aspect of a thing without saying everything about it is terrible.

For instance, every official report you will read about the problems with the LCWR praises their actions in support of the poor and disenfranchised. They are good at that, and their work with schools and hospitals and all kinds of charity is lauded.

But they have some doctrinal errors. They tend to be bad with sexuality, issues like the male priesthood, contraception and the like. These things must be fixed.

The fact that there are doctrinal problems does not imply that their charitable work is bad, or that they don’t do lots of good for the poor, or that they’re terrible people who we don’t appreciate. It does imply that the LCWR is not so good on doctrine and that, as a Catholic group, that needs to be fixed.

Also, your understanding of the healthcare issue is not quiet correct. The first issue is that the LCWR supported it despite it’s issues surrounding abortion, which is murder. Supporting murder is bad. The second issue is that some sisters (not sure about the LCWR as a group) supported a rewording of the contraception mandate despite the fact that it didn’t change anything. The two issues are being mixed together here. Now, if the LCWR supported universal healthcare so long as it didn’t support abortion and didn’t try to force employers to violate their religious beliefs, then… they’d have more or less the same position as the USCCB, and definitely a position that was doctrinally acceptable (even if some would still disagree with it).

The problem with the LCWR is purely and simply that they are messed up on doctrine some. There is no implication that they didn’t help the poor or that their contributions have not been important and very good in that area.
 
I just want to point out that the LCWR’s support for the ObamaCare mandates and their “Nuns on the Bus” trips is not really relevent. The visitations that led to the CDR report occurred **before **the LCWR got involved with the mandate dust-up.
 
Offdoodykcrn said:
It is my understanding that Church leaders are unhappy with the LCWR because they voice support for health care, which covers birth control - although this is not why the LCWR is in favor of it.
Click to expand...
No, it’s far beyond that. Some have questionable rhetoric in their printed materials and on theri websites, which is not in keeping with either their founders’ missions or with Catholic Chuch teachings. I think that’s what the issue is.

Now I’ll give you an opposite example, perhaps what you had in mind: the saintly, and I do mean saintly in the full sense of that word, work of an educationally oriented Order (again, since their founding), who continue to educate, but who have directed that to a Third World missionary context. While personally it still disappoints that there are not enough of them also to educate and evangelize domestically, they cannot vaguely be faulted for living the Gospel. (Indeed !) Their daily heroism is something that inspires only speechlessness and awe of them and of the work of God in them. However, it is doubtful that one will find anything on their website which contradicts Church teaching. And you will not find a single cleric in the Church interested in doing anything but supporting such fine examples of living sainthood. I’m sure they could stand up to any transparency required by the Holy See.
 
MODERATOR REMINDER

Negative and rude comments toward CAF members, clergy (deacons, priests and bishops) or toward religious and religious orders are banned.

Everyone, online and offline, deserves to be spoken to and about respectfully. However, some posters seem to feel that clergy and religious are fair game.

If you have an issue with them, take it up in private, not on this forum or any of our forums.

You may cite something from another source, if you are not using it to further an agenda. Agenda posting is not allowed.

If we deem that you are disrespectful to our clergy and religious, you will receive an infraction or even a ban.

Proof what you write before you post.

You may not make disparaging remarks about:
  • Vatican II
  • Clergy (deacons, priests and bishops) of any group
  • Religious (brothers, sisters, and nuns) of any order or congregation
  • Lawful actions and disciiplines by the Church including the historical excommunication of the SSPX. It happened. Rome explained why it happened. End of story. Rome did not put it out there for debate by the faithful.
  • Another poster or his/her ideas. You can disagree. You cannot attack,insult, ridicule or dismiss as unimportant. His opinion is as important to him as your opinion is to you.
  • Parishes, pastors, civil leaders.
  • Other religions – if you’re unsure how to speak in public about other faiths, look at the Pope Benedict XVI. He is fraternal, polite, and intellectual in discussing religious differences.
Avoid arguments that will lead to violations of charity. You don’t have to like what you read and others do not have to like what you post. But you must be civil toward each other and those who are not on the forum.
 
I do think this is the moment when the media will begin it’s turn on Francis. They have been ignoring what he has said and his homilies so far.

The Yahoo news article on this that I saw had the predictable negative slant, the first I have seen so far against Francis. I found it interesting that it said something to the effect that Pope Francis who had “so far” been espousing a program of social justice etc had darkened the possibility of a more collegial resolution. It’s interesting becasue I think it points to the way they will spin these kinds of things in the future, by claiming that Francis’ talk of social justice is a false front, becasue they can’t bear the idea that someone who is passionate about social justice could possibly be for Church teaching.
 
For anyone who is interested, here is the original mega thread on this topic when the first report was released last April. There is an absolute ton of great information on what led to this, what it means, why things went off the deep end to begin with, etc. Information on formation, psychological training, etc. is presented in great detail.

Anyone who is curious about this situation would do well to read this thread.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=666901&highlight=LCWR

+Pax
 
McCall1981 said:
I do think this is the moment when the media will begin it’s turn on Francis. They have been ignoring what he has said and his homilies so far.

they will spin these kinds of things in the future, by claiming that Francis’ talk of social justice is a false front, becasue they can’t bear the idea that someone who is passionate about social justice could possibly be for Church teaching.
Click to expand...
Yes. The litmus test, for the leftist secular media, for whether or not members of clergy and religious support social justice, is the simultaneous confirmation that they oppose moral doctrine. Not a dichotomy? Then they’re fair game for verbal destruction.
 
jwinch2 said:
For anyone who is interested, here is the original mega thread on this topic when the first report was released last April. There is an absolute ton of great information on what led to this, what it means, why things went off the deep end to begin with, etc. Information on formation, psychological training, etc. is presented in great detail.

Anyone who is curious about this situation would do well to read this thread.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=666901&highlight=LCWR

+Pax
Click to expand...
Thanks for saving us from having to re-type everything. 🙂
 
Right on, Pope Francis.

Here’s hoping he’s got some more crackdowns up his sleeve.
 
Lucky7 said:
Right on, Pope Francis.
Click to expand...
👍

The LCWR up to this point has loved Francis becasue of his “social justice”, now they must be upset at his defense of Church teaching. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if they took his decision to heart, and started to think that maybe this Pope, who is obviously full of love for the poor, has a point about doctrine too?

I mean, if some of them have already decided they love Francis maybe he can be the one to lead some of them back to the Church. This is probably wishful thinking, but who knows? Even if only a few of them respond positively to this wake up call, thats better than nothing.
 
Joe_5859 said:
Thanks for saving us from having to re-type everything. 🙂
Click to expand...
No problem. I was looking back through the thread recently, and there really is a ton of great info. I had forgotten much which was shared there on things like the formation programs used, etc. which contributed to the issues which have been seen.
 
Offdoodykcrn said:
I watched the 60 Minutes episode featuring the LCWR. It is my understanding that Church leaders are unhappy with the LCWR because they voice support for health care, which covers birth control - although this is not why the LCWR is in favor of it.

The women represented by the LCWR work closely with the disenfranchised - people, who for whatever reason, are in desperate need of health care and support. These women do that selflessly, and in accordance with their vows to Christ. They see the health care mandate as a way to fill a need that right now, is not being met. People who struggle with homelessness, poverty, mental illness - can not hope to improve their quality of life until these needs are met. It is a vicious circle, and it’s been going on for a long time. We know if you take someone who is struggling at the bottom of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and help them, their outlook on life and potential for success improves dramatically.

Shouldn’t we celebrate their work? Don’t they deserve our support? It’s like picketing a soup kitchen because at the end of the line there is a basket of free condoms. People don’t have to take them, but they are there for those that want them. Those providing the soup want the basket there because they believe it can help reduce disease. Are you really going to tell people who volunteer to work (LCWR) in the soup kitchen that they are bad because of the basket? They just want to help feed hungry people.
Click to expand...
[bibledrb]John 12:3-5[/bibledrb]

Judas Iscariot expressed an attitude of concern toward the poor at the expense of giving due honor to the Lord, as well.

You see where it got him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top