LCWR leaders announce 'honest sharing of views' with Vatican delegate, but no plans for reform

[JReducation]

I dont think its cruel or underhanded at all. Its just acknowledging that:

A) The individuals in leadership positions in the LCWR are not going to be converted by the CDF back to orthodoxy, they are set in their ways.

B) The LCWR groups are rapidly declining due to age, so this problem will have taken care of itself in a decade.

The only choice the CDF really has is to wait out the bad apples, nothing cruel or wrong with that, in fact its exceedingly patient and forgiving.

The Catholic Church is committed to respect. Consecrated women have a right to respect. They have earned it. Despite the flaws in the organization, which are many, the sisters that it represents have made significant contributions to the life of the Church in the USA.

In addition, their vows give them certain rights and one of those rights is the right of recognition by the Holy See and every Catholic. To simply ignore them and wait for them to die out is to engage in what Pope Francis refers to as the culture of indifference. Indifference is the easy way out.

Another problem here is the fact that we’re not dealing with strangers. We’re dealing with women who are an essential part to the life of the Church as clearly stated in Vita Consecrata. As Catholics, we must be consistent with what we profess.

If we tell the world that the consecrated life is essential to the life of the Church and that without the consecrated life the Church loses her Catholic identity, then we cannot simply sit and wait for a significant number of religious to die, because they are human and sinful like the rest of us. We must treat them as an essential part of the Body and deal with them. If the heart is damaged, we don’t wait for it to stop beating. We treat it and we fight to save it until God makes the final call, not man. If we can do this for an organ that is simply a collection of cells, how much more so should we fight for the life and health of women whom Christ loves in a way specially reserved for a select few?

The one thing that we must never do is adopt a mentality that the glass is half-empty. As long as there is life, be it in a religious order or a collective, as is the case with the LCWR, then the glass is half-full. We have a moral duty to try to fill it to the brim. The Church does not endorse euthanasia, either bodily or spiritual. Evangelium Vitae reminds us that we have a moral obligation to fight for life in all its forms, not only biological. It would be inconsistent to say this to the world and allow such an important segment of the Church to die a “merciful” death.

Many of these religious institutes can still be saved and are worth saving. Their founders left a legacy that we, the Church, still need. But we cannot leave it all to the Holy Spirit to do the heavy lifitng. We must use the resources that he gives us to breathe more life into these institutes. Otherwise, everything that we profess to believe about life, human dignity, consecrated life and the identity of the Church is pure rhetoric.

Maybe people on this thread have already made up their minds about these women and so be it. I am not about to engage in a debate with those who have made up their mind as to how the Church should operate and what the Church should value. I can speak so that others who are lurking in the shadows will know that the Church truly values these women, respects and honors their consecration to religious life and wants to accomplish good in this situation.

Those of you who have made up your minds to let them die can go to mass and communion tomorrow as usual. Deal with your conscience and God when your time comes. As a Franciscan I cannot embrace that brand of Catholicism nor stand quietly by while others endorse it.

 

[MarcoPolo]

The issues are doctrinal but what the CDF asked the LCWR (alphabet soup) asked them to do was to “reinvent” their organization. This is not a doctrinal command. The command was given because of doctrinal discrepancies.

However, there is a problem here that the CDF has been made aware of by the Franciscan Major Superiors. There is a law that requires a council made up of bishops and religious with one religious more than bishops. Before the CDF issues any mandate to religious, it must convene such a council. And only when the council cannot resolve the problem, can the CDF take the step that it took. The CDF skipped the council.

I don’t believe that it was done maliciously at all. The people in the CDF are not that kind of people. They are good honest men. It was truly an oversight. Once the mandate was given, it was too late to go back and say, “Let’s hold a council to determine if the LCWR’s leadership needs to reinvent itself or if it can fix its problems without going that far.”

By that point, the best thing to do was for the CDF to accept the scolding that it had to take from the Franciscan Council of Major Superiors of Men.

Is this press release from the Leadership of Franciscan (O.F.M.) Provinces of the United States supporting LCWR against the CDF to what you refer? I’m hoping for source material, documents, first hand statements regarding the procedural violation you mention and the CDF’s response.

 

[McCall1981]

The Catholic Church is committed to respect. Consecrated women have a right to respect. They have earned it. Despite the flaws in the organization, which are many, the sisters that it represents have made significant contributions to the life of the Church in the USA.

In addition, their vows give them certain rights and one of those rights is the right of recognition by the Holy See and every Catholic. To simply ignore them and wait for them to die out is to engage in what Pope Francis refers to as the culture of indifference. Indifference is the easy way out.

Another problem here is the fact that we’re not dealing with strangers. We’re dealing with women who are an essential part to the life of the Church as clearly stated in Vita Consecrata. As Catholics, we must be consistent with what we profess.

If we tell the world that the consecrated life is essential to the life of the Church and that without the consecrated life the Church loses her Catholic identity, then we cannot simply sit and wait for a significant number of religious to die, because they are human and sinful like the rest of us. We must treat them as an essential part of the Body and deal with them. If the heart is damaged, we don’t wait for it to stop beating. We treat it and we fight to save it until God makes the final call, not man. If we can do this for an organ that is simply a collection of cells, how much more so should we fight for the life and health of women whom Christ loves in a way specially reserved for a select few?

The one thing that we must never do is adopt a mentality that the glass is half-empty. As long as there is life, be it in a religious order or a collective, as is the case with the LCWR, then the glass is half-full. We have a moral duty to try to fill it to the brim. The Church does not endorse euthanasia, either bodily or spiritual. Evangelium Vitae reminds us that we have a moral obligation to fight for life in all its forms, not only biological. It would be inconsistent to say this to the world and allow such an important segment of the Church to die a “merciful” death.

Many of these religious institutes can still be saved and are worth saving. Their founders left a legacy that we, the Church, still need. But we cannot leave it all to the Holy Spirit to do the heavy lifitng. We must use the resources that he gives us to breathe more life into these institutes. Otherwise, everything that we profess to believe about life, human dignity, consecrated life and the identity of the Church is pure rhetoric.

Maybe people on this thread have already made up their minds about these women and so be it. I am not about to engage in a debate with those who have made up their mind as to how the Church should operate and what the Church should value. I can speak so that others who are lurking in the shadows will know that the Church truly values these women, respects and honors their consecration to religious life and wants to accomplish good in this situation.

Those of you who have made up your minds to let them die can go to mass and communion tomorrow as usual. Deal with your conscience and God when your time comes. As a Franciscan I cannot embrace that brand of Catholicism nor stand quietly by while others endorse it.

There is no disrespect involved. The CDF should do everything it possibly can to reach out to these women and bring them back to orthodoxy, and should never give up on them. It has been doing everything it can for decades and still is; and thats exactly what it should be doing. No one is saying to give up and stop trying to convert them. I would be ecstatic if the leaders of the LCWR were personally converted and changed their ways.

Im just acknowledging that this personal change of heart is exceedingly unlikely to happen. The CDF will do the best it can to hèlp, but probably wont be able to make any real progress until the current aging LCWR leadership is gone. This is happeniñg quickly.

We’re not saying “let them die”, and I dont appreciate that implication. we’re noting that they are aging out of existence, and thats simply a fact. Since they in all likelihood wont be converted, the way the problem will be solved is through time.

 

[JReducation]

JReducation;11127129:

The issues are doctrinal but what the CDF asked the LCWR (alphabet soup) asked them to do was to “reinvent” their organization. This is not a doctrinal command. The command was given because of doctrinal discrepancies.

However, there is a problem here that the CDF has been made aware of by the Franciscan Major Superiors. There is a law that requires a council made up of bishops and religious with one religious more than bishops. Before the CDF issues any mandate to religious, it must convene such a council. And only when the council cannot resolve the problem, can the CDF take the step that it took. The CDF skipped the council.

I don’t believe that it was done maliciously at all. The people in the CDF are not that kind of people. They are good honest men. It was truly an oversight. Once the mandate was given, it was too late to go back and say, “Let’s hold a council to determine if the LCWR’s leadership needs to reinvent itself or if it can fix its problems without going that far.”

By that point, the best thing to do was for the CDF to accept the scolding that it had to take from the Franciscan Council of Major Superiors of Men.
Is this press release

from the Leadership of Franciscan (O.F.M.) Provinces of the United States supporting LCWR against the CDF to what you refer? I’m hoping for source material, documents, first hand statements regarding the procedural violation you mention and the CDF’s response.

That letter that is in the NCR went out with another letter that was in the press. The second letter was to the International Council of Major Superiors asking why Mutuae Relationes had not been followed. That’s how it came to the attention of the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life that the CDF has issued a mandate without its permission.

This was an oversight, as I said. I truly believe that it was not on purpose. Mutua Relationes was drawn up under Pope John Paul. I don’t believe it has ever been used. But it was the CDF’s idea to create it so that issues like this would be resolved at the local level between the religious superiors and the conferences of bishops without having to involve the Vatican.

The Council of Franciscan Superiors tried to encourage the sisters and the CDF to approach this with the greatest tact, because it realized that there had been an “oops” on the part of Rome. MY GUESS is that the superiors knew that among the sisters there would be someone who would catch that “oops”. If said person wanted to make a big stink about it, this would really get worse before it got better.

On another related topic, people here are saying why don’t they just obey. As I said above, I’m not going to try to convince those who have made up their minds. For those who know nothing about religious life, obedience does not work like this.

Each institute has its rules concerning obedience. Those rules are always approved by the pope at the time they are written.

There are different vows of obedience. They’re not the same. So we can’t simply say to religious that they should all obey. The Council of Trent was very clear in defining the differences in the vows of obedience. There are MAJOR theological differences between the vows of obedience for sisters and clerks regular in one group, nuns, friars and monks in another group, and the laity. The group that is bound the most is actually the laity. The layman is part of a diocese. The religious is not part of a diocese. He or she lives in within the territory of a diocese, but is not part of it.

The only person who can command a religious is the superior, the founder, the community and the pope. The CDF cannot command obedience.

So for those who want to know why the sisters don’t just do what the CDF asks, the answer is easy. Theologically and morally, they have no obligation to obey the CDF. The CDF only governs laymen and secular priests. All matters pertaining to religious must go through other channels. The CDF has the duty to protect the faith. If a religious or a group of religious are doing damage to the faith, the CDF has the moral duty to sound the alarm. It is up to the pope or his delegate, which is always the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life to issue orders.

You’re not being disobedient, if the person speaking has no authority to command obedience.

This is one of those cases where the CDF has very good reasons to be alarmed. There are serious problems in the LCWR. But as far as demanding obedience, no one has demanded obedience. What has been asked is cooperation in reconstructing the LCWR.

That’s what the letters cited in that link were trying to achieve, cooperation rather than conflict. But some people on this thread are bent on conflict over cooperation.

By the way, for the person who said that there are sisters who do not deserve the same respect as Mother Teresa of Mother Angelica, both of those women would strongly disagree with you. Jesus had the same respect for the woman caught in adultery and the prostitute that he has for you. Does that cheapen you?

 

[JReducation]

Marco –

That letter that is in the NCR went out with another letter that was in the press. The second letter was to the International Council of Major Superiors asking why Mutuae Relationes had not been followed. That’s how it came to the attention of the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life that the CDF has issued a mandate without its permission.

This was an oversight, as I said. I truly believe that it was not on purpose. Mutua Relationes was drawn up under Pope John Paul. I don’t believe it has ever been used. But it was the CDF’s idea to create it so that issues like this would be resolved at the local level between the religious superiors and the conferences of bishops without having to involve the Vatican.

The Council of Franciscan Superiors tried to encourage the sisters and the CDF to approach this with the greatest tact, because it realized that there had been an “oops” on the part of Rome. MY GUESS is that the superiors knew that among the sisters there would be someone who would catch that “oops”. If said person wanted to make a big stink about it, this would really get worse before it got better.

On another related topic, people here are saying why don’t they just obey. As I said above, I’m not going to try to convince those who have made up their minds. For those who know nothing about religious life, obedience does not work like this.

Each institute has its rules concerning obedience. Those rules are always approved by the pope at the time they are written.

There are different vows of obedience. They’re not the same. So we can’t simply say to religious that they should all obey. The Council of Trent was very clear in defining the differences in the vows of obedience. There are MAJOR theological differences between the vows of obedience for sisters and clerks regular in one group, nuns, friars and monks in another group, and the laity. The group that is bound the most is actually the laity. The layman is part of a diocese. The religious is not part of a diocese. He or she lives in within the territory of a diocese, but is not part of it.

The only person who can command a religious is the superior, the founder, the community and the pope. The CDF cannot command obedience.

So for those who want to know why the sisters don’t just do what the CDF asks, the answer is easy. Theologically and morally, they have no obligation to obey the CDF. The CDF only governs laymen and secular priests. All matters pertaining to religious must go through other channels. The CDF has the duty to protect the faith. If a religious or a group of religious are doing damage to the faith, the CDF has the moral duty to sound the alarm. It is up to the pope or his delegate, which is always the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life to issue orders.

You’re not being disobedient, if the person speaking has no authority to command obedience.

This is one of those cases where the CDF has very good reasons to be alarmed. There are serious problems in the LCWR. But as far as demanding obedience, no one has demanded obedience. What has been asked is cooperation in reconstructing the LCWR.

That’s what the letters cited in that link were trying to achieve, cooperation rather than conflict. But some people on this thread are bent on conflict over cooperation.

By the way, for the person who said that there are sisters who do not deserve the same respect as Mother Teresa of Mother Angelica, both of those women would strongly disagree with you. Jesus had the same respect for the woman caught in adultery and the prostitute that he has for you. Does that cheapen you? The Church does not believe that’s the case at all. Therefore, we who are Catholic, must think with the Church, not on our own. When we start creating our own rules about who we respect, we run the risk of creating some kind of score card that determines the degree of respect that another person should get. That’s a dangerous thing to do. God does not keep scores. Neither should we. When God forgives he forgets. What gives us the right to do differently?

 

[JReducation]

There is no disrespect involved. The CDF should do everything it possibly can to reach out to these women and bring them back to orthodoxy, and should never give up on them. It has been doing everything it can for decades and still is; and thats exactly what it should be doing. No one is saying to give up and stop trying to convert them. I would be ecstatic if the leaders of the LCWR were personally converted and changed their ways.

Im just acknowledging that this personal change of heart is exceedingly unlikely to happen. The CDF will do the best it can to hèlp, but probably wont be able to make any real progress until the current aging LCWR leadership is gone. This is happeniñg quickly.

We’re not saying “let them die”, and I dont appreciate that implication. we’re noting that they are aging out of existence, and thats simply a fact. Since they in all likelihood wont be converted, the way the problem will be solved is through time.

No one thought that Paul or Augustine would ever be converted.

 

[JReducation]

I realize that I’m being very hard nosed about this and I beg forgiveness of anyone whom I may have inadvertently offended.

I too have a moral obligation to be faithful. The Rule of St. Francis is very clear. We are to think with the Church and we are speak with the Church. We are never to have any opinion of our own unless we are ordered to sin. Outside of that situation, our opinions must always be those of Francis and the Church. He commanded that even after his death, he was to be obeyed. The pope and the local bishops, regardless of whatever they asked, unless they asked us to explicitly violate the Commandments.

Well, in the Constitutions of the Franciscans of Life (for the religious and the secular brothers) it says that in obedience to our Holy Father Francis, the brothers shall always use only the language that the Church uses and no other. The brothers shall actively seek to ensure that the lay faithful think and speak with and like the Church.

In this case, the Holy Father has not spoken or commanded. Therefore, it is not thinking with the Church to say that the sisters must obey an order that has not been given or an authority that has no authority over them. The Church has not called for their conversion either, nor has the Church implied that she beliefs that such a conversion is needed at this time.

She has called for a restructuring of the LCWR. We are not privy to what is happening behind closed doors. All we know is what someone wrote in an article based on what that person saw and heard. What about that which the author did not see or hear?

We cannot make assumptions that there is nothing happening. We simply do not know, because the people who know are not saying.

Nor can we say things about the sisters that the Church has not said or use language that the Church has not used. St. Francis was very prudent in this regard. He knew that the minute that we give ourselves permission to put words into the mouth of the Church or permission to speak as if we were the Church, there would be confusion and problems. He banned such a way of doing things and mandated that we not engage in it and that we make sure that others always knew what the Church really says or does not say.

If we want religious to be faithful, then I claim my right to be faithful and to present here that much of what is being said here has not been said by the Church.

There Church has said that there are problem in the LCWR. She has spelled out those problems in a document. She has proposed a solution, albeit illegally, but that was an honest accident. We have to learn accept that. Everyone is using the language of diplomacy in public. We have to accept that too.

Let us not do to the LCWR what the Radical Traditionalists tried to do to the FI. That was horrible. Let us say only what the Church says and wait to see what happens. God has not finished creating the world.

 

[McCall1981]

No one thought that Paul or Augustine would ever be converted.

Hey, if they are converted I’ll be the first to say I was wrong, and I’d thank God with all my heart, that would be wonderful. But judging by the past few DECADES in general, the past five years of investigation, and the past one year of “reform”, it aint happening.

You mentioned those of us who have “made up their minds” about the LCWR, and yes, I have. The past three decades made up my mind. Could God work a miracle and convert them? Yes. Do I think its going to happen? No.

As to what the other person said about respecting them, we can respect them as human beings without respecting what they do. I respect them as human beings, the same as I would respect any and all people, but I have no respect for how theyve abused their vocations and the Church.

 

[JReducation]

Hey, if they are converted I’ll be the first to say I was wrong, and I’d thank God with all my heart, that would be wonderful. But judging by the past few DECADES in general, the past five years of investigation, and the past one year of “reform”, it aint happening.

You mentioned those of us who have “made up their minds” about the LCWR, and yes, I have. The past three decades made up my mind. Could God work a miracle and convert them? Yes. Do I think its going to happen? No.

That’s unfortunate, because the Church never gives up on anyone. It’s also unfortunate that you have such a difficult time thinking and speaking with the mind of the Church.

but I have no respect for how theyve abused their vocations and the Church.

This is an important point that everyone reading this should consider, because this is impossible. It does not fit with the biblical and theological definitions of vocation or Church.

One cannot abuse a vocation. It is metaphysically impossible.

One cannot abuse the Church. That too is metaphysically impossible.

Where does that leave us?

It leaves us with disappointement that is created more out of a misunderstanding of the biblical and theological definitions than of the reality.

Let’s look at Israel for a moment. Did Israel have a vocation?

It certainly did. It was called into existence by God for a purpose.

Was Israel always faithful to God as God was to Israel?

Absolutely not.

Did Israel abuse God’s call?

Absolutely not. It is impossible, because a vocation is just that a call. One cannot abuse a call. One responds to a call. One tries as well as one can to remain faithful to the caller. One falls and fails. The caller continues to love and the call remains in place. God never retracts his call. Therefore, the call is no affected by our human condition. There is no such thing as an abuse of a call. There are human weaknesses. But God planned fro this contingency. The entire plan is revealed to us in the OT. To understand the religious vocation, one should understand the call of Israel and the dynamic between Israel and God. And the end, Israel’s weaknesses and at times its infidelities play right into God’s plan. Had it been different, there would have been no need for a vocation.

Can one abuse the Church?

Absolutely not.

One can persecute the Church. We have seen this over and over again.

To abuse the Church implies that one would fail to use the Church or would somehow be able to do something to lessen what the Church is. This is impossible. No human being, no matter how sinful can take anything from the majesty of the bride of Christ. The Church is not a widow. She has a spouse who protects her from abuse.

In addition, those whom we accuse of abusing the Church are no more and no less guilty of sin than we are. They are guilty of different kinds of sin, but not more than we are. We must never forget this.

We are all part of the Bride of Christ. Yet, despite our human condition, the Bride remains a spotless virgin. The term abuse does not apply. To abuse would mean that something is taken away from her purity, from her identity, from her intimacy with her spouse and from her mission. That is not possible. There is no human being and no sin so great and so powerful to have that kind of devastating effect on the Church that can trump the Bridegroom’s love and protection of the Church.

Finally, one must not lose sight of the religious consecration itself. The consecration of a religious, even if it’s one made by simple vows as is the case of sisters, remains a covenant between God and the sister. The covenant remain in effect no matter what the sister may do or fail to do. The covenant of religious profession is an extension of the covenant of Israel, the covenant of the Church, and our individual covenant at Baptism. The Church teaches us that all of these covenants remain in place, regardless of what people do or fail to do. God’s power will not be outdone by man’s weaknesses.

When we put these pieces together, we are reminded not to be harsh judges of the weaknesses of another, lest we be judged by the same standard, because none of us is exempt from infidelity to the covenant between God and his Church.

I strongly suggest that we pay very close attention to the pope’s messages of late. He continuously reminds us that God is a merciful God and that as his people, we are called to be a merciful people.

If we apply this sage teaching to this situation, we must admit that we have no idea what is happening behind closed doors. We must admit that there have been mistakes on both sides, that of the LCWR and that of the CDF. We must admit that despite it all, God still prefers these women over many of us. He has called them to himself for himself exclusively. It is this choice that God has made that we must always hold in highest regard and simply wait and see what God will bring out of this. We must not anticipate what we don’t know.

 

[Church_Militant]

I just read through this thread and I think I have to agree with Br. Jay here.

In this case there is much that is really above our pay grade as the laity.

We do not have all the facts, and we do not have the authority to make statements as to what should or should not be done.

Br. Jay has more authority with regard to this issue, and yet, as we can see, he is being very circumspect as to his comments.

If, as he has said, there has been a glitch in the system when dealing with the LCWR, then, again, that is beyond my (lay) scope and responsibility to speak to and from what I was reading has been addressed by some of the religious superiors. Now that can be handled as it should be and we’ll just need to step back and wait to see what transpires.

No matter what, we need to trust the church to carry out its mission and responsibilities while we laity do what we are supposed to do. Study, pray, and do the works of mercy that are entrusted to all of us.

The nuns that I have had contact with in our parish have been a couple from our mission parish in Chimbote, Peru and the Little Sisters of the Poor who come by to beg for support of their homes. So far as I have seen, they all rock as examples of consecrated religious, so I do not lose any sleep over this LCWR issue and am happy to let their superiors and Rome work it out as needed.

I have great confidence first in the Holy Spirit and then in the Church and the only thing I need to do in all this is remember them all in my prayers and at Mass and carry on doing what God has given me to do.

 

[livingwordunity]

I just read through this thread and I think I have to agree with Br. Jay here.

In this case there is much that is really above our pay grade as the laity.

We do not have all the facts, and we do not have the authority to make statements as to what should or should not be done.Nothing about this has been done in secret. It’s been a public scandal for many decades, and that’s the only reason the Vatican made their efforts to reform LCWR made known to the public. The LCWR has confused the American public so that many Catholics no longer think they have to listen to the bishops. The bishops make a statement, and then a representative from the LCWR goes on a TV show making a statement that contradicts or belittles what the bishop said. The bishops start the Fortnight for Freedom campaign while LCWR counters it with “nuns on a bus”. It’s like they want to create a public perception that they have a higher teaching authority than the bishops.

 

[zz912]

Jesus had the same respect for the woman caught in adultery and the prostitute that he has for you.

God does not keep scores. Neither should we. When God forgives he forgets. What gives us the right to do differently?

Say what?

Did Jesus have the same respect for the woman caught in adultery that He had for the Pharisees (you know, the ones He called a brood of vipers)?

And Jesus promised several times that He was keeping score, that our actions would be revealed, and that we would be rewarded (good and bad) based upon our works. He also promised that IF we returned to Him when we sinned and asked for forgiveness, He would remove our sin (and using hyperbole said He would forget it, but God can’t forget anything otherwise He isn’t God). The LCWR has been spreading dissent and teachings contrary to the Catholic faith, and have been doing so intentionally, and doing it for decades. And they have not turned from their ways and repented for them. They are still obstinately remaining in their sin.

 

[Ridgerunner]

One has to be very careful here, because there are too many people commenting on something that does not concern them and to which we have no right to know what’s happening. What’s going to happen is what has happened with the Franciscans of the Immaculate. Someone in authority is going to get very angry and tell the rest of us to mind our own business and to shut up. Just read the message from the superiors of the Franciscans of the Immaculate. I can see this coming from a bishop or the LCWR itself.

We (I include me) who are superiors and bishops are masters at ambiguity when we want to be. The usual language when you don’t want to share what has been discussed in private is:

1. It was a good meeting.
2. The talks are going well.
3. We’re exploring all options.
4. We’re looking for the good for everyone involved and the Church.
5. The discussions have been cordial and warm.
6. Etc.

Another clarification must be made here. There are three degrees of obedience. Before we go unjustly accusing anyone of disobedience, we must know the theology behind obedience.

There is the **promise of obedience **that a diocesan deacon and priest makes to his bishop. It only binds him in pastoral matters, not personal matters or matters of conscience. It’s a promise, not a vow. It carries not penalty of sin.

There is the simple vow of obedience that sisters and most male religious make. This vow binds the person to obey the constitutions of his religious community and the pope, ONLY when the pope invokes the vow. He must explicitly say, "I order you, under holy obedience, to . . . " This is why it’s called a simple vow. It carries the same moral gravity as the disobedience that would apply to a layman who disobeys his bishop or a child who disobeys his parent. In other words, the gravity is proportionate to the seriousness of the command.

There is the solemn vow of obedience. Only monks, friars and cloistered nuns are allowed to make this vow obedience. This vow applies to the rule of the founder. The constitutions of the community. The decisions of the community when they are made in a chapter, a direct order from the pope. Superiors can only invoke the vow of obedience if

a) the matter is grave

b) there have been at least three verbal requests for obedience and one written request

c) the founder gives him the right to do so

Bishops have no claim on the obedience of any religious, unless the founder wrote it into his rule as is the case with the Franciscans. I believe that Francis was the only founder who gave bishops that kind of authority. However, the Council of Trent took it away from them. Bishops may never command obedience from religious, only from their diocesan clergy and from the laity.

Until the pope says that the LCWR must do this and he invokes the vow of obedience, there is a lot of room for discussion and disagreement between the LCWR and Rome.

Finally, one must remember that there are only two people who have a right to know exactly what is happening between the leadership of the LCWR and the bishop. These are Pope Francis and Archbishop Mueller of the CDF.

The rest of us have no right to know. Neither the sisters nor the Church have any moral obligation to say more than they are saying, which is all very diplomatic answers. The writer of the article, like all “good” journalists, is filling in paper.

The truth is that no one knows what’s happening and what’s coming next. Those who need to know are not willing to share what they know.

It is very premature to accuse anyone of disobedience. Please remember that the conditions for disobedience must be met. The women religious in the LCWR are all in simple vows. Only that criteria applies to them, not other.

No personal offense here, JR, but I think we still have the right to read newspapers, see what some of these LCWR leaders do in the national media, read credible sources, watch orders fold up before our very eyes and to actually think about what we are seeing.

To the extent we are asked for money to contribute to their organizations or to the extent any of our children might have thoughts about a vocation or is thinking about attending one of their events or schools, the nature of the organizations needs to be known to us, and we have a right to know.

And certainly, to the extent some of these leaders involve themselves in the public political arena (like the “Nuns on the bus” or the head of the Catholic Hospital Association) we are not obliged to refrain from making judgments concerning it, any more than we have no right to make judgments on the politics of any other political organization or personality.

And if someone in the know comments on what’s going on with the LCWR “dialogue”, we are not obliged to plug our ears so we don’t hear it.

I agree that we do not know what the present conversations between LCWR and the Vatican are, or what the subjective meanings are within the “soft” language. That, however, does not preclude us from knowing what has been said openly in the past or what may be said openly in the future.

And “open dissent from the teachings of the Church” is not somehow justified by the levels of obedience you have mentioned. If I, for example, promote homosexual “marriage” as morally legitimate, I am being disobedient to the laws of the Church.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Marco –

That letter that is in the NCR went out with another letter that was in the press. The second letter was to the International Council of Major Superiors asking why Mutuae Relationes had not been followed. That’s how it came to the attention of the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life that the CDF has issued a mandate without its permission.

This was an oversight, as I said. I truly believe that it was not on purpose. Mutua Relationes was drawn up under Pope John Paul. I don’t believe it has ever been used. But it was the CDF’s idea to create it so that issues like this would be resolved at the local level between the religious superiors and the conferences of bishops without having to involve the Vatican.

The Council of Franciscan Superiors tried to encourage the sisters and the CDF to approach this with the greatest tact, because it realized that there had been an “oops” on the part of Rome. MY GUESS is that the superiors knew that among the sisters there would be someone who would catch that “oops”. If said person wanted to make a big stink about it, this would really get worse before it got better.

Forgive my ignorance, but I have another question. I searched for the document and letter you reference. This appears to be the Franciscan letter referencing Mutua Relationes. In that letter is the following excerpt: *Finally, we realize and appreciate, as we are sure do you, the proper and right role of the bishops as it is set out in Mutuae Relationes to provide leadership and guidance to religious institutions.i However, the same document clearly states:

since it is of utmost importance that the council of major superiors collaborate diligently and in a spirit of trust with episcopal conferences, ‘it is desirable that questions having reference to both bishops and religious should be dealt with by mixed commissions consisting of bishops and major religious superiors, men or women. …Such a mixed commission should be structured in such a way that even if the right of ultimate decision making is to be always left to councils or conferences, according to the respective competencies, it can, as an organism of mutual counsel, liaison, communication, study and reflection, achieve its purpose. (#63)
We trust that CDF was attempting to follow their counsel from Mutuae Relationes; however, we fear that in today’s public media world their action easily could be misunderstood. We hope that our bishops will take particular care to see that the way they take action is as important as the actions themselves in serving the People of God. Otherwise, their efforts will surely be misunderstood and polarizing.​

*You said, *“There is a law that requires a council made up of bishops and religious with one religious more than bishops. Before the CDF issues any mandate to religious, it must convene such a council. And only when the council cannot resolve the problem, can the CDF take the step that it took. The CDF skipped the council.” *This letter cites what is “desirable” regarding resolving issues via a mixed “commission” of bishops and religious superiors. What about the current exchange between Bishop Sartain and his assisting bishops and the sisters of LCWR does not fit that description?

If there are other pastoral guidelines I’m missing that would clarify this, please quote them specifically.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Fortunately, the Catholic Church is not as cruel as are her members. She does not employ such underhanded tactics, especially with consecrated women. The Holy See still has a strong sense of respect for the consecrated religious, even if the laity has thrown its sense of respect out the window.

Cheap shots.

Letting a movement that’s refractory to reform die out on its own is not underhanded or cruel. It may be the only recourse in some instances.

“The laity” has not thrown its sense of respect out the window. There are religious orders everybody admires greatly, and it’s a horrible misjudgment to think that “the laity” does not.

But frankly, I see no reason why “the laity” ought to respect the opinions of some that support womens’ ordination, homosexual “marriage”, abortion “rights” or occult liturgies, whether they are religious people or lay people who hold those opinions.

 

[twf]

Brother,
I understand what you’re saying, and you make some very important points that we laity should be mindful of… but I agree with other posters that it is extremely difficult for me as a lay man who tries to be faithful to Holy Mother Church not to be deeply disturbed and scandalized when I hear some of these sisters in the LCWR clearly articulating heretical teachings via national media again and again and again. I don’t have the right or authority to judge such and such a sister to be a heretic, but as a Catholic called to know my faith, I know what I’m hearing is deeply wrong and leading poorly catechised laity into error. Perhaps we don’t have a right to say that the LCWR should be disbanded or reformed or anything of that nature…but I think we have a right to feel offended when we know millions are being exposed to teachings that are contrary to the very deepest core of our holy faith.

 

[McCall1981]

Say what?

Did Jesus have the same respect for the woman caught in adultery that He had for the Pharisees (you know, the ones He called a brood of vipers)?

And Jesus promised several times that He was keeping score, that our actions would be revealed, and that we would be rewarded (good and bad) based upon our works. He also promised that IF we returned to Him when we sinned and asked for forgiveness, He would remove our sin (and using hyperbole said He would forget it, but God can’t forget anything otherwise He isn’t God). The LCWR has been spreading dissent and teachings contrary to the Catholic faith, and have been doing so intentionally, and doing it for decades. And they have not turned from their ways and repented for them. They are still obstinately remaining in their sin.

This what I was going to say.

The Pharisees, as part of the religious establishment of their day, had drifted from the truth and were teaching against Gods will. Jesus publically called them “vipers” to their faces and used strong, even harsh, language to utterly rebuke them (much harsher language and much more public than what anyone is doing here). “Brood of vipers” sounds like He had pretty much made up His mind about them as far as what they were teaching.

The Temple money changers, as part of the religious establishment, had drifted from the truth and were acting against Gods will. Jesus literally kicked them out, in public, which is about as harsh if a rebuke as I can imagine, much harsher than what anyone here is saying or doing.

When the Apostles started drifting from the truth Jesus immediately rebuked them, publically, called Peter “Satan” to his face, etc.

Or John the Baptist. He had some pretty strong language for the errors of the religious establishment.

My point is that no one here, myself included, is using language or actions that are nearly as harsh or public or “judgemental” as the examples above.

I hope the Church uses every means possible to convert all of those LCWR sisters, through love and patience and understanding. The experiences of the past decades indicate that this will most likely not be very successful. Simply acknowledging that they probably will refuse to be converted is not “giving up” on them. Not at all. Perhaps Im wrong and theyll convert, that’d be great. I just think its very unlikely to happen.

The LCWR groups, including the leadership, are in demographic collapse, thats a statistical fact. Acknowledging that fact is not saying “let them die”. I sincerely hope that all the congregations are successfully reformed, that they return to orthodoxy, that they then start gaining vocations, and that the LCWR and its member groups eventually thrive. As of right now, the problem groups are in demographic collapse, and are rapidly aging out of existence. Acknowledging this fact is not making a moral judgement, or wishing them to die, or anything like that at all.

One way or another, in a decade or so, this problem will not exist to the extent that it does now, and that makes me happy. I hope it’s because of personal conversions rather than just age, but with or without the conversions, the age thing is going to happen, regardless of what we think about it.

Also, although I appreciate your explanation of the meaning of “obedience”, and how a vocation and the Church can’t “abused” since they are metaphysical, you do know what I mean. If I use incorrect vocabulary, then I’m sorry, and while I’m glad to be corrected for my personal knowledge, it doesn’t detract from the point I’m making. We all (I hope) know what I mean.

 

[JReducation]

Forgive my ignorance, but I have another question. I searched for the document and letter you reference. This appears to be the Franciscan letter referencing Mutua Relationes. In that letter is the following excerpt: *Finally, we realize and appreciate, as we are sure do you, the proper and right role of the bishops as it is set out in Mutuae Relationes to provide leadership and guidance to religious institutions.i However, the same document clearly states:

since it is of utmost importance that the council of major superiors collaborate diligently and in a spirit of trust with episcopal conferences, ‘it is desirable that questions having reference to both bishops and religious should be dealt with by mixed commissions consisting of bishops and major religious superiors, men or women. …Such a mixed commission should be structured in such a way that even if the right of ultimate decision making is to be always left to councils or conferences, according to the respective competencies, it can, as an organism of mutual counsel, liaison, communication, study and reflection, achieve its purpose. (#63)
We trust that CDF was attempting to follow their counsel from Mutuae Relationes; however, we fear that in today’s public media world their action easily could be misunderstood. We hope that our bishops will take particular care to see that the way they take action is as important as the actions themselves in serving the People of God. Otherwise, their efforts will surely be misunderstood and polarizing.​

*You said,

​

This paragraph is part of a regulation that was drafted by the CDF under the papacy of John Paul II. The document is called Mutuae Relationes. The entire document was sent to bishops and major superiors. As I said, I have never heard of the system being used. This is a situation where it would have applied, but it was not used. However, not through anyone’s fault. I think it was simply forgotten that it existed.

What about the current exchange between Bishop Sartain and his assisting bishops and the sisters of LCWR does not fit that description?

​

 

[JReducation]

Cheap shots.

This is a good example of what I’m saying. Look at your opening line. Were this not an anonymous internet site, I’m sure that most people would never begin a response to any priest or religious with “cheap shot” even if they thought it. We all know what is and is not appropriate to say. When we violate this, we add to the bad example that’s already being given to those who are not commenting but are lurking.

Letting a movement that’s refractory to reform die out on its own is not underhanded or cruel. It may be the only recourse in some instances.

“The laity” has not thrown its sense of respect out the window. There are religious orders everybody admires greatly, and it’s a horrible misjudgment to think that “the laity” does not.

But frankly, I see no reason why “the laity” ought to respect the opinions of some that support womens’ ordination, homosexual “marriage”, abortion “rights” or occult liturgies, whether they are religious people or lay people who hold those opinions.

Brother,
I understand what you’re saying, and you make some very important points that we laity should be mindful of… but I agree with other posters that it is extremely difficult for me as a lay man who tries to be faithful to Holy Mother Church not to be deeply disturbed and scandalized when I hear some of these sisters in the LCWR clearly articulating heretical teachings via national media again and again and again. I don’t have the right or authority to judge such and such a sister to be a heretic, but as a Catholic called to know my faith, I know what I’m hearing is deeply wrong and leading poorly catechised laity into error. Perhaps we don’t have a right to say that the LCWR should be disbanded or reformed or anything of that nature…but I think we have a right to feel offended when we know millions are being exposed to teachings that are contrary to the very deepest core of our holy faith.

We must remember that one can disagree with the positions of another without withdrawing respect for the person and for his or her state in life. That’s not what’s happening here.

I disagree with much of what the LCWR has said or not said. But I stand by Vita Consecrata. The sisters, regardless of their problems are essential to the life of the Church. Without them, the Church’s identity changes. They have made a contribution to the life of the Church. They are consecrated religious and that does not change; therefore, they must be treated with the respect that is due to consecrated religious, just as we would tell a child to treat his parents with the respect due to parents, even if they’re wrong. The Commandments do not place conditions on our obligation to God and neighbor. Neither have to meet any criteria for us to fulfill our moral obligations.

There is a difference between the person and the person’s position on an issue. We have a moral obligation to make that distinction. If Christ makes that distinction, how dare we not do the same?

We must never forget that we are equally sinful. Just because we’re guilty of a different sin, does not mean that we’re not equally sinful.

St. Francis of Assisi always said that the worse sin that a man could commit was to single out the sin of another without admitting that he is a more wretched sinner. St. Augustine said that one should focus on the good in another and the evil in oneself. St. Teresa of Avila said that we have all betrayed him; therefore, none of us has room to throw stones or to be scandalized. The spiritual masters seem to speak with the Church, since what we’re hearing from our popes is a great deal about confronting sin and human weakness, while at the same time persevering in mercy and charity.

In discussing these situations, we must also look to the Church, especially the Holy Father and watch his attitude and his behavior in all of these things. We’ve been blessed for more than 100 years to have had popes who are very good in exemplifying fidelity and mercy, compassion, charity, respect and patience toward the faithful.

On his trip to Brazil, someone asked Pope Francis about his feelings toward the President of Argentina. I think it was about her. One of those presidents. The issue was about abortion. He responded in a very Catholic manner. I wish that I had bookmarked the page. At the time, I didn’t think it was that important. I’ll have to paraphrase. Some of you may have read it.

He said that he respected her very much and he even likes her very much. He explained that their different positions on this very important issue does not detract from her as a person or from her office. He still likes her. She is still a human being and she has the rights that come with the office of the President.

He made an important distinction between abortion and the rights of the person who is signed abortion into law. That person’s right to love, respect and recognition of her good qualities are not lost.

This takes us back to that whole point of disagreeing with a position and even correcting when the position is wrong, without detracting anything from the person and his or her place in the world and the Church. We must aspire to be saints. This means that we exercise control over our feelings and opinions.

There is an interesting statute in the constitutions of our community. It comes from something that St. Francis and St. Clare practiced. I have found it to be very helpful in my spiritual journey. Only when we can discard our personal opinions, feelings, desires and wishes can we truly be one with the Crucified Christ.

We all have opinions and feelings about the opinions of others. But at some point, we must silence ourselves and simply cooperate with Providence as it speaks through the Church.

 

[Ridgerunner]

This is a good example of what I’m saying. Look at your opening line. Were this not an anonymous internet site, I’m sure that most people would never begin a response to any priest or religious with “cheap shot” even if they thought it. We all know what is and is not appropriate to say. When we violate this, we add to the bad example that’s already being given to those who are not commenting but are lurking.

.

Let me see if i understand this. Because you say you are a monk or some kind of cleric or member of a religious order, I’m not supposed to challenge you when accuse “the laity” of being “cruel” and “underhanded” because we address things that affect us and our children that you don’t think are “any of our business”?

I’m not buying that. When the Church is undermined by dissidents on national media and in schools by people in religious orders, and especially when secular politics is their game, it is absolutely my business and that of the laity. I obey the Pope and I obey my own bishop, and I obey my confessor, but I don’t have to obey you just because you are a member of a religious order. How does that “tree of obedience” go again?