LCWR president says forum 'like no other we've had' [CNAU]

[markomalley]

If you adopt Fr. Pacwa’s ridiculously narrow definition of “create” then you will obviously reach the conclusion that the term “co-create” is mistaken, or worse, heterodox.

I don’t see anything in her words that approaches the heterodoxy that Pacwa derived from her use of the term “co-create”: in other words, Pacwa condemned her without doing his homework. That’s just lazy.

creatio ex nihilo

Creation is the making of something from nothing. In other words it is a “first cause” – our language perverts that meaning to include novel manipulation of matter or energy in novel fashions, but just because we distorted the concept of creation in our own arrogance (“the artist created a new work”) does not mean that we can elevate ourselves to the same plane as God.

The term “co-” implies a co-operation in the act of creation. That is simply not possible, as we are the product of that creation.

“Building of new life forms” – true, but the atoms that formed the molecules that formed the DNA strands that were then manipulated to build these life forms already existed. Manipulating these DNA strands does not qualify as creation.

“Cloning embryos” falls into the same category as “building new life forms”

“Creating new worlds in space” again, is a mere manipulation of matter and energy. But the matter and energy existed prior to our attempts at manipulation. So no creation was involved.

The desire to elevate ourselves to the level of God is hardly new. The serpent tempted Eve with that very desire:

Gen 3:5 (RSV) For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

Ms. Hubbard is suffering from nothing more than another manifestation of the same temptation.

 

[JW55]

So what do you think will be the fial outcome of this?

 

[zab]

So what do you think will be the fial outcome of this?

Archbishop Raymond Burkesays that if they do not reform then they do not have the right to continue. "It was the Holy See that founded the Leadership Council of Women religious. Why should it not have the right to say, “Look, this organization is no longer fulfilling the mission for which we founded it.”

What do I think? Judging by the remarks made by representatives of the LCWR, I do not think it is looking good for them.

 

[knotanes]

Since reading the disturbing news articles of this “futurist” speaker with her transhuman-new-agey-weirdness, I am ever so thankful the nuns at the parish I attend are of the CMSWR variety.

If you read very far into Barbara Marx Hubbard, her ideas are dangerous if not outright evil. If I understand her writings correctly, she thinks we can become our own “Christs” through technology/transhumanism and wield godlike powers. Sure, they just invited her, but look at what these nuns have also said to mainstream media and/or NPR that runs counter to the Church–including bucking pro-life ideas thus encouraging laity to be even more confused on this point and emboldening anyone who would attack the Church.

The thought of Catholic nuns dancing and chanting and waving colored scarves around this new-age lunatic is beyond troubling. For me, I wouldn’t have anything to do with this. I wonder how many within the LCWR are disturbed and would like to see this kind of thing end?

We will keep the LCWR in our prayers in the hopes they turn away from this insanity.

 

[knotanes]

I have read the full press release from the LCWR regarding their response to the CDF.

My general response is to shake my head, grab them by the figurative shoulders and scream “You just don’t get it, do you?”

However, two paragraphs made me sit up and take notice that perhaps the LCWR is working for some good things in this world.



I commend the work that they do and any change they can effect in this country in the two areas of immigration reform and human trafficking.

I predict that there may be a good helping of “throwing out the baby with the bathwater” in the near future, because it is abundantly clear that doctrinally, the Magisterium of Nuns needs to be brought to heel and either obey the Church or get out.

Forgive me for butting in, as a convert, but it’s been made clear to me over the last almost 7 years of trying to become Catholic that obedience is important.

Doing good, on it’s own, is not enough. Faith, on it’s own, is not enough. To be fully Catholic, a person needs both working in concert. As a lay person, there are some ideas I should not entertain or support… I don’t think it’s too much to ask that the religious do likewise for their own sake as well as for the sake of others who look up to them as role models.

There are humanist, atheist, corporate entities that do good in the world. Some do good and bad in equal measure. If the LCWR is hosting minds like Barbara Marx Hubbard and failing to denounce abortion in all cases and at all times… they’re not Catholic and the do need to go.

I’m very glad to see the CDF stepping in and I hope they will do something about them–even if it is politically unpopular and draws fire.

I’m very happy to say our local bishop had the courage to strip a local hospital of Catholic status amid public outcry and was vilified for it by some. We need more people like him in the world.

 

[Dale_M]

Here is the response of Archbishop Peter Sartain’s response to the statement from the LCWR made at the conclusion of their recent gathering

The Holy See and the Bishops of the United States are deeply proud of the historic and continuing contribution of women religious to our country through social, pastoral and spiritual ministries; Catholic health care; Catholic education; and many other areas where they reach out to those on the margins of society.

As an association of women religious, the LCWR brings unique gifts to its members and to the Church at large. This uniqueness includes sensitivity to suffering, whether in Latin America or the inner-city; whether in the life of an unborn child or the victim of human trafficking.

Religious women have made a lasting contribution to the wellbeing of our country and continue to do so today. For that they deserve our respect, our support, our thanks and our prayers.

Along with the members of the LCWR, I remain committed to working to address the issues raised by the Doctrinal Assessment in an atmosphere of prayer and respectful dialogue. We must also work toward clearing up any misunderstandings, and I remain truly hopeful that we will work together without compromising Church teaching or the important role of the LCWR. I look forward to our continued discussions as we collaborate in promoting consecrated life in the United States.

usccb.org/about/media-relations/archbishop-sartain-lcwr-august2012.cfm

My sense is that it is a diplomatic way of saying. “Okay, let’s talk.”

 

[iloveangels]

Here is the response of Archbishop Peter Sartain’s response to the statement from the LCWR made at the conclusion of their recent gathering

usccb.org/about/media-relations/archbishop-sartain-lcwr-august2012.cfm

My sense is that it is a diplomatic way of saying. “Okay, let’s talk.”

He’s being very diplomatic, yes. This is a very polite way of saying, Convention over. Now let’s set up some meetings and get on with business for real. Here’s the deal:

“We must also work toward clearing up any misunderstandings, and I remain truly hopeful that we will work together without compromising Church teaching or the important role of the LCWR. I look forward to our continued discussions as we collaborate in promoting consecrated life in the United States.”

Short form: “Time to close the doors, stop pandering to the media, and hash this out, ladies.”

 

[iloveangels]

So what do you think will be the fial outcome of this?

a) that the LCWR will become much more conscious of the fact that they are not an independent entity and they cannot do as they wish. Their public communications and speakers will probably clean up some. They won’t post things like their post-Christian problem solving handbook or whatever it was called in public anymore. Not that they won’t necessarily have it someplace. It just won’t be put in public anymore.

b) that the LCWR will have to accept the authority of the Holy See and come up with new documents, a new set of religious constitutions and behave themselves in public or they will risk losing their apostolic approval.

c) that laypeople in the US will catch up with about 40 years of history and stop visualizing all nuns and sisters as cute little penmanship teachers about 25 years old in black-and-white floor length habits. And become more realistic about religious life in general. Some of them may even become savvy enough to realize that if the average age of sisters in congregations is 70+, then the great majority of them are not on the front lines of service to the poor anymore. Increasingly, they get lay volunteers to do some of the work, and pay people to do the rest. This has already happened to many of them and in the next ten years, it will happen to almost all of them.

d) that Catholics may become more careful about their donation patterns and realize that they are paying for things that they have no idea exist and wouldn’t approve of AT ALL if they did.

e) that a can of worms has been opened for some of the other religious congregations who’ve shot off their mouths a bit quick. Some of them are still under the second investigation, the one into individual congregations, for which the results have not yet been announced.

f) that some older sisters who have been living under tragic circumstances will have dramatic improvements in their living conditions. And they will have numbers to call in the event of trouble in the future.

g) that the sisters and some laypeople who are consistently mistaken about this will start to realize that the American church is 5% of the global Church. That’s FIVE PERCENT. We are a whisper from being nothing and we don’t drive the whole Church. We never have. If we keep acting like crazy hicks, we’re going to get dismissed out of hand and just told what to do. Period.

There are a couple of alternatives to this vision of things.

a) that the sisters flat out rebel and take the LCWR outside of canonical structures, or

b) that the CDF orders them to rename it and start from scratch.

c) that the CDF gets rid of conferences and deals with congregations individually, after weeding the whole field out some. Unlikely that they’ll deal with them individually. Much more likely that they’ll weed them out some, although that will probably be done gently with time and biology as a helper. Expect in 50 years that there will be fewer generic congregations of teaching sisters in the USA. Basically if you can’t tell people of different congregations apart by seeing them walk down the street, they won’t be here.

 

[iloveangels]

NB: About being able to tell members of congregations apart going down the street 50 years from now. I’m not necessarily talking about wearing medieval clothes. Some may have that; some not.

I am talking about some distinctive sign of profession, something that you can see from across the room, across the street, in the bus station, etc. Something like a characteristic blazer or coat and insignia, for instance. Or a modified veil on women that’s very characteristic, and that they always wear outside the convent. Always.

You won’t have to guess if they’re a consecrated person, and you won’t have to guess what congregation they belong to either, if you’re Catholic. There will be fewer congregations and identities will be much more clear.

And I am talking about a distinctive line of work and behavior. You’ll know one when you see one. There won’t be very many compared to the 1950s, but there may be more than now.

IF the world is still here in 50 years, God willing. JMHO.

 

[iloveangels]

I also hope one other thing is going to happen, incidental to the business about the LCWR and all that:

That the CDF will take measures to deal with the increasing problem we currently have in the US, and may have in the short-term future, of various groups pretending to be religious congregations when they’re not, and of non-canonical religious “congregations” currently existing and emerging. Many people don’t realize how common and serious this is.

People tend to hear the words “religious order” and a picture pops into their heads and they just accept it. There’s just a whole world more to it than that. It’s innocent but it’s possible to make really serious, costly mistakes this way.

Time, I think, will take care of some of it, and maybe this will be enough. But it’s a problem, and may be a problem for a while as we straighten all of this out.

 

[anp1215]

The LCWR is dying off, to put it bluntly. That’s just the way it is. Their average age I believe is 74. Not a whole lot of new religious sisters interested in that baloney. I see God’s hand in that. He does not bless disobedience.

 

[iloveangels]

Can someone explain to me why they are having talks with them. To me, Rome has spoken…the end.

Maltmom,

In order to understand this one, you have to put it into a Catholic perspective.

Throughout Catholic history, we occasionally get groups within the Church who try to set themselves up as alternate sources of authority and get very bossy with Rome. After a period of time, and a bunch of confusion, there is a confrontation, and the upstart groups get walloped by God. Oh he doesn’t hit them with bolts of lightning or anything like that, but they die out in miserable obscurity one way or the other. It can take a while or be fast, God’s choice…of course.

Basically it’s happening again with a lot of people who think their version of 20-21st century modernity trumps the Church’s version. This little current mess is just a page of another chapter of that same book.

Fun to watch, but miserable to live through. Pull up a seat and get some You might as well enjoy the show.

This is a quintessential part of being Catholic.

If this interests you, you might want to find something to read about the clashes of the past. Athanasius and Arian is a good one to start with. Santa Claus even plays a role. Really. The original Saint Nicolaus was a bishop from Turkey who was involved in that one.

 

[maltmom]

Maltmom,

Throughout Catholic history, we occasionally get groups within the Church who try to set themselves up as alternate sources of authority and get very bossy with Rome. After a period of time, and a bunch of confusion, there is a confrontation, and the upstart groups get walloped by God. Oh he doesn’t hit them with bolts of lightning or anything like that, but they die out in miserable obscurity one way or the other. It can take a while or be fast, God’s choice…of course.

Basically it’s happening again with a lot of people who think their version of 20-21st century modernity trumps the Church’s version. This little mess is just a page of another chapter of that same book.

Fun to watch, but miserable to live through. Pull up a seat and get some You might as well enjoy the show.

This is a quintessential part of being Catholic.

If this interests you, you might want to find something to read about the clashes of the past. Athanasius and Arian is a good one to start with. Santa Claus even plays a role. Really. The original Saint Nicolaus was a bishop from Turkey who was involved in that one.

Thanks!!

I know there will always be groups that will pop up thinking they know more than the Church. I just don’t know why the Vatican doesn’t slap them down instead of “talking” to them. Now they are getting a lot of publicity.

 

[iloveangels]

Thanks!!

I know there will always be groups that will pop up thinking they know more than the Church. I just don’t know why the Vatican doesn’t slap them down instead of “talking” to them. Now they are getting a lot of publicity.

Yes, it takes a while. The Church is very gentle and tries to give everyone the benefit of the doubt because she has great faith that God will deal with it in the end, which He always does.

A good part of the publicity this is getting is just a reflection of how much the media despises the Holy See. That part is more like politics than religion, really. They’ll get off this topic and go lambaste somebody else when they get sick of this.

You are right about one thing, though. It’s important not to get too caught up in it or get fooled by it and stray away. The noise isn’t really indicative of much. It goes on all the time.

 

[iloveangels]

The other thing about this is that this is really complicated structurally and phenomenologically. I mean, the real problem is a mixture of a lot of stuff, from sheer ignorance to failure of will to disobedience to you name it. And there are individuals and congregations that are accurately represented by the LCWR and individuals and congregations that aren’t. It’s a mess.

They’re going to take some time to try to straighten some of it out. That’s not a bad thing. At least they’re ON IT now, and they are tackling the problem. That’s good.

 

[maltmom]

It’s a mess…

Yes it is

 

[Elizabeth502]

I took the trouble to paste together some quotes from at least two articles on NCReporter, who can never say enough good things about the LCWR. My purpose is not to mock. My purpose is to understand what the heck they’re saying. It’s all very broad and vague & abstract, to me.

For example: Why wouldn’t the Church stand behind "the integrity of their mission? Is the hierachy seriously challenging an authentic witness to the Gospel? It seems like their statement is pointless unless their mission is something other than what Catholicism represents.

Here goes. A prize for a convincing translation.
Asked what she hopes to receive in dialogue with Sartain, Farrell said LCWR wants “to be recognized and be understood as equal in the church.” (Equal in what respect?)

“And really we do want to come to the point of having an environment … for the entire Catholic church to search for truth together, to talk about issues that are very complicated. And there is not the environment right now.”

The organization which represents the majority of U.S. Catholic sisters said Friday afternoon it would continue discussions with church officials regarding a Vatican-ordered takeover, but “will reconsider” if it “is forced to compromise the integrity of its mission.”

LCWR national board is expected to meet with Sartain in St. Louis Sunday for about two hours. The focus of that meeting “will be on beginning to process with him and see how that unfolds,” Farrell said at a press conference. The LCWR expect “open and honest dialogue” with Sartain that “may lead not only to increasing understanding between the church leadership and women religious, but also to creating more possibilities for the laity and, particularly for women, to have a voice in the church,” the statement said. (I could have sworn that we women have a voice now.)

“Religious life, as it is lived by the women religious who comprise LCWR, is an authentic expression of this life that must not be compromised,” it said.

Taking the stage to a standing ovation, Farrell said that “some larger movement in the church … has landed on LCWR.” {Sounds like alien life! What does this mean?)

A key question facing LCWR, she said, is, “What would a prophetic response to the doctrinal assessment look like?”
“I think it would be humble, but not submissive,” she continued. "Rooted in a solid sense of ourselves, but not self-righteous; truthful, but gentle and absolutely fearless.
"It would ask probing questions. Are we being invited to some appropriate pruning and are we open to it? Is this doctrinal process an expression of concern or an attempt to control?
"Concern is based in love and invites unity. Control through fear and intimidation would be an abuse of power.

“Does the institutional legitimacy of canonical recognition empower us to live prophetically? Does it allow us the freedom to question with informed consciences? Does it really welcome feedback in a church that claims to honor the sensus fildeum?”
Farrell also said it would be a “mistake” to make “too much” of the mandate.
“We cannot allow it to consume us,” she said. “It is not the first time that a form of religious life has collided with the church, nor will it be the last.”

“The doctrinal assessment suggests that we are not currently living in an ideal ecclesial world,” Farrell continued. (What would an "ideal ecclesial world look like?)

 

[Elizabeth502]

OK, so I get part of the prize because I think I’ve translated a couple of the quotes.

Farrell also said it would be a “mistake” to make “too much” of the mandate. “We cannot allow it to consume us,” she said. "It is not the first time that a form of religious life has collided with the church, nor will it be the last."This means: We’ll wear habits again, and live in community, after the Second Coming.

“The doctrinal assessment suggests that we are not currently living in an ideal ecclesial world,” Farrell continued. Ideal ecclesial world means that we get to decide if we want to speak with you, because we don’t submit to orders.

(How am I doing so far?)

 

[iloveangels]

OK, so I get part of the prize because I think I’ve translated a couple of the quotes.

Farrell also said it would be a “mistake” to make “too much” of the mandate. “We cannot allow it to consume us,” she said. "It is not the first time that a form of religious life has collided with the church, nor will it be the last."This means: We’ll wear habits again, and live in community, after the Second Coming.

“The doctrinal assessment suggests that we are not currently living in an ideal ecclesial world,” Farrell continued. Ideal ecclesial world means that we get to decide if we want to speak with you, because we don’t submit to orders.

(How am I doing so far?)

You picked out the money quote, Elizabeth502.

Taking the stage to a standing ovation, Farrell said that “some larger movement in the church … has landed on LCWR.”

That’s a very good summation of what that speaker, speaking as the president of the LCWR, thinks this is about. I was struck by the directness of it when I read it. I know exactly what she’s getting at. She’s just completely wrong about it from a Christian Catholic point of view.

Do you like analogies? Here’s one about the new theory about lightbulbs.

msu.edu/user/dynicrai/physics/dark.htm

Notice:
Speaking English, check.
Seems logical, check.
Supported by an authority, check.
A naive person could get turned around in it and stuck, check.
Is it what’s really going on? NOoooo. Just the opposite in fact, is the case.

 

[iloveangels]

To be more explicit about what I’m saying:

The emphasis on postmodern religious talk in the US is on experience. We have been taught to be observationists, which means that we believe that only what we can observe is true. (With a few romantic type exceptions which we believe are magical, more or less, and treat as if they were, socially and culturally.) This is thoroughly accepted in American life. Even religiously, we get told to dwell on observations and experiences, right? And we often do.

Well, the Christian faith is only partly about experiences. Its genesis and inspiration is really not experiential on a do-it-yourself everyday basis. It’s a matter of Revelation–the revelation of God in scripture and tradition–which is driven not so much by our manufacturing God from our experiences, but by our receiving Him by a mutual relationship, at his direction and initiative.

Remember all that stuff about the Catholic faith not be EITHER and not being OR, it’s BOTH? Yes, well if you take out Revelation (meaning scripture and tradition), you don’t have BOTH anymore. You have OR.

For this reason, your experiences alone can’t be your religion, if you want to be right about religion.

Now the example: Either account of the lightbulb thing–conventional or darksucker version–is little in itself. They’re only accounts of how things are, they’re not how things really ARE. But there is a way in which things ARE that transcends any account. But we have to give accounts to understand. Fine. And one of the accounts is far more like that way things ARE than the other, so one wins. The conventional account is the far better account of the two.

In the same way, the account the sisters are giving is a spurious account, like the darksucker account. It’s a completely observational account, an OR account. But it’s not a BOTH account. It’s wrong. It doesn’t bear up under scrutiny in the same way that the darksucker account doesn’t bear up under scrutiny. It’s not an adequate account of the way things really ARE.

You have to understand the history of women’s congregations to understand how this evolved among them. Most of them, contrary to public assumption, are not theologians or philosophers. Most of them are very sweet well-meaning ex-penmanship teachers. Maiden aunts in habits. And they’ve been angry and they’ve been in an echo chamber for years, cut off from the rest of the world. They need prayers and correction.