Religious Sisters' Letter to Congress in support of HHS mandate

[iloveangels]

Where does it say in church law that I have to contribute specifically to the Daughters of Charity, which is Sr. Keehan’s congregation?

I know about the precepts of the Church, but they don’t say anything specifically about the DC or any one particular congregation. In fact, they’re quite general and simply ask that each of us contribute to the “Church.”

Is any particular congregation, properly speaking, the same exact thing as the “Church?” More precisely, are the statements and goals of any particular congregation the exact same thing as those of the “Church?” If this is true, precisely in what way is it true?

Also, you know, sometimes congregations go out of existence. If they are synonymous with the “Church” what does this mean?

---

Digging a little bit to find out some details about this precept and what it might mean for a layperson:

1. Help provide for the needs of the Church.
   Commentary: While the Church has the innate right to require from the faithful whatever is necessary to support its legitimate temporal activities (1983 CIC 1260), in fact it rarely exercises this authority. Rather, it leaves to individual Catholics the right to determine precisely when and how they will assist with the temporal needs of the Church (1983 CIC 222, 1261, 1262, 1266). The obvious lack of specificity in these canons, however, should not be taken as a sign that they may be, for all practical purposes, ignored. Sunday collections, annual appeals, spontaneous offerings, bequests and wills, and so on are all ways that Catholics have to satisfy this precept of support. Note that offerings given for a specific purpose can be used by Church authorities only for that purpose (1983 CIC 1267).
   canonlaw.info/precepts_noaudio.htm

---

And so:

As a layperson, I have responsibilities that are different from those of consecrated religious. And part of my responsibility is to bring the Church to the world, in a prayerful but responsible way, a way in concert with the wishes and statements of my own bishop in my own diocese. I question whether the support of St. Keehan’s political views is a “legitimate temporal activity” (1983 CIC 1260).

1983 CIC 1260: “The church has the inherent right to acquire from the faithful whatever is necessary for its proper objective.” Is its proper objective, at this point in time, to allow Sr. Keehan to violate the expressed will of every bishop in the USA, as well as my own bishop? I don’t think so. I also know that it is not the proper objective of the Church to allow abortion, euthanasia and contraception.

I think I should donate, but avoid donating in any way that might benefit the activities of Sr. Keehan. In fact, I think it’s a duty.

I don’t have anything to say about what the bishops do with the money at their commands. But I have a responsibility to give wisely, a duty to give wisely, while listening to my own bishop. It’s part of the lay vocation.

 

[iloveangels]

What will happen is that if the DC sees that their leader, Sr. Keehan, is causing them to lose money and lose favor with the general public, they will have to come to terms with this. They have a variety of choices. Women’s religious orders have been rather open with these choices they’ve made. Many documents and case histories are on the internet.

1. They can elect better leadership and comply with the Church.
2. They can sever their apostolates from the Church religiously, but go on using the Catholic name and reputation for as long as the bishops (and the laity who are getting smarter) will put up with this nonsense.
3. They can sever their apostolates from the Church religiously and also in name, turning them over to a lay board and getting the profits without questions.
4. They can go secular, hook, line and sinker, like some congregations have, hoping that people will still come to them for retreats etc and they can survive as non-denominational spirituality outfits. It’s been done a number of times, and it does tend to work if they are very “soft” about it. People don’t know their faith.

And Br JR, you and I both know that all this leadership business within large women’s religious orders is no walk in the park. In many congregations, it’s intensely political and ideological, particularly in the women’s orders. This is 2012. It’s unfortunate but that’s how it is.

 

[JReducation]

iLoveAngels

There are two canonical points in your two posts, which are valid.

Let’s look at the financial support first. Canon law requires the faithful to support the Church. This is done through their parish, which filters to their diocese. The bishops are bound to financially support any apostolate that they entrust to religious. This money comes from the people of the diocese. For that reason, one cannot attempt to punish a community, in order to punish an individual. It’s ineffective and unfair to many other people, mostly to the needy.

The second point has to do with the authority of the Daughters of Charity over their sisters. Canonically, the Daughters of Charity have no authority over their sisters. The Daughters of Charity are consecrated women, but they are neither a religious congregation, nor a religious order. Canonically, they are not religious sisters nor nuns. They don’t meet the canonical criteria for either type of consecrated woman. But they are legitimately Catholic consecrated women.

They do not have superiors. The have never had superiors. St. Vincent de Paul deliberately founded the society this way to protect them from intrusion by the laity and the clergy and it allowed them the freedom not to adopt the vows and life of nuns. This liberated them to take care of the poor and to live anywhere. They have never lived in convents.

There no such thing as a higher authority who will be hurt here. They are not allowed to have such leadership. The Daughters of Charity answer directly to the Superior General of the Vincentian Fathers. He appoints a council to handle the day to day affairs of the society. But neither he, nor the council have authority over the individual sisters. Each sister is autonomous. I’m not sure how the do everything. My guess is that it must be by consensus, like the Dominicans and the Jesuits.

The Daughters of Charity cannot sever their apostolates from the Church. Only a bishop can server an apostolate by declaring that it is no longer Catholic.

In the case of the Daughters of Charity, this would not work, because they have no apostolate of their own. St. Vincent de Paul set them up so that they run apostolates for the Church, unlike other communities of women that have their own apostolates. That came long after St. Vincent de Paul was dead. Trying to punish the Daughters is really punishing the Church. These are the Church’s apostolates.

Here is the other canonical point. No bishop has the authority to remove an entire community from an apostolate, once he has given it over to that community to run. He has to support it. That money comes from the lay faithful. He has to protect the apostolate, meaning to make sure that it is not mismanaged. He can ask the superior to move an individual. He cannot remove the entire community, even though the apostolate belongs to the diocese. Removing the entire community constitutes suppression. Bishops may not suppress institutes of Pontifical Right, whether they are secular or religious. The bishop cannot ban the OFS from his diocese, for example. Only the Holy Father can do that. The Daughters of Charity are a society of Pontifical Right.

What is left for bishops? They can certainly make policies for their dioceses. If the policies are in conflict with the community, then the community has to resolve its conflict. This means that the community changes its policies or the community leaves the diocese. This only works when the community works in apostolates owned by the diocese, not in apostolates owned by the community. The Daughters of Charity do not have their own apostolates. They work for dioceses or for non-profit Catholic institutions: hospitals, schools, universities, shelters, soup kitchens, children’s homes, orphanages, etc. They traditionally work with the poorest of the poor. They are the largest community of consecrated women in the world, with over 20,000 sisters and I don’t know how many branches that have spun off from the, such as the Sisters of Charity.

Even Sister Carol, as much as I disagree with her on this issue, I have to admit that I saw her do great work for the poor in Washington, DC. She and I were stationed there at the same time, next door to each other. I have never met her. However, Providence Hospital, which she ran, our ministry to the disabled and the Missionaries of Charity’s home for HIV patients were adjacent. Sister Carol arranged for all of our people to receive free and unlimited care at Providence Hospital. She also created a system (don’t ask me how) that paid for healthcare for the poor in the area, when insurance was not enough or when they had no insurance. Her hospital became a haven for the poorest people in Washington. The other option was the state run hospital, which at that time was a disaster.

In fidelity to what our Holy Father St. Francis taught me, I have to say the full truth here. I strongly disagree with CHA, which she represents. I have to say it that way, because I’m assuming that the people at the top of CHA must talk to each other. I have not heard anyone from CHA say that Sr. Carol is not representing them. Until they say so, I will disagree with CHA.

I also have to say that she has a record of caring for the poor and making things happen for their benefit. She has a reputation for being an excellent nurse, which I never experienced since she was not my nurse. She has a reputation for being an excellent and compassionate hospital administrator, which I did see with my own eyes.

As I said, Our Holy Father Francis always told us to be the humblest of people. Humility is honesty. I cannot just disagree with someone without also applauding the good that they have done. To do other wise, would be unjust and lacking in humility on my part.

Fraternally,

Br.JR, OSF

 

[iloveangels]

I understand what you are saying, Br JR.

Christ didn’t give the Church a mission that is primarily political, social, economic or material, however. The mission of the Church is to proclaim the Gospel to the whole world, starting with ourselves and extending out to everyone. This affects the economic, social, political and material circumstances of the world, because these are the things that we must use to preach the Gospel. These are the things at hand in the order of human culture and natural law.

From a Franciscan standpoint, I recognize that the charism speaks of becoming one of the poor in solidarity with the poor because everyone has value in the eyes of God, as well as becoming one of the poor to see and recognize God more readily. Directness and honesty are some of the wonderful attributes of the Franciscan way. However, the goal is not poverty as an end in itself, however, but poverty for the sake of the Gospel.

In like manner, for a religious entity whose apostolates involve health care, health care cannot be the main goal, for that would make them no different than their peers in the health care industry who are operating from a financial, personal or professional standpoint, without membership in a religious entity. The goal is not health care as an end in itself, but rather, health care for the sake of the Gospel.

For a Christian, being wonderful at the tasks one performs only has meaning to the degree that the tasks contribute to their ultimate goal, which is the Christian goal. Other goals can only be only intermediate goals, stepping stones to the ultimate goal, which is to preach and fulfill the Gospel mandate that Christ has given us, starting with ourselves and extending out to everyone.

IF and when we are operating outside that understanding, it’s important that we realize it and evaluate honestly what that might mean for us.

 

[iloveangels]

There’s an interesting word being used in the religious women’s world today. It’s “sojourning.” Anyone interested in the topic of women’s religious orders and the apostolates that they have historically had should google this word and read the articles. It’s enlightening.

There is, in particular, one paper delivered as a LCWR keynote address at their meeting on 8/2/2007.

Also see:
catholickey.blogspot.com/2009/09/how-to-leave-church-and-keep-deed.html
benedictinewomen.org/

I don’t agree with this at all. Just letting you know what’s going on.

 

[JReducation]

There’s an interesting word being used in the religious women’s world today. It’s “sojourning.” Anyone interested in the topic of women’s religious orders and the apostolates that they have historically had should google this word and read the articles. It’s enlightening.

There is, in particular, one paper delivered as a LCWR keynote address at their meeting on 8/2/2007.

Also see:
catholickey.blogspot.com/2009/09/how-to-leave-church-and-keep-deed.html
benedictinewomen.org/

I don’t agree with this at all. Just letting you know what’s going on.

I understand and agree with what you’re saying. My point was that even though Sister and I disagree today, because of this issue. I cannot simply ignore the fact that I have seen a compassionate and very Vincentian side to her.

I want to avoid falling into the trap of anger. When we fall into that trap, we loose perspective and we only see the negative as if the positive is annulled. That’s not how God looks at us. he does not annul those moments of fidelity and love. He looks at our strengths and our weaknesses, our accomplishments and our failures. In the end, Jesus tells us that we’re going to be judged by our compassion toward the voiceless. “I was hungry . . . I was naked . . . I was in prison . . . I was a foreigner . . . I was sick . . .” etc.

Even when someone is seriously mistaken, the Franciscan has a moral duty to point to the world those moments when he saw Christ through this person. St. Augustine once said that if we cannot love enough to see the good in another person, we should not speak when they err., for our testimony would be unjust. He meant that we have to to point to the errors and the virtues, not just to the errors.

Before being a pro-lifer, I am a Franciscan. In fact, I’m a pro-lifer, because I AM a Franciscan. Being a Franciscan has shaped my world view and my view of human beings. I cannot look at Sister Carol and forget what I saw and just berate her for what she is doing today. Francis would never do that.

There was another thread in which a parishioner at a Franciscan run parish was confused as to why the friars were supportive of overturning the mandate, but were not engaged in the activity to do so. He or she, did not understand when the friar explained that a Franciscan is never pushy, no matter how noble the cause. That idea of calm, balance and detachment is often lost on people. Without those three, one can fall into the pit of anger and hatred, which is not the same as responsible indignation. Responsible indignation is always fair.

Fraternally,

Br.JR, OSF

 

[iloveangels]

The LCWR does not like me. I can’t imagine why.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[iloveangels]

I understand and agree with what you’re saying. My point was that even though Sister and I disagree today, because of this issue. I cannot simply ignore the fact that I have seen a compassionate and very Vincentian side to her.

I want to avoid falling into the trap of anger. When we fall into that trap, we loose perspective and we only see the negative as if the positive is annulled. That’s not how God looks at us. he does not annul those moments of fidelity and love. He looks at our strengths and our weaknesses, our accomplishments and our failures. In the end, Jesus tells us that we’re going to be judged by our compassion toward the voiceless. “I was hungry . . . I was naked . . . I was in prison . . . I was a foreigner . . . I was sick . . .” etc.

Even when someone is seriously mistaken, the Franciscan has a moral duty to point to the world those moments when he saw Christ through this person. St. Augustine once said that if we cannot love enough to see the good in another person, we should not speak when they err., for our testimony would be unjust. He meant that we have to to point to the errors and the virtues, not just to the errors.

Before being a pro-lifer, I am a Franciscan. In fact, I’m a pro-lifer, because I AM a Franciscan. Being a Franciscan has shaped my world view and my view of human beings. I cannot look at Sister Carol and forget what I saw and just berate her for what she is doing today. Francis would never do that.

There was another thread in which a parishioner at a Franciscan run parish was confused as to why the friars were supportive of overturning the mandate, but were not engaged in the activity to do so. He or she, did not understand when the friar explained that a Franciscan is never pushy, no matter how noble the cause. That idea of calm, balance and detachment is often lost on people. Without those three, one can fall into the pit of anger and hatred, which is not the same as responsible indignation. Responsible indignation is always fair.

Fraternally,

Br.JR, OSF

I understand. It’s also important, I think, to remember that the Church has been around for 2000 years and this is not the only crisis we’ve faced by far. I know that the situation has been brought about by ignorance and evil in society, but I also believe that no matter what happens, God will work with the results because he always does. All is never lost permanently.

That said, I am working to do what I can to let people know that this turn of events in American life is wrong. This is no time to be passive and let things just happen to us. Laypeople have an obligation to do what they can, as long as they keep it in perspective and remember why they’re doing it.

Perhaps you’ve heard this old story, but probably not everyone who comes in here has:

A man was caught in his house in a flood, so he said, “God, God, please save me.” And lo and behold, a boat of people came floating by, and the people asked him to get in. He said, “No, God’s going to save me.” The water kept getting higher. Then a helicopter came and offered to pick him up, but he said, “No, God’s going to save me.” Well, to make a long story short, this guy died because of the flood. The man, crestfallen, found himself at his judgment and he asked, “God, God, why didn’t you save me?” Then God said, “I sent you a boat and a helicopter, for Pete’s sakes. Why didn’t you get in?”

Old saying: God helps them that helps themselves. Which is to say, that we probably have an obligation to at least try to make this situation better.

 

[JReducation]

In 1981 I gave a talk at a Pro-Life Rally. I spoke about the role of mothers in the life of the Church. How God brings humanity into existence through Eve. Sarah gives birth the promised son of Abraham. Rebecca gives birth to Israel. Elizabeth gave birth to John the Baptist and finally Miriam gives birth to Jesus. Had these women chosen against motherhood, there would have been no covenant, no redemption and no future for humanity.

At the end of my talk, the leaders of this group came up to me and berated me over the coals for offending women. I can’t even remember what part they took offense too. All I know is that they did not like me and when I have spoken at these events, I don’t get get a sense of warm and fuzzy from them. I have no idea why not, because I have great respect for the work that sisters do and I’m one of the strongest advocates for sisters when people bash them.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[iloveangels]

In 1981 I gave a talk at a Pro-Life Rally. I spoke about the role of mothers in the life of the Church. How God brings humanity into existence through Eve. Sarah gives birth the promised son of Abraham. Rebecca gives birth to Israel. Elizabeth gave birth to John the Baptist and finally Miriam gives birth to Jesus. Had these women chosen against motherhood, there would have been no covenant, no redemption and no future for humanity.

At the end of my talk, the leaders of this group came up to me and berated me over the coals for offending women. I can’t even remember what part they took offense too. All I know is that they did not like me and when I have spoken at these events, I don’t get get a sense of warm and fuzzy from them. I have no idea why not, because I have great respect for the work that sisters do and I’m one of the strongest advocates for sisters when people bash them.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Catholics must never forget that Mary was the most perfect human being who wasn’t also a member of the Trinity.* And she bore Christ. Christ was a child born out of the natural order, ie. his father was not Joseph, nor any other mortal man. Mary and Joseph were pro-life. There is no better reason to be pro-life.

Okay, there’s also another one for me. My father was the 9th of 10 kids. I don’t believe in birth control or abortion. Rather obviously that would have been a problem for me, no?

*Note that Mary was not a man. She was a woman. The Church is very pro-woman. Very. Christ was true man and true God. As a true man, Christ had Mary’s DNA, 100% hers. Think about that. None of Joseph’s. SHE was the “God-bearer” and the model for all of us.

 

[JReducation]

I understand. It’s also important, I think, to remember that the Church has been around for 2000 years and this is not the only crisis we’ve faced by far. I know that the situation has been brought about by ignorance and evil in society, but I also believe that no matter what happens, God will work with the results because he always does. All is never lost permanently.

That said, I am working to do what I can to let people know that this turn of events in American life is wrong. This is no time to be passive and let things just happen to us. Laypeople have an obligation to do what they can, as long as they keep it in perspective and remember why they’re doing it.

That is fine, but as a Franciscan we must remind others that while they’re struggling correct a wrong, they must never forget love. I am reminded of St. Maximilian Kolbe. He hated what the Nazi state was doing to the Jews and to Poland. When he heard that they were coming to inspect his operation he ordered the friars to prepare the best meal that money could buy and to remain totally silent. Later, he explained. “These men are wrong, but at some point in their lives they must have also done some good. We must reward that good in order to soften their conscience.”

The man has been proposed to be the next Doctor of the Church for his theology of detachment even in times of crisis and oppression. He always said, “Do what must be done, but do not let your feelings get involved. Focus on the Immaculate and love as she loves, without resentment and without judgment. If you’re feelings get involved, you have failed Christ and Francis. Christ ignored his fear and anger. Instead, he took up his cross. Francis has taught us the way to do the same.”

The laity has to do the right thing. That includes putting aside their feelings toward the people on the other side and focusing on what needs to b done to restore what is right. Our feelings for the people on the other side must be those of St. Max toward the Nazis. Imitate the love of the Immaculate Heart, which loves without judgment, without anger and without vindictiveness.

Fraternally,

Br.JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Catholics must never forget that Mary was the most perfect human being who wasn’t also a member of the Trinity.* And she bore Christ. Christ was a child born out of the natural order, ie. his father was not Joseph, nor any other mortal man. Mary and Joseph were pro-life. There is no better reason to be pro-life.

Okay, there’s also another one for me. My father was the 9th of 10 kids. I don’t believe in birth control or abortion. Rather obviously that would have been a problem for me, no?

*Note that Mary was not a man. She was a woman. The Church is very pro-woman. Very. Christ was true man and true God. As a true man, Christ had Mary’s DNA, 100% hers. Think about that. None of Joseph’s.

That’s why I spoke about the importance of motherhood in salvation history. From Eve to Miriam.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF