Terrific Article by Sr. Sandra Schneiders

[anode]

…in today’s NCR:

ncronline.org/news/women/why-they-stayed

Worth reading whether you’re rad or trad. She is a brilliant thinker and writer, an IHM, a member of the order sponsoring the blog …www.anunslife.org which will feature a life radio discussion tomorrow and has a lot of stuff going on all the time, plus a vocation forum of its own.

 

[diggerdomer]

…in today’s NCR:

ncronline.org/news/women/why-they-stayed

Worth reading whether you’re rad or trad. She is a brilliant thinker and writer, an IHM, a member of the order sponsoring the blog …www.anunslife.org which will feature a life radio discussion tomorrow and has a lot of stuff going on all the time, plus a vocation forum of its own.

Great article, thanks!

 

[Hidden_One]

I wouldn’t call it quite so terrific.

I was suspicious, admittedly, going in - after all, Sr. Schneiders was the one that sent the widely publicized email to others that basically said, “Keep the Visitation from doing any probing”. (I would advise all reading this post to read the OP’s link before reading any further.)

My suspicions were confirmed.

Furthermore, religious life, including the behavior of its members, is no longer hidden in cloistered dwellings but is reasonably open to the view of both laity and clergy.

Unless, of course, you happen to now be a cloistered religious. Not that there are many (and most of them aren’t fans of Sr. Schneiders’ viewpoint).

But there is nothing intrinsic to religious life about a particular type of clothing or dwelling or ministry.

This remark is scary. Scary because, though, for example, the chasuble is not intrinsic to the priesthood, neither should it be removed from priests nor should it be worn by, say, women religious.

I note that, by her mini-essay against the habit, Sr. Schneiders brings in an item that doesn’t have anything to do with her topic… unless it does, and she’s on the defensive, putting up counter arguments before her opponents (and that is the right word) bring it up.

He brought down the murderous ire of the hierarchy of his own religious tradition because, among other things, he related to women as equals and involved them along with men in his ministry, reached out to the “disordered” and marginalized in his society, laid healing hands on the suffering, conversed with and allowed himself to be challenged and changed by people outside his own religious tradition, refused to condemn anyone, however “sinful,” except religious hypocrites burdening people with obligations beyond their strength.

Sr. Schneiders, alas, has been reading too many Protestant anti-Catholic apologists (who have a habit of calling us Pharisees). Jesus condemned plenty more than the “scribes and Pharisees”, and His followers kept that up in the rest of the New Testament.

I suggest that Sr. Schneiders is setting this up as a pre-defense against the “murderous ire” of the Vatican which she suspects will fall upon some of the American women religious… particularly the LCWR.

It is the ecclesiastical analogue of a grand jury indictment, set in motion when there is reasonable suspicion, probable cause, or a prima facie case of serious abuse or wrong-doing of some kind.

This is definitely the case. Definite, at least, to those who are thoroughly orthodox, proper-liturgy-preferring Catholics who are obedient to the Pope and proper authorities.

There are currently several situations in the U.S. church that would justify such an investigation (widespread child sexual abuse by clerics, episcopal cover-ups of such abuse, long term sexual liaisons by people vowed to celibacy, embezzlement of church funds, cult-like practices in some church groups) but women religious are not significantly implicated in any of these.

Interesting to note that the first 4 of 5 situations that she lists are traditional arguments against both obeying bishops and the celibate priesthood.

Religious are disturbed by the implied accusation of wrong-doing that the very fact of being subjected to an apostolic visitation involves, especially because the “charges” are vague or non-existent.

Here I sympathize. Sort of. She knows full well what the Apostolic Visitation is looking for, so do I, so does the Pope, and so does just about everyone paying close attention. That said, the Vatican could have simply said it all publicly… but imagine how that would be spun in the press, and the even stronger revolt from the religious in question!

The characteristics of a grand jury indictment process (which have led most modern western countries to abolish the grand jury as a judicial instrument) are that the grand jury can compel witnesses to testify under oath; proceedings are secret; defendants and/or their counsel may not hear the witness against them.

This is hardly the world’s first apostolic visitation. It’s a very good tool. Note her phrasing… in this article, she consistently tries very hard to make it look like the women religious in America are being tried for a crime that they do not commit. (This doesn’t square with her earlier, emailed advice to block the Visitor’s investigations.)

A number of features of the current investigation of religious are problematic or repugnant to intelligent, educated, adult women in western society.

Thus, any woman who supports the visitation is not an intelligent, educated, adult woman in Western society. Hmmm…

The religious leaders discovered that their orders and members were under investigation by reading about it in the secular press.

Shouldn’t they have been reading Catholic press? I kid. Sorta.

And Americans could hardly not see this tactic as a kind of “sting” operation in which enforcement personal raid suspects who are already deemed guilty, using the element of surprise to prevent escape, hiding of evidence, or defense.

Alas, many women’s religious have sided with those - like Sr. Schneiders - who advocate defense against the Visitation.

Religious are not trying to escape since they are all in religious life by their own choice.

This is an entirely illogical sentence.

The evidence of the quality of their lives is the hospice patients they comfort, the students they teach, the directees and retreatants they counsel, the poor they feed, the sick they nurse, their peace work and justice advocacy, the research and art they produce.

On items 2, 3, 6, and 7, there are clearly systemic problems. Widespread heresy, New Age practices, promotion of liturgical deviance, and a spirit of rebellion will do that. I’m not painting all American women’s religious congregations with this brush… but a substantial number.

In other words, whatever the Vatican may have intended, the initiation of this “visitation” was calculated to appear to many Americans, Catholic and others, inside and outside religious life, not as an invitation to respectful and fruitful dialogue and ongoing improvement of their lives but as an unwarranted surprise attack.

Great. The old “say it, say something else, conclude as if it’s been proved” argumentative routine. In my highschool you could fail essays doing that consistently, and it was hard to fail anything in it. Her wording, as usual, was specifically chosen to paint the Vatican in as bad a light as possible.

 

[Hidden_One]

This investigation, however, targeted indiscriminately all 60,000 or more U.S. women religious in some 400 orders.

A clear indication of at least suspicion that there are systematic problems. I’ll note that Sr. Schneiders ignores in her article the Apostolic Visitation of the American seminaries that this follows on the heels of. Apparently, large-scale visitations can still produce worthwhile results. (Admittedly, this one is larger than that last one.)

It would be equivalent to setting out to investigate all sacramentally married people in the United States, or all the priests and bishops of every diocese in the country.

There are a sight more than 60,000 sacramentally married people in the US of A.

But the implication that whatever abuse is being investigated is so widespread and deep-rooted among religious that all of them must be investigated is deeply disturbing if not insulting.

I think that the possibility of the implication being true ought to be disturbing on a rather different level. (Or, less diplomatically: Guess what? The Pope’s still not a fan of SoV2 religious!)

These women, who have no obligation to be or remain religious, have given 30, 40, 50, 60, even 70 years of their lives in largely unremunerated service to the church and its members.

So?

What could possibly justify such universal suspicion?

Widespread heresy, liturgical deviance, disobedience to the hierarchy, dozens of thousands of missing women religious…

Religious then learned that a single “visitator” had been appointed, without any consultation, for the entire population.

The point was to avoid having a visitor who might be tempted to or unable not to give the all-clear in situations where it should not be given.

Her competence might indeed be astounding. But she was an unknown among U.S. women religious who include in their number a virtual “hall of fame” of outstanding, highly credible women who might have been tapped for this sensitive role.

Precisely why she was picked.

The visitator is unknown because she has spent a good part of her mature religious life outside this country and belongs to a small order with one small province in the United States.

Bonus.

But could any one person, however talented and experienced, no matter what group she belonged to, questioning subjects without the presence of any witnesses and rendering secret reports which the subjects may not verify even for accuracy much less “tone” or “inference,” possibly carry out a task of such scale and scope?

Apparently, yes.

Nevertheless, leaders of religious orders made good faith efforts to cooperate with a process that is hardly comprehensible to people not living in a totalitarian political system.

A good deal of Catholics in the States (and elsewhere in non-totalitarian regimes) understand it just fine. Notice the dig at the Vatican in there? Also, Sr. Schneiders has, as i have and will continue to mention as long as is necessary, advocated against a good faith effort whatsoever. I contend that she is doing so more subtly in this essay (than in that email).

They then found out that phase three of the investigation would involve “site visitations” (of congregations chosen by the single investigator) by teams composed by the single investigator from a pool of nominees who must swear a loyalty oath, not to the people being investigated whose reputations and ministries are at stake, but to the investigating authority (the Holy See).

Sounds good to me. Can anyone explain why these people might be expected to swear an oath of loyalty to the investigated? Isn’t this a bit like the LC vow not to criticize superiors, only worded less directly?

Understandably, many religious – congregations as a whole, superiors, and individual religious – declined the invitation to make any kind of loyalty oath to any human being (they have all made lifelong vows to God which they consider quite adequate) or to investigate their fellow religious and write secret reports about them.

I could have sworn that normal vows of obedience referenced not just direct obedience to God but to religious superiors, whoever those may be at the time.

But that leaves open the unsettling possibility or even likelihood that those who are willing to become site visitators will have views of religious life, authority, and justice quite different from those they investigate.

Sr. Schneiders fails to demonstrate that this is a problem.

Furthermore, the orders selected for site visitations have been asked to pay the transportation and other expenses of those sent to investigate them!

The one quibble that Sr. Schneiders and I both have with the Visitation. Not that such expenditures are likely to be a problem in the slightest for most of those congregations.

Each successive element of the visitation has elicited more gasps of shock and disbelief from American women used to a legal system that, despite its grave flaws, espouses transparency, protects the rights of the accused, and is based on an assumption of innocence.

Sr. Schneiders adds to her charges against the Visitation: now it fails to protect whatever rights it is that the women religious actually have in all this. Meanwhile, I find and have found Sr. Schneiders to be attacking the rights of the Holy See that it most definitely does have.

All heads of orders will be required to answer in writing a long, detailed questionnaire which will surely consume a great deal of valuable time that congregational leaders should be devoting to their very heavy primary responsibilities: spiritual leadership of their congregations, fostering community, supporting ministry, caring for their members both active and infirm, and trying to handle the enormous financial challenges facing most orders today.

I imagine that most bishops are used to obscene amounts of paper work without cause, and this is paperwork with plenty of cause (a fact that Sr. Schneiders admittedly disputes).

 

[Hidden_One]

Being asked to address a list of “one-size-fits-all” questions is not only a questionable consumption of valuable personal, community, and ministerial time and energy but implies that religious have been living in a state of superficial distraction or self-delusion from which they need to be awakened by mandated self-examination.

This is a whopper. The questionnaire is probably so long in part so that it fits all congregations properly. Also, it is a common and reasonably credible accusation that many religious do and have lived in a state of superficial distraction or self delusion from which they ought to be awakened by whatever possible and licit means. I might even count Sr. Schneiders as one of these people, depending on the day. I note that self-examinations of conscience have their most immediate and primary effect on those who are unaware that they have issues.

These inquiries run much deeper than the mechanical questions on the Instrumentum.

Admittedly, I have not read the Instrumentum.

At the end of all this investigation, including the site visitations of phase three, the single investigator will (apparently without the help of anyone) synthesize all this material and write a comprehensive secret report on the whole of ministerial religious life in this country to the Vatican.

Mother Clare Millea definitely has help.

To many, this investigation appears, at the very least, astonishing, if not downright mind-boggling in the unprofessionalism of its process.

I find it rather professional. The chief problem here is that Sr. Schneiders doesn’t like either the chief professional or her employers.

Perhaps the most commonly voiced hypothesis of both lay and religious, is that the purpose of the investigation is to ascertain the size and status of the financial assets of religious orders of women in order to enable the U.S. bishops to take possession of those assets to pay their legal debts.

One I’d never before encountered before reading her work, and one that is patently absurd, against a nice long list of rules, and would involve a level of pandering of the Holy See to the American bishops never before seen.

Even if there is no validity to this hypothesis (and I dearly hope there is not) it is distressing that Catholics’ confidence in their hierarchy has been so eroded that they suspect their bishops of wishing to further impoverish religious orders struggling to support their elderly and infirm members.

So eroded by people like Sr. Schneiders, if this essay is anything to go on.

Another frequently voiced hypothesis, with perhaps more credibility, is that Cardinal Franc Rodé, the head of Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, wants to mandate for all women religious a return to pre-conciliar lifestyles akin to those in his eastern European homeland under Communism.

Here, Sr. Schneiders gives out a hypothesis closer to the truth. The Visitation aims to undo the damage done by the widespread misinterpretation and misapplication of Vatican II - aka, the Spirit of Vatican II. This would cause communites to become more like those in the Pre-Conciliar era by default.

Note Sr. Schneiders illogical link to Communism. (Hmmm, totalitarian regime? A theme?)

Again, the suspicion is not without some basis in remarks the cardinal has made publicly, but there is no proof of such an intention and, in any case, such a move would surely occasion far more trouble than the Vatican probably wants to deal with.

A threat if I ever read one. And you can bet that she’ll refer to this ‘prophetic’ essay if and when push comes to shove.

There seems to be an implied “cause and effect” relation between these two concerns, namely, that the decline in numbers is somehow due to the poor quality of the life of religious.

The plural of anecdote isn’t data, but aside from that, such a “cause and effect” is surely there!

It is true that the numbers of U.S. women religious declined precipitously, by tens of thousands, from the highpoint (at least 120,000) in the mid-sixties to something around 60,000 today.

Actually, 120,000 was 1980’s. the 60’s was dozens of thousands more than that.

Indeed, it was closer to today’s “low point.”

Albeit, percentage-wise, it was noticeably higher.

The U.S. bishops insisted that parents were morally obliged to send those children to Catholic schools which were almost totally staffed by the unpaid workforce of women religious.

Vow of poverty, remember?

Post-Humanae Vitae (ironically, this document reiterating the ban on “artificial contraception” seemed to precipitate, or at least not prevent, a sharp decrease in the Catholic fertility rate)

One organized, carried out, and supported by numerous “Catholic” professors, especially of seminaries, as well as religious.

Church officials were rapidly closing the “feeder” institutions (Catholic schools) and religious orders were losing their high schools to economic and personnel pressures.

I note the quiet jabbing of the hierarchy.

The bad news in all this, of course, was that by the mid-sixties very few Catholic girls considered religious life and even fewer entered.

Au contraire. In the decade, more than 20,000 did. And in the next, some thousands more.

The huge novitiate classes of 18-year olds disappeared and women entering tended to be in their late 20s or 30s or even older and applying, not as “classes” or “bands,” but as individuals.

After all, that band of young men led by St. Benedict of Nursia had such a disastrous result.

 

[Hidden_One]

But the vast majority, many of whom continue to this day to maintain warm relationships with their former orders and convent classmates, left because they came to realize that they were not called to religious life.

Oh really? I highly doubt that hypothesis. (It’s one that she’s set up for earlier in the essay, though.)

Many realized that they were called to marriage and that celibacy was not required for holiness or for engagement in ministry which was, for many, the main reason they had entered.

Many left because of post-conciliar deforms. “Celibacy not required for holiness”… DUH. Also possible dig at celibate priesthood.

Others wanted careers, financial independence, or personal autonomy incompatible with religious poverty, obedience, and community.

As do plenty that didn’t leave.

But it is important to realize that neither the exodus from religious life nor the decline in numbers entering was due to a sudden deterioration in the quality of religious life.

A premise that she hasn’t actually proved at any point in her essay.

Nor will it be rectified by a retroversion to pre-Conciliar convent lifestyles or disciplinary initiatives of Vatican authorities.

Consequently, Sr. Schneiders will continue to fight the habit and other such pre-Conciliar things and will raise hell if and when genuine discipline occurs. Good to know.

The response, which is and will continue to be arduous, lies with those who have stayed.

That is, the new religious and communities mostly consisting of them - that is, (predominantly) the traditional communities that have experienced great and healthy growth - should be left out of the problem solving process. Shut them up - it’s better for dialogue.

They are carrying the responsibilities of leadership in their orders and supporting with indomitable hope and courage the church-wide but beleaguered effort to keep the spirit and substance of Vatican II from succumbing to the tides of restorationism.

“and substance”… Sr. Schneiders has caught on to the consistent barrages against the concept of the “spirit of Vatican II” and thus says the same thing with more words.

These religious are not hankering for the “good old days,” for a return to special clothes and titles, instant recognition and elite status in church and society, and someone to support them, think for them, and keep their life in order in a turbulent world.

And here she castigates the orders that are actually growing.

The institutional church was repudiating feminism in all its forms; the papacy was engaged in vigorous restorationism; many in and outside the church including some in religious life had resigned themselves to (or rejoiced in) what they saw as “the death of the Council” or the “end of renewal.”

If the papal “restorationism” them was rigorous, she must sure hate the current pontiff. Ont hat note, note the dig against the hierarchy. Sr. Schneiders here very clearly places herself squarely against the “reform of the reform” that finds its champions in Pope Benedict and an increasing number of Cardinals, bishops, and priests advocating the “Benedictine reforms”.

The exciting theologies of liberation and lay ministerial empowerment in the church were being repressed in favor of a renewed clericalism and centralization of power.

Liberation theology has been condemned as heresy and lay ministerial empowerment is directly behind a fair amount of the worldwide priestly vocations crisis as well as of the worldwide collapse of liturgical theology and catechesis.

From a strictly human standpoint it was a bleak time for those who had come of age in the joyous, Spirit-filled enthusiasm of the Council when community, equality of discipleship in the church, commitment to the building of a better world, deepening spirituality, inter-religious dialogue, feminist empowerment were the very air they breathed.

Now she reverts back to the purely-SoVII outlook (no substance). Incidentally, I find it odd that she claims that spirituality deepened after the Council when catechesis went up in smoke and (as an example) St. John of the Cross (hardly a post-Conciliar Saint) alone had a “spirituality” far deeper than nigh anyone living on the planet right now.

From every angle hope was being crushed and old world narrowness, neo-orthodoxy, and Vatican re-centralization were replacing the Spirit-filled, world-affirming, humane spirit of John XXIII and the Council.

Ah, the good ol’ liberal **** that’s, thankfully, dying out with the ageing liberal population.

Elsewhere I have referred to and described in more detail this period as a corporate “dark night of sense and spirit” for women religious. They were experiencing a deep purification of any sense of spiritual superiority (to say nothing of arrogant certainty), of elitism, of corporate power and influence, of “most favored status” or mysterious specialness in the church.

Of course, because of this, women religious have a sort of mysterious specialness… you know, the Dark Night (a concept stolen from the aforementioned St. John of the Cross) involves getting holier. How many Schneiders-esque canddiates are there for Sainthood right now?

They found out experientially why Jesus withdrew to the mountains or the desert in the middle of the night and before dawn to pray, not to “set a good example” for the less spiritual but because he desperately needed God to make it through one more day.

Note the subtle denial of Jesus’ divinity.

Hopefully, the present investigation will make evident to those whose concerns gave rise to it the meaning of religious life as it is being envisioned, lived, and handed on today in Congregations renewed in and by that Pentecostal outpouring of the Spirit called the Second Vatican Council.

Last I checked, the Pentecostals are heretics. I kid. Somewhat.

 

[anode]

You’re not so hidden, Hidden.

There’s a lot of heat and not much light in your remarks.

At random:

The Pentecost doesn’t belong to the Pentecostals. BLESSED John XXIII felt that the Holy Spirit would rain down on the Council. Many believe that it did.

I don’t infer by her remarks that she is denying the divinity of Jesus AT ALL.

Many religious after the council, which affirmed that all baptized are called to holiness, felt that the rug had been pulled out from under them. She is not denying discipline at all, nor is her order, the IHM, which is recruiting successfully, but she is saying that you can’t turn back the clock. That is all she is saying. Anyone knows that. She makes no disparaging remarks about those habited orders that are successfully recruiting.

The secrecy of these investigations is entirely uncalled-for, as is the expectation that the orders investigated PAY for it. AND the orders won’t be able to study the results. Why not? What is all of this for?

You *infer *a great deal more and other than what she said. I suspect that you don’t understand what she is saying. You can’t follow it, so you insinuate. What you’re doing is mounting a vicious attack against a much-respected nun, a teacher of theology at a seminary. These attacks can only serve to divide the much-divided American church. There is nothing heretical in her remarks. Those who, like so many Cardinal McIntyres, are going to try to drum the non-habited orders out of the church, will only lose something very precious as Cardinal McIntyre did.

 

[Hidden_One]

You’re not so hidden, Hidden.

That is, after all, not how my username is meant. I am anonymous, not silent.

The Pentecost doesn’t belong to the Pentecostals. BLESSED John XXIII felt that the Holy Spirit would rain down on the Council. Many believe that it did.

Sr. Schneiders is drawing on the whole Vatican-II-as-new-Pentecost thing, making two distinct and important errors. One: there’s only one Pentecost, and it already happened. The Church already began. It cannot re-begin. Two: equating the pouring out of the Holy Spirit upon something and Pentecost… almost as if the pouring out of the graces of the Holy Spirit was limited to Pentecost.

I don’t infer by her remarks that she is denying the divinity of Jesus AT ALL.

Very well. I do.

Many religious after the council, which affirmed that all baptized are called to holiness, felt that the rug had been pulled out from under them. She is not denying discipline at all, nor is her order, the IHM, which is recruiting successfully, but she is saying that you can’t turn back the clock. That is all she is saying. Anyone knows that.

Apparently, I am not anyone. Same method of argument I addressed in Sr. Schneiders’ article when she referred to educated and intelligent American women.

She makes no disparaging remarks about those habited orders that are successfully recruiting.

She disparages the habit itself and its use. It’s a bit like saying that since Person A only disparaged the usus antiquior and its celebration, said person isn’t implying a disparagement of, say, the FSSP.

The secrecy of these investigations is entirely uncalled-for, as is the expectation that the orders investigated PAY for it. AND the orders won’t be able to study the results. Why not? What is all of this for?

The secrecy is normal. Only a part of it is being paid for by the orders, and I did note that I was in agreement with Sr. Schneiders on that count. The orders won’t be able to study the results unless and until something is made available for them largely, I suspect, so that the Vatican can prepare for their reactions before they occur. Given how the Visitation has been received from the moment of its announcement, I understand this.

You infer a great deal more and other than what she said.

Of course I do. This is not the first document of hers that I have read, and I am not unfamiliar with either certain of her viewpoints or how to be subtle in the written word.

I suspect that you don’t understand what she is saying. You can’t follow it, so you insinuate.

I contend that I “insinuate” precisely because I do have an at least reasonable understanding.

What you’re doing is mounting a vicious attack against a much-respected nun, a teacher of theology at a seminary.

Who, we should note, spent a portion of that essay launching a toothy attack on another much-respected nun, with a curriculum vitae that I, at least, find a good deal more impressive.

These attacks can only serve to divide the much-divided American church.

Defending the actions of Rome and attempting to expose sometimes subtly put-forth ideologies which are harmful to the Church is merely divisive? Not intrinsically, I would hope.

There is nothing heretical in her remarks.

That is your contention; it is not mine.

Those who, like so many Cardinal McIntyres, are going to try to drum the non-habited orders out of the church, will only lose something very precious as Cardinal McIntyre did.

I, though not very familiar with that particular situation, note that it was the Vatican that - with Pope Paul VI’s blessing - forced so many unrelenting nuns to leave. (Further, I note that that particular issue was not merely one of a habit.)

That said, I do not intend to drum habitless nuns out of the Church, even were that in my power.

 

[Ohiomom]

Interesting. Alot of words…reminds me of the denial tactics of my teenager.

She does not seem to address that there is reason for concern since the congregations in the LCWR are rapidly aging and decreasing due to a lack of vocations and it is not just because Catholics have fewer children now. Can you say CMSWR?

 

[anode]

Interesting. A lot of words…reminds me of the denial tactics of my teenager.

She does not seem to address that there is reason for concern since the congregations in the LCWR are rapidly aging and decreasing due to a lack of vocations and it is not just because Catholics have fewer children now. Can you say CMSWR?

Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious. I don’t know how to shorten it. They are an umbrella organization for communities regarded as being more ‘conservative’, of which the habit seems to be the main criterion. There are 103 listed on Institute for Religious Life, which seems to be CMSWR’s vocational arm. Many are very small, mainly based abroad with a house in the US. Their list includes many single houses of the Discalced Carmelites, Poor Clares, and 3 Visitations.

I have decided to look more closely at who is entering these congregations, judging from the websites, the Guide (To Religious Ministries) and the community profiles in IRL, which wisely includes only* professed members.* I assume they mean* finally *professed, not including those in temporary profession. This is important.

After the two biggies, the very similar Nashville and Ann Arbor Dominicans, things fall off sharply. The Alton Franciscans, another biggie, had* two* final professions this year. The Sisters of Life–one. Franciscans of the Renewal–one (I think–not totally clear on website), Carmelites of the Sacred Heart of LA–*one. * OLAM, Mother Angelica’s cong, one each for 2007, 2008, 2009, not bad for a single cloistered house, but less than the perception. The IHM’s of Wichita had 3 finals in 2008, very impressive-that from Consecrata, CMSWR’s online quarterly. Not clear about the Valparaiso NE cloistered Carmelites. They have a huge novitiate and 10 professed members and no website, and aren’t listed in IRL or the Guide.

I don’t know where CARA got its stats for the ‘10 in formation’ thing. But ‘10 in formation’ doesn’t matter. All those young shining faces don’t matter in the end—it’s who’s up there at the finals. After all the media fanfare and hoohah, I see a lot of attrition in the CMSWR and relatively low numbers for final professions, lower than is this forum’s perception, excepting the two related Dominican teaching orders. The attrition strikes me as higher than in LCWR’s congregations, which attract fewer with a much higher retention rate.

All of this is interesting to follow. Time will tell. I suspected that things weren’t as they appeared, and feel that the CARA survey, a huge undertaking, wasn’t looking at some important things–numbers of Final Professions, for example, rather than numbers ‘in formation’, which can cover pre-aspirants through those one day before final profession.

None of this justifies Hidden’s vitriolic attacks.

 

[FCEGM]

Thank you, HiddenOne, for your insightful remarks.

 

[Hidden_One]

headscratching

Anyway, at least some of you may find romans8v29.blogspot.com/ 's post “Coming up empty” and the subsequent comments interesting.

 

[FCEGM]

headscratching

Anyway, at least some of you may find romans8v29.blogspot.com/ 's post “Coming up empty” and the subsequent comments interesting.

From the blog:

“It bothers me that even now some of the women who made such rapid, almost frenzied changes in the externals of their life can’t bring themselves to consider the possibility that it may not have proven all that prophetic in the end, or that some values that they did not fully recognize at the time really were compromised.”

An excellent point. They have made their bed - often with some strange bedfellows - and can’t understand now that, no, the Holy Spirit was not with them in their disobedience or outright heresies.

 

[JReducation]

…in today’s NCR:

ncronline.org/news/women/why-they-stayed

Worth reading whether you’re rad or trad. She is a brilliant thinker and writer, an IHM, a member of the order sponsoring the blog …www.anunslife.org which will feature a life radio discussion tomorrow and has a lot of stuff going on all the time, plus a vocation forum of its own.

Sr. Sandra writes a very comprehensive article and clearly explains some valid point. One of her points has been made on these threads over and over again. The number of religious in the first half of the 20th century was not the norm, but the exception. The numbers that we are facing today are the norm fo the USA.

In addition, the fact that women in developed nations have a significant number of choices is very telling. I did notice that she did place a great deal of emphasis on choices that woman can make to serve the ministry. This is where I stronlgy disagree with the Sister Susan. I’m not a sister, but I am a religious brother. I’m a theologian. an educator, a linguist and a psychologist. Both those are gifts that God has given to me, not gifts that I give to God or to the Church. My gift to God and the Church is the gift of total obedience to God as expressed through obedience to my sperior in all a matters but sin.

What I give to God is ot life without a wife and children. I was married and fathered three children. After my wife’s death I entered the order, left the world of secular education and went on to study theology. Consecrated Chastity is about finding someone whom you want to be with from now until eternity. Sister fails to bring up the idea that God calls th religious to consecrate his/her life to him, not to ministry. Chastity constitutes a intimate relatiionship between the individual and God. In her explanation of celibacy, she fails to mention the role of communit life, community prayer, and the religioius tradition of each congregation or order.

One point that she made was for intercongregational religious houses. The problem as I see it is that I joined the Franciscan Brothers of Life to be a Franciscan, not Carmelite. As much as I love the traidtion of Carmel and learn a great deal from my Carmelite friend, we do not live the same way of life. I can’t imagine several hundred religious communities of women whose identifies have morphed so much that you can blend them in one multi-congregational community. Sister Sandra fails to remind her readers that every religious family is a gift from the Holy Spirit to the Church. One has to question whether the members of the religious family have the right to rewrite that spirit. It is one thing to recover it and another to rewrite it. If you rewrite it, then is it still the same religioius family?

I find it disturbing when she speaks of divorce and religious profession of vows. She says that once upon a time it would have been as inconceiveable for a religious to leave the religiouse life as it would have been to get a divorce. This is not quite accurate.

I don’t know how Sister’s profession of vows went, but mine went this way?

"I Brother N, vow and promise to Almight God, to Blessed Mary ever Virgin, to our holy Father St. Francis, to the Church and you Brother, observe the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Chris, livingin obedience to you Brother and all the canonically elected successors of of our holy Father Francis, to live without property and to live in chastity as a Brother of Life, and to observe the Rule and Constitutions of the Friars Minor until death.

Where is the option to leave? You have given you pledge until death do you part, as you would in marriage, unless you’re going to advocate that people can move in and out of commitment. It is understandable that for some people it is better if they leave. But my take on Sister’s article is that religious remain because they have some kind of commitment with God tha bypasses their commitment to the religious family to which they belong, their founder, the sisters that came before them, those who will follow and to the physical Church. I hope I’m not misreading her. But I get a sense that her take on the profession of vows is about some persoal commitment between the religious and Chris, which it is, but there is not enough attention paid to all the other details that make religious life different from other states in life

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[anode]

i am responding to your post, Brother JR, as it is one of the few reasoned responses to Sr. Sandra’s essay that I have read.

In response to your first point, that the call is to the life and not to the ministry, this is true. She says that for Catholic girls in the first half of the twentieth century (approximately) the main choices were marriage or consecrated chastity. Women could train and work as teachers or nurses until they married, and then most of them quit. Those that did not marry and continued to work were pitied as ‘old maids’. All of this started to change in the 1960’s and beyond, when many professions in and out of the Church opened up. The rising divorce rate made it imperative that women learn how to support themselves. As the number of priests dwindled, many laypersons, men and women, took over very responsible positions in their parishes.

In addition, many of those entering before 1950 *were career-oriented. They did *want to teach or nurse. I think that Sr. Sandra described very accurately how those sisters were regarded (I am from this era) as part of an elite, privileged, mysterious group. I doubt that many entering then pondered the theology behind the evangelical counsels. Entering an active community meant training, college, and a professional life and an important position in the Church otherwise unattainable. More about community later.

I believe that Sister ‘s reference to inter-congregational novitiates refers to what is already taking place. There is a Dominican common novitiate, a Franciscan one and I know that at least one Benedictine house spends a year at another novitiate, and I’m not sure it’s Benedictine. I don’t think that she is referring to a common novitiate among different charisms, although it may be possible among smaller orders that have discovered among themselves a common heritage or theme.

I think that the comparison between leaving religious life and divorce is apt, if not precise. Marriage is a sacrament; taking final vows as a woman religious is not. There has always been an option to leave, even if you had to have the vows voided by Rome. Before 1960 and for some years after, you were considered a failure to leave the convent, even before vows. Your order shunned you. Many were summarily kicked out dressed in the clothes they came in, with nothing else, despite years of service. Similarly in the Catholic church before 1960, divorce was impossible -annulments were rare.

I think your last paragraph is contradicted by what she says and my understanding of how these congregations are currently living their lives. I think that they are very devoted to their founders/foundresses, their charisms, which they rediscovered after Vat II, their departed sisters who lived hard lives teaching and working long hours with little support or training, who devoted their lives to their dioceses and congregations. As they age, these sisters are a very loyal tight-knit group, facing their diminishment and, for a few orders, demise, with great fortitude. Examples of new charisms were the Society of the Sacred Heart, founded for poor girls’ education, evolved into rich girls’ education, now refocusing again on the poor. An outstanding example of their fortitude and loyalty can be found in an article in the lay press, probably the New York Times, about life among a group of aging Srs. of St. Joseph, who are dying fearlessly, comforted and cared for by those scarcely any younger than themselves. And if you read the obituaries of various Dominican congregations, you get an idea of how each sister was loved and known intimately.

Sr. Sandra focused her essay on the forthcoming investigations. She didn’t really have the space or time to elaborate on the nature of their lives today. I am sure this will come up in the investigations. Of course, we’ll never know, as the sisters won’t know the contents of the final determinations.

Some other random observations. I don’t think that “Pearl Harbor” is entirely apt, but I think that “kamikaze” is-- an unexpected strike from the sky, at a time when I think that the Vatican has a lot of other more important things to worry about. And apparently the congregations’ finances are going to be examined. These sisters could give lessons in sound fiscal management. They have been stewarding their resources, selling off obsolete, gigantic, asbestos-ridden properties for years, and re-investing their resources in smaller, cost-efficient, multipurpose buildings. They have reconfigured their apostolates as their numbers and resources dwindled, abandoning their insufficiently funded colleges and obsolete hospitals to focus on missions such as giving retreats and spiritual direction, and services to the poor, again in accord with their founding charisms.

 

[JReducation]

i am responding to your post, Brother JR, as it is one of the few reasoned responses to Sr. Sandra’s essay that I have read.

Thank you.

In response to your first point, that the call is to the life and not to the ministry, this is true. She says that for Catholic girls in the first half of the twentieth century (approximately) the main choices were marriage or consecrated chastity. [sic] The rising divorce rate made it imperative that women learn how to support themselves.

Actually, what changed the career lives of women was WW II. Women took over the work force and ran the country. Once the barn door was open, it was just a matter of time. Many husbands and fathers never came home.

As the number of priests dwindled, many laypersons, men and women, took over very responsible positions in their parishes.

Many lay people took over positions in parishes, dioceses, Catholic Education and health care. This is true. But also, changing society placed new demands on the Church for new ministries. With the economic influence of young people in society, a new approach had to be taken to speak to the younger generation and to retain their interest. I believe that youth today are more ready to return to a traditional Catholicism, because they are looking for a challenge in the faith. But not back in the 1960s and 70s. That was another generation of young people who needed to prove to themselves that what they believed was what they chose, not what was available. In this sense, I can understand the choices that they made regarding religious life.

In addition, many of those entering before 1950 *were career-oriented. They did *want to teach or nurse. I think that Sr. Sandra described very accurately how those sisters were regarded (I am from this era) as part of an elite, privileged, mysterious group. I doubt that many entering then pondered the theology behind the evangelical counsels. Entering an active community meant training, college, and a professional life and an important position in the Church otherwise unattainable. More about community later.

It’s a pity that we do not have time and space here to break down the difference between sisters and nuns, as well a religious orders and congregations. This would help the reader understand. Congregations only have sisters. The do not have nuns. Orders can have sisters or nuns. The women religious being visited in the USA belong to congregations, not religious orders. Therefore, they are religious sisters. That’s why it’s been said in these writings that they can leave, because their vows are not sacraments.

That a priori assumption is not entirely true. Even a sister belonging to a congregation must have permission from Church authorities to leave. If she leaves without permission she suffers excommunication the moment she attempts marriage. A nun or a sister who belongs to an order may never validly attempt marriage. Nuns make a solemn vow of chastity. Sisters do not. Sisters make a simple vow of chastity. The solemn vow of chastity trumps the Sacrament of Marriage, because marriage is also a solemn vow. You can’t have two sets of solemn vows that are mutually exclusive. If a religious woman in solemn vows attempts marriage without dispensation, not only is she excommunicated, but her marriage is invalid. Dispensation from a solemn vow (for male or female religious) is rarely given…

I believe that Sister ‘s reference to inter-congregational novitiates refers to what is already taking place. There is a Dominican common novitiate, a Franciscan one and I know that at least one Benedictine house spends a year at another novitiate, and I’m not sure it’s Benedictine.

Those are called intra-biennial novitiates. They are novitiate classes made up o religious of the same religious order or the same religious congregation. Large international religious families, such as the Dominicans, Franciscans, Jesuits and others use these model, usually by language groups, because it promotes fraternity with a larger body that is bigger than a corporation. What I find most interesting is that most of the religious families doing this are not doing it because we are lacking in vocations, but because we’re too large. I can speak for my own religious family. We’re 1.7 million around the world in 114 countries and 7 European language groups.

I guess the question that I’m asking about the way that sisters operate versus religious orders of men is the whole issue of fraternity. In orders of religious men, which are the counterparts to the congregations of sisters (and yet are not because they have a different canonical status) their focus seems to be to build their ministry not around the needs of the world around them, but around their way of life As a male religious I find this phenomenon perplexing.

to be continued

 

[JReducation]

conclusion

If you told most Franciscan friars, from any obedience, that we had to sacrifice living in a friary, the Franciscan habit, the liturgy of the hours in common, community mass, community recreation, live alone for an extended period of time, place the ministry to the laity over and above the time that we must spend in silence, before the Blessed Sacrament, in spiritual reading and lectio divina, doing street ministry, dropping everything to attend the annual community retreat the annual picnic or even be home by a certain time, get permission to travel away from home or ask for money, except for the pocket money that’s in petty cash . . . If you asked he Franciscan friars or the Franciscan nuns to place ministry over their religious family, they would look at you and ask why? It was worked for the salvation of souls for 800 years… Many Franciscan sisters are autonomous religious institutes; therefore, they may form part of an inter-congregational Franciscan federation such as are the Sisters of Mercy.

The Order of Preachers are also getting back to where the mendicant model of life directs ministry, not ministry directs life. We have seen the continued growth of the Dominican Sisters of St. Cecilia and the Dominican Sisters of Mary or the Sisters of Life. Being directs doing such as is the case of other mendicants as are the Missionaries of Charity, the Franciscan Sisters of the Renewal or the Franciscan Sisters of the Immaculate.

When Sister Susan speaks about wearing a specific habit, living in a specific convent or a structured environment I am left with the feeling that she is not willing to reconsider that option, even for the preservation of the religious family to whom she gave her life She’s not alone in this. We’re not talking priests. Many priests are not consecrated religious. The idea that a consecrated man or consecrated women would have such reservations about perpetuating the life and gift that the Holy Spirit has given to the Church through their community baffles me.

I have two very good friends who are Carthusian brothers and my confreres are all Franciscans. I have other religious friends too, also diocesan priests and others too. For the moment, let me share about my two close Carthusian friends. When I get to spend time with them, they can’t even think of being anything other than Carthusian, dressing Carthusian, praying like a Carthusian, practicing the silence and solitude of a Carthusian.

In closing, we must be completely submissive to the Chair of Peter as a sign of our submission the Gospel which only the Church has the power to proclaim In addition, we promise to observe the Gospel. But the hierarchy of the Church is the only legitimate authority that can accept the vows of a religious woman or man. There is no such thing a consecrated life where the vows bypass human authority.

I would share this idea very present in the Acts of the Apostles. Each time an apostle or disciple left the nest and went another part of the Church, they would always be asked by the receiving bishop with the simple question, “Who sent you?” and the candidate would present his letter of introduction, “Paul sent me or James etc).” Each was acknowledged and commissioned by a human authority. I am very uncomfortable with the biblical root where some sisters believe that they need not be sent by the Church. If they need not be sent by the Church, then they need not submit or do they?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[anode]

My remarks apply only to sisters in congregations (or institutes, as CARA refers to them–maybe a better term) I am not talking about nuns, solemn vows, etc., although I believe that my remark that solemn vows can be lifted by Rome (the Pope’s representatives) is correct.

I don’t think that we have to talk about vows/marriage/excommunication here. It’s not in the substance of Sr. Sandra’s essay.

Ditto re the ‘intra-biennial’ novitiates. The point is that these ‘combined novitiates’ are within a charism. The charism is maintained in these combined novitiates, not overridden or denied by creating some sort of generic one-size-fits-all novitiate experience.

The position of men and women religious has been different in the church from the beginning. Women religious were cloistered for centuries. It wasn’t acceptable for devout Catholic women, especially from the educated (usually upper) classes to go out and work among the poor, unless they had a designated religious status of some sort. (Unless you were a queen, like Elizabeth of Hungary). Those who wished to perform apostolic works as religious had to change their status somehow, first as Ursulines, for example, later as the Daughters of Charity did, by taking annual vows and dressing in the local garb. Eventually women were able to form apostolic orders with final (simple) vows ; their apostolates were almost always devoted to the poor, serving them either by direct ministries or by education, usually for girls. Most of these orders were active, not mixed, and in the US they mainly taught, and had minimal structured religious activities during the day; Mass in the morning, usually at the parish church, and some prayers or rosary in the late afternoon. Their evenings, which often ran late, were spent grading papers and preparing lessons. These were the active congregations that I knew growing up; nuns teaching huge classes, often starting in the second novitiate year, after brief teacher training, going to summer school every summer , and very gradually acquiring credits towards their degrees, taking years to earn a bachelor’s , Master’s and Ph.Ds. Nevertheless many did it. There was no liturgy of the hours, recreation, adoration, spiritual reading; there was no time. The bishops wanted more and more sisters to staff their burgeoning schools and the orders responded, This was the life of two orders I knew personally, the BVM’s and the Adrian Dominicans, huge orders, both now in LCWR. The Daughters of Charity and Religious Sisters of Mercy also were huge active orders that had only a few religious observances aside from daily Mass. The Sister Formation Conference was formed to try to put the brakes on this assembly line production of sisters, emphasizing both religious and professional growth. Pius XII exhorted sisters (especially) to modernize and strip away the non-essentials, and Vat II followed suit. The orders re-examined their foundresses’ original documents and charisms and re-discovered that they were meant to serve the poor, not the local bishops or parish schools, Many have specifically gone back to this sort of work, others do a variety of things; some, such as university professors, live apart from their main communities, but many others live in small groups. (I do believe that living alone is the exception, not the rule.) Many, especially the Benedictines, continue to live together, observe the Office, lectio, meals and recreation in common, and perform their works, even though they don’t wear a habit(!) Others discovered that they really did not want to run large institutions even as their numbers dwindled, although the Mercies still run Mercy South, a huge health apostolate. The point is, for the active women’s orders, usually formed in the 19th century in Europe as a response to extreme poverty, their charism consisted of their apostolates, framed in religious formation and observance, but as active sisters. Their way of life was virtually identical to their ministry. Ministry was the way of life of an active Catholic religious sister involved in the apostolic works of her charism. Most of them never said the office, had recreation (as such), daily adoration, or daily lectio. (Some mixed and even contemplatives like the Visitation said the Little Office of the BVM, latter supplanted by the Divine Office).

These sisters were perplexed when the visitations were announced. Apparently many learned about in the their local newspapers. What were they doing wrong? Did the occasional “pagan” ritual-(usually inspired by Celtic Christianity) warrant this? Were they supposed to be wearing wimples? Was there a minimum number of rosaries they were supposed to say? In response to another point you make, regarding the relationship of Sr. Sandra and her congregation , the IHM’s, and other members of the LCWR, have all felt that they have obeyed the Church. They have obeyed the spirit of the great social encyclicals of Leo XIII and John XXIII, and the express stated and written purpose of Pius XII, who initiated the re-founding of their orders, as well as the directives of the archbishops and cardinals of the Second Vatican Council. The Church did exist before JP II and Benedict.

You infer that other orders are more successful in recruiting than the ‘updated’ or ‘reformed’ orders of the LCWR. True to some extent, but at least right now not enough to stem the tide. The two lead orders(Nashville and Ann Arbor OP’s) attract a lot of candidates and have a significant number profess final vows. After that, the numbers drop steeply. The following orders are among those that produce the largest novitiates: In 2009,* two* Franciscans of the Martyr St. George made final profession; one Sister of Life, one Franciscan of the Renewal; *one *Carmelite of the Most Sacred Heart in LA. All of these orders have large novitiates, but comparatively few make it to the end. This may change, of course.

I do which that you could meet and talk to some of the older active members of the LCWR orders, as a religious to a religious. Although I am obviously very interested in all of this, it remains peripheral to my life and profession. What we are debating is also beyond the scope of this forum.

 

[JReducation]

Wow Anode, that was quite a post. There was a wealth of information in it. Thanks for sharing that. I am well aware of the vicissitudes of active women religious, but I’m wondering if this visitation is a breeding ground for the Holy Spirit for a renewal of religious life among women.

I believe that many of the older active congregations will probably gradually evolve into smaller Societies of Apostolic Life, which is a gift to the Church. On the other hand, the rise of the mendicant sisterhoods seems to be the way of the future. I don’t believe that they are every going to have the thousands that were had in the past. I sincerely believe that the Holy Spirit wants these women to more contemplative, more communal, less active, and more involved in a presence rather than a specific ministry. What is going to identify them is their spiritual family, not their ministry.

As a fellow religious, I’m seeing this happen among the male religious. More male communities have left traditional ministries to focus on living according to the spirit of their religious family. Franciscans seem to be happier and much more productive in the Church away from the priesthood and away from parish life. They are being very effective in their presence on the streets, sharing the poverty of the poor. The Missionaries of Charity seem to be growing in their spiritual lives by sleeping on the floor. The Daughters of Mary and the Sisters of St. Cecilia are growing by spending every waking hour in front of the Blessed Sacrament, praying the Liturgy of the Hours and less time in the classroom. In my diocese we have a congregation of sisters called the Sisters of the Pierced Hearts. They are about 10-years old. They work with families, but they call it a day after three hours. The rest of their day is spent in quiet, lectio divina, community recreation, Liturgy of the Hours, spiritual reading and serving each other. They too are mendicants. The same applies to the Sisters of Life.

I believe that those who are reading this thread may be learning something. At least I hope that they are. You mentioned that the active congregations of the sisters had very little religious formation, that they have no idea what they have done wrong and some may feel hurt by this investigation. I can understand that. I believe that there were mixed messages sent to the sisters from within the community and from the hierarchy.

From within, their leadership led them to believe that they were autonomous and free to define their lifestyle and that they could change structures by voting them in or out. The leadership failed to find out if this was true. I remember being in a school where there was a conflict between the sisters who ran the school. My community owns the school. We asked the leadership of the community to settle the problem and were told that the sisters no longer had a superior who made unilateral decisions. This threw us for a loop. We had to ask the sisters to leave our school. It is very difficult to entrust your school to a group that has no visible authority figure. There is something to be said for consensus, but then there are also emergencies.

From outside of the community, the Church approved too many constitutions of religious congregations without asking for a description of how these translated into day to day life. Many of these constitutions were spiritual masterpieces, but have very little legislation in them. We tried this in our own community and almost committed suicide. Instead of speaking about how often we would pray the Liturgy of the Hours, our constitutions spoke about the importance of prayer, as if you could not read that in some other work. Instead of speaking about obedience to Francis, we spoke about walking in his footsteps, as if Francis is someone whom we admire, rather than someone whom we promised to obey until death. We had to go back and rewrite the constitutions to say what Francis and Clare said in their rule, not what we believed would be the correct application for today. The result has made a big difference.

I guess the lesson to be learned from all of this has to do be obedience. I’m not saying that the sisters were being disobedient, but there are areas where they have disobeyed big time: ordination of women, same-sex marriage, marriage and divorce, birth control, abortion, refusing to wear a habit when they have been told to put one on, engaging in political issues when the Council clearly said that this was the realm of the laity, not the religious or the clergy and placing their personal conscience over the rule of well formed conscience, which is always formed by the mind of the Church. Now some are advocating that they remain in religious life because they want to do so. That is a half-truth that is offensive to other religious.

Yes, they can leave without permission. Every person has a free will. However, shouldn’t they be telling the entire truth. The remain in religious life because they made a commitment to this way of life and the Church holds them accountable for it. It’s not as simple as one believing that one stays because one wants to, but also because one’s salvation is on the line. Whatever happen to the word salvation of the soul of the religious? I don’t see this mentioned as much by women as I do by men. Maybe they do discuss it in private, for all I know.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[anode]

6:23 AM??? On a Sunday??

It’s always a pleasure, JR. Seriously.

It* will *come down to obedience. But there are questions. Who is behind this? The pope? Doesn’t he have better things to do? Why make the sisterhoods pay for their inquisitions? Why the secrecy?

I can see that there would be questions. It seems awfully late to be raising them.

I think that no good can come from this. I imagine that not a few congregations are talking with the Immaculate Heart Community, a lay ecumenical community doing very well in Los Angeles, (after the notorious split w/ Cardinal McIntyre) and the Holy Wisdom Monastery in Madison WI, about possible alternatives, if it comes to that. You (or others–probably others) may say, good riddance. I say that it’s a great pity that the church has lost one of its great glories, and–I predict–isn’t going to see its like again for a long, long time.