Br. Jr, can you go a little bit into what the above means?
Let’s say I know a married couple and they are in the middle of some tough times. Both have stated their case to me because we are friends (never mind that they shouldn’t be discussing their business with me). So since we are both friends I try to stay impartial.
If the only thing I say is, “Bob, do you think it’s possible that sometimes you may react a little harshly with Jane I’m just asking.?”. I say this in front of others and it is the only comment I make.
I don’t then say, “Jane, do you think you might be over sensitive sometimes?”
If my only comment is to Bob, does that not imply that I’m siding with Jane? Is it a good idea for me to get involved? Even if technically I know that Bob tends to get rough?
Is it a good idea for the OFM to publicly question the Bishops even if technically down the road, the bishops will and should not have any authority?
And I know it is a sticky situation because of solidarity of course, but do you see what I’m saying?
The marriage situation requires different methodology. In that situation, one should try to be a mediator, if one is invited into the problem. A mediator tries to help both sides see the other side’s point of view.
In the case of the Observants, they are not questioning the bishops. That’s not what the letter says. The letter makes two points.
- It expresses concern that the CDF’s reaction may be excessive. That’s not questioning whether or not the CDF has authority or implying any kind of support for the sister’s errors. It’s an opinion, which anyone is entitled to have, albeit that I still say that it’s too early for an opinion.
- The second message in the letter is a reminder to everyone, sisters and CDF that there are laws that cannot be broken. That being that bishops have no authority over religious. Again, they’re not questioning the bishops, because there is nothing to question. Religious can tell the bishops to go home and eat a hamburger at any time. The only bishop who can get involved in the affairs of religious is the Holy Father, unless the community is of diocesan right. In that case, the only bishop who can become involved is the bishop of the home diocese. Again, I feel that this reminder is premature, since no one has crossed that line. But there is nothing wrong with it. It is the law.
Having read the open letter, ** I question the competency** (in this matter) of those leaders to publically express concern, “that the tone and direction set forth in the Doctrinal Assessment of LCWR are excessive, given the evidence raised.”
The actually have more competency than bishops in this case.
- Franciscan Ministers Provincial are ordinaries equal to bishops in authority and in training
- They are ordinaries over religious, which gives them inside knowledge as to how religious life works, knowledge that a bishop would not have unless he’s a religious.
- They are all theologians.
- When it comes to religious, Franciscan major superiors of are equal authority to the bishops of the CDF. These ministers answer only to their superior general who answers to the pope.
If they believe that the bishops are overstepping their authority in relation to their sisters, they have every right to speak up. Remember, there are congregations of Franciscan Sisters affected here. Franciscan women have no voice of their own, unless they’re nuns. Sisters are not nuns. Therefore, the friars are going to be very protective of them, because only the friars have a voice in the Vatican. The sisters do not. They are simply women religious of simple vows.
One can certainly disagree and say that there is nothing to be concerned about. Or one can take the position that I take, which is to wait and see how it all plays out.
From my point of view, the LCWR needs help. I don’t think that it can fix its problems alone. The problems are too big and it’s hard to do when you’re inside the barrel. They need outside help. That help must be provided within the confines of the doctrines of Trent. Trent makes it very clear that no secular is ever above a consecrated religious. The most of the bishops are secular. Trent also makes it clear that it is unjust for bishops to discipline religious, because it violates the rights of the major superior. The CDF passed another law that says that conflicts between religious and bishops must be dealt with in a council of bishops and religious superiors. This is what the Franciscans are reminding everyone about.
As long as it’s the pope’s delegate dealing with the LCWR, there is nothing to complain about, because the bishops are not getting involved. If the bishops do get involved and there is a council of bishops and superiors, there is nothing to worry about as long as the bishops remember that the superiors are their equals, not their subordinates. If they can’t reach an agreement, then the Holy Father has to break the stalemate. My position is that it’s too early to worry. Until the president of the LCWR comes back from her meeting with Cardinal Levada, we won’t know what’s going to happen next. Even then, if everything proceeds according to law, there is nothing to worry about. If the law is violated, then there are real concerns.
But competency they do have. Every male superior in solemn vows is a competent ordinary with the same authority as a bishop. He doesn’t even need to be a priest. He simply needs to be a canonically recognized provincial superior or superior general. This gives him the right to voice his opinion in any matter that concerns religious. What he cannot do is involve himself in a matter that is internal to another religious institute. That would be like involving yourself in a marriage without being invited. If he’s invited by the other institute, then he can express his opinion and concern.
Everyone is allowed to have opinions and concerns. In my mind, the question is about timing. I would disagree with my confreres on their timing, not on their competency.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
