U.S.: Franciscans side with the LCWR

  • Thread starter Thread starter bkovacs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Provincials have to be obedient to their Councils, their Rule and their charism: in that way they ARE being obedient to the Church.
 
What Brother is telling us is that sometimes, in the arcane world of the ordained or consecrated, sometimes they do things that are misinterpeted by those of us who are not in on all the nuances/archana of what they are saying.

I respect Brother JR greatly and if he says this is on the up and up and we sorta don’t get it, then that is fine with me. I think he’s explained it well. We are left with various posters who are making ad hominem attacks and whose best retort is,"Well, that’s not how* I*** understand it." Fine. I go with the Franciscan.
 
I do understand many of the points you are making Brother. I appreciate you taking time to make them.

I want to clear up one point I am trying to make.
JReducation said:
They are not taking sides on the issues on the table. To do that, would be contrary to humility. To exercise the right of office, is not contrary to humility. There is one piece that you obviously do not know. Provincial Ministers cannot write such a letter without the approval of their councils. Franciscan superiors do not govern in a vacuum. They do so in obedience to their superiors.
Click to expand...
(From the open letter)
“questioning your adherence to Church teaching by your “remaining silent” on certain ethical issues seems to us a charge that could be leveled against many groups in the Church, and fails to appreciate both the larger cultural context and the particular parameters of expertise within which we all operate.”
Click to expand...
This is very very important. The discernment of the CDF and ultimately the Holy Father has found for the faith and unity of the Church - “remaining silent” on certain ethical issues is of grave concern. This clearly appears to be questioned. This and questioning the remedy is what I find lacking humility.

Is it the proper duty for seven Religious Leaders to pose such public questions?

I am not misunderstanding the proper role of the CDF.
The duty proper to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is to promote and safeguard the doctrine on the faith and morals throughout the Catholic world: for this reason everything which in any way touches such matter falls within its competence.
Click to expand...
The CDF may not have authority over religious communities but they are given the grave duty to help protect the whole church. This is what I view as being questioned in this open letter.
 
PaulinVA said:
What Brother is telling us is that sometimes, in the arcane world of the ordained or consecrated, sometimes they do things that are misinterpeted by those of us who are not in on all the nuances/archana of what they are saying.

I respect Brother JR greatly and if he says this is on the up and up and we sorta don’t get it, then that is fine with me. I think he’s explained it well. We are left with various posters who are making ad hominem attacks and whose best retort is,"Well, that’s not how* I*** understand it." Fine. I go with the Franciscan.
Click to expand...
:clapping::clapping::clapping:

DITTO.
 
TrueLight said:
MDent and Br. are having a calm discussion. You are doing nothing but trying to escalate the discussion to an argument.
Click to expand...
What an odd declaration.
This is an open forum.
I am allowed to post.

So are you - even your
singular opinions, misguided,
odd, whatever.

However do NOT aim a
twisted opinion at me.

Thanks.
 
I wish I’d known about this Forum and Brother JR’s expertise on things Franciscan before I sent this email from my wife and me to the St. Barbara province in response to a request from them for prayers for men entering the OFM through the Province:

They will all surely have our prayers.

We want to say how disappointed we are in the Franciscan response to the LCWR issue. One of the reasons is that the Statement seems to be saying, “Don’t take the right of discernment away from this Group”. I was amazed at how relevant (and it often is) the daily Reading was this morning to this issue: From the second letter of St. Paul to Timothy, "For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine but following their own desires and insatiable curiousity will accumulate teachers and will stop listening to the truth and will be delivered to myths…

We’re also reminded of how our St. Francis, at a time when it made good sense to leave the Church (many well-meaning groups did), stayed within the Church, obedient to the Pope and the Church teachings.

If the LCWR determines, by prayerful discernment, that they and the Church ought to be teaching that abortion can be acceptable in some circumstances, that women should be ordained, that same-sex marriage should be sacramentally blessed, does it make sense that the Church should accept this discernment as Spirit-directed, even though the Church’s Spirit-directed teaching points in another direction? Jesus has given us a Spirit-led Church that although we may not be able to always correlate with cultural wisdom, nevertheless gives us a promise we can rely on: following Church teaching leads us to Him and not off in “mythical” directions.

This probably should have been reworded and sent to the LCWR instead!
Steve Tredway, OFS
 
M-Dent said:
I do understand many of the points you are making Brother. I appreciate you taking time to make them.

I want to clear up one point I am trying to make.

(From the open letter)

This is very very important. The discernment of the CDF and ultimately the Holy Father has found for the faith and unity of the Church - “remaining silent” on certain ethical issues is of grave concern. This clearly appears to be questioned. This and questioning the remedy is what I find lacking humility.
Click to expand...
You have to understand what they’re talking about. They are referring to the fact that there is a tendency among some in the hierarchy to want total silence. The point being raised by the Franciscans here is the same point raised by the SSPX. There are certain things that need to be talked about. Those in authority have to make a distinction between what they feel must be accepted at face value and what can be discussed.

There are times when the directions are not clear. That’s what they’re talking about. As ordinaries, they have a right to say this. That comes with the power of office.

Is it the proper duty for seven Religious Leaders to pose such public questions?
I am not misunderstanding the proper role of the CDF.
Click to expand...
The duty proper to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is to promote and safeguard the doctrine on the faith and morals throughout the Catholic world: for this reason everything which in any way touches such matter falls within its competence.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

The letter does not question the role of the CDF. It expresses concerns about the method. A method can be questioned without impugning or challenging the role of the person in authority.
The CDF may not have authority over religious communities but they are given the grave duty to help protect the whole church. This is what I view as being questioned in this open letter.
Click to expand...
They’re not questioning that at all. They never make any reference to that. The simply make a statement that there is a proper means to deal with conflicts between bishops and religious. In fact, they close by telling the sisters that they believe that the LCWR and the CDF will keep this in mind. The CDF itself created a law that tells them (the CDF) how to protect the Church without violating the rights of religious. The brothers conclude by reminding both sides that such a law exists. That statement does not challenge the CDFs role or authority.

We’re back where we started. A question of timing, not content.

Remember, the superior general would never have approved the release of such a letter if it violated the rule and constitutions of the Friars Minor. If you don’t trust that, I can’t help you.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
Stephen_Tredway said:
I wish I’d known about this Forum and Brother JR’s expertise on things Franciscan before I sent this email from my wife and me to the St. Barbara province in response to a request from them for prayers for men entering the OFM through the Province:

They will all surely have our prayers.

We want to say how disappointed we are in the Franciscan response to the LCWR issue. One of the reasons is that the Statement seems to be saying, “Don’t take the right of discernment away from this Group”. I was amazed at how relevant (and it often is) the daily Reading was this morning to this issue: From the second letter of St. Paul to Timothy, "For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine but following their own desires and insatiable curiousity will accumulate teachers and will stop listening to the truth and will be delivered to myths…

We’re also reminded of how our St. Francis, at a time when it made good sense to leave the Church (many well-meaning groups did), stayed within the Church, obedient to the Pope and the Church teachings.

If the LCWR determines, by prayerful discernment, that they and the Church ought to be teaching that abortion can be acceptable in some circumstances, that women should be ordained, that same-sex marriage should be sacramentally blessed, does it make sense that the Church should accept this discernment as Spirit-directed, even though the Church’s Spirit-directed teaching points in another direction? Jesus has given us a Spirit-led Church that although we may not be able to always correlate with cultural wisdom, nevertheless gives us a promise we can rely on: following Church teaching leads us to Him and not off in “mythical” directions.

This probably should have been reworded and sent to the LCWR instead!
Steve Tredway, OFS
Click to expand...
May I suggest -
go for it! Re-word it
and send it on to LCWR!

Yes, Brother JR
is a treasure for all
of us and for Catholic Answers.

God bless him mightily!

PS - Welcome to CA, Steve (and wife!)
 
Br, JR,
JReducation said:
You have to understand what they’re talking about. They are referring to the fact that there is a tendency among some in the hierarchy to want total silence. The point being raised by the Franciscans here is the same point raised by the SSPX. There are certain things that need to be talked about. Those in authority have to make a distinction between what they feel must be accepted at face value and what can be discussed.

There are times when the directions are not clear. That’s what they’re talking about. As ordinaries, they have a right to say this. That comes with the power of office.
Click to expand...
I do see how we understand this specific issue quite differently.

The silence addressed in the Doctrinal Assessment was clearly abortion, euthanasia and human sexuality.

usccb.org/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&pageid=55544

I agree, the same point can be made of the SSPX in accepting the Second Vatican Council. One cannot be silent on “issues of crucial importance to the life of Church and society” as the assement stated.

I may be looking at this through a very narrow lens, yet IMO, it appears a critical point.
 
I just thought I’d post an excerpt I just read on the night of our Lord’s resurrection. Were these visions that she had with her eyes opened? Was she in some sort of ecstasy while they occurred?: Anyone know?

jesus-passion.com/THE_PASSION6.htm#CHAPTER%20LXII
My next vision was so mysterious that I cannot explain or even relate it in a clear manner. It appeared to me that the soul and body of Jesus were taken together out of the sepulchre, without, however, the former being completely reunited to the latter, which still remained inanimate. I thought I saw two angels who were kneeling and adoring at the head and feet of the sacred body, raise it—keeping it in the exact position in which it was lying in the tomb—and carry it uncovered and disfigured with wounds across the rock, which trembled as they passed. It then appeared to me that Jesus presented his body, marked with the stigmas of the Passion, to his Heavenly Father, who, seated on a throne, was surrounded by innumerable choirs of angels, blissfully occupied in pouring forth hymns of adoration and jubilee. The case was probably the same when, at the death of our Lord, so many holy souls re-entered their bodies, and appeared in the Temple and in different parts of Jerusalem; for it is not likely that the bodies which they animated were really alive, as in that case they would have been obliged to die a second time, whereas they returned to their original state without apparent difficulty; but it is to be supposed that their appearance in human form was similar to that of our Lord, when he (if we may thus express it) accompanied his body to the throne of his Heavenly Father.
Click to expand...
Code: 
At this moment the rock was so violently shaken, from the very summit to the base, that three of the guards fell down and became almost insensible. The other four were away at the time, being gone to the town to fetch something. The guards who were thus thrown prostrate attributed the sudden shock to an earthquake; but Cassius, who, although uncertain as to what all this might portend, yet felt an inward presentiment that it was the prelude to some stupendous event, stood transfixed in anxious expectation, waiting to see what would follow next. The soldiers who were gone to Jerusalem soon returned.
Click to expand...
I BEHELD the soul of our Lord between two angels, who were in the attire of warriors: it was bright, luminous, and resplendent as the sun at midday; it penetrated the rock, touched the sacred body, passed into it, and the two were instantaneously united, and became as one. I then saw the limbs move, and the body of our Lord, being reunited to his soul and to his divinity, rise and shake off the winding-sheet: the whole of the cave was illuminated and lightsome.
Click to expand...
At the same moment I saw a frightful monster burst from the earth underneath the sepulchre. It had the tail of a serpent, and it raised its dragon head proudly as if desirous of attacking Jesus; and had likewise, if I remember correctly, a human head. But our Lord held in his hand a white staff, to which was appended a large banner; and he placed his foot on the head of the dragon, and struck its tail three times with his staff, after which the monster disappeared. I had had this same vision many times before the Resurrection, and I saw just such a monster, appearing to endeavour to hide itself, at the time of the conception of our Lord: it greatly resembled the serpent which tempted our first parents in Paradise, only it was more horrible. I thought that this vision had reference to the prophetic words, that ‘by the seed of the woman the head of the serpent should be crushed,’ and that the whole was intended to demonstrate the victory of our Lord over death, for at the same moment that I saw him crush the head of the monster, the tomb likewise vanished from my sight.
Click to expand...
Code: 
I then saw the glorified body of our Lord rise up, and it passed through the hard rock as easily as if the latter had been formed of some ductile substance. The earth shook, and an angel in the garb of a warrior descended from Heaven with the speed of lightning, entered the tomb, lifted the stone, placed it on the right side, and  seated himself upon it. At this tremendous sight the soldiers fell to the ground, and remained there apparently lifeless. When Cassius saw the bright light which illuminated the tomb, he approached the place where the sacred body had been placed, looked at and touched the linen clothes in which it had been wrapped, and left the sepulchre, intending to go and inform Pilate of all that had happened. However, he tarried a short time to watch the progress of events; for although he had felt the earth*quake, seen the angel move the stone, and looked at the empty tomb, yet he had not seen Jesus.
Click to expand...
 
M-Dent said:
Br, JR,

I do see how we understand this specific issue quite differently.

The silence addressed in the Doctrinal Assessment was clearly abortion, euthanasia and human sexuality.

usccb.org/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&pageid=55544

I agree, the same point can be made of the SSPX in accepting the Second Vatican Council. One cannot be silent on “issues of crucial importance to the life of Church and society” as the assement stated.

I may be looking at this through a very narrow lens, yet IMO, it appears a critical point.
Click to expand...
But if you look at the sentence, they’re not talking about the doctrinal assessment at that point. They’re saying to the sisters that they appreciate their courage to discuss things that points on which others are silent.

They make to comment on the conclusions of those discussions. Nor do they what can and cannot be discussed. They do make reference to the fact that there are times when it is not clear what can and cannot be discussed. We know this is true. Often, Rome assumes that the readers understands what has not been said.

As I’ve told you already I don’t know how many times. these seven ministers are not acting in a vacuum. This is a command from seven councils, then approved by the general council and finally the general superior. Unless you’re willing to entertain that there is an international conspiracy to overthrow the CDF among the Observant Franciscans, you’re going to have to give them a little credit based on their record of 800 years of fidelity to the Magisterium and obedience to the Holy Father.

I, for one, am not about to contemplate a conspiracy involving 24, 000 men in 48 different countries. That’s crazy. Nor am I willing to entertain that the ministers published the letter without anyone’s permission. Were this the case, it would have made Franciscan news before the ink was dry on the signatures and no such thing has come down the pike.

My conclusion is that there is nothing here that is in conflict with the Church’s authorities.

I will say this, with all due respect. This is a perfect example of why religious had made it a policy never to share what they did or said with the laity. When these things are looked at out of context, they take on a different color. What for us may be our daily bread, for the laity is a catastrophe. You would be surprised the number of times that these kinds of memos and letters go back and forth between major superiors and the Vatican. The media is not interested in them; therefore, the laity never knows. Which is fine, otherwise we’d be having these discussions everyday. :nope:

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
This is just way too confusing for me now. It’s bad enough that the Jesuits have done more harm my faith at my university then to help it grow, but now the Franciscans? I could never agree on everything pertaining to Franciscan spirituality, but what happened to practicing silence and humility. I hear it all the time on the TC forum that it’s better to be silent and humble and accept the authority unless we are being asked to commit sin. Even if the Franciscans are not opposing Rome on moral or doctrine it still feels like they have chosen their side by putting in their opinion.
 
From Bishop Leonard Blair, Bishop Blair was appointed by the Vatican in 2008 as the apostolic delegate to conduct the doctrinal assessment of the LCWR for the CDF. This year he was appointed to assist Archbishop Peter Sartain of Seattle in overseeing the renewal of the LCWR.

catholicchronicle.org/index.php/Statements/reality-check-the-lcwr-cdf-and-the-doctrinal-assessment.html

Some of the Bishop’s points:

•In the keynote address at the LCWR 1997 annual assembly, Sister Sandra Schneiders, IHM “proposed that the decisive issue for women religious is the issue of faith: ‘It can no longer be taken for granted that the members [of a given congregation] share the same faith.’”
•In the keynote address at the 2004 joint annual assembly of the LCWR and the Conference of Major Superiors of Men, Father Michael Crosby, OFMCap said, “We still have to worship a God that the Vatican says ‘wills that women not be ordained.’ That god is literally ‘unbelievable.’ It is a false god; it cannot be worshipped.”
•In the keynote address at the LCWR 2007 annual assembly, Sister Laurie Brink, OP spoke about four “directions” religious congregations seemed to be moving, saying “not one of the four is better or worse than the others.” One of those models was “sojourning,” which she said “involves moving beyond the church, even beyond Jesus. A sojourning congregation is no longer ecclesiastical. It has grown beyond the bounds of institutional religion” and “in most respects is Post-Christian.” She also characterized as “courageous” the decision by one group of women religious to “step outside the church.”

Those look like some very Doctrinal points to my humble, poorly educated eyes.
If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck. Just sayin’.

Look, anyone with the sense to get out of the rain cannot help but see there is a war beginning for the Soul of the Church. Have we been here before? Yes. Has Holy Mother Church survived these past assaults? Yes. But ignoring the current crisis, or simply burying ones head in the sand and hoping it will blow over is pure cowerdice. We are charged to beleive, and defend Our Faith. Satan uses division and cowerdice to further the loss of souls. The time is comming, quickly, when we will have to Choose. And I Choose Christ and His Church, Headed by The Successor of St. Peter.
All of the Politicians, theologians, dissenting Priests and Religious can return to the True Faith, or suffer the consequences of their own free will!

the Second Epistle of St. Paul to Timothy, Ch. 3

"[1] Know also this, that, in the last days, shall come dangerous times. [2] Men shall be lovers of themselves, covetous, haughty, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, wicked, [3] Without affection, without peace, slanderers, incontinent, unmerciful, without kindness, [4] Traitors, stubborn, puffed up, and lovers of pleasures more than of God: [5] Having an appearance indeed of godliness, but denying the power thereof. Now these avoid.

[6] For of these sort are they who creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, who are led away with divers desires: [7] Ever learning, and never attaining to the knowledge of the truth. [8] Now as Jannes and Mambres resisted Moses, so these also resist the truth, men corrupted in mind, reprobate concerning the faith. [9] But they shall proceed no farther; for their folly shall be manifest to all men, as theirs also was. [10] But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, love, patience,

*[8] Jannes and Mambres: The magicians of king Pharao. *

[11] Persecutions, afflictions: such as came upon me at Antioch, at Iconium, and at Lystra: what persecutions I endured, and out of them all the Lord delivered me. [12] And all that will live godly in Christ Jesus, shall suffer persecution. [13] But evil men and seducers shall grow worse and worse: erring, and driving into error. [14] But continue thou in those things which thou hast learned, and which have been committed to thee: knowing of whom thou hast learned them; [15] And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus."
 
@archangel04

They are doing what they feel they have to do as Lesser Brothers.

They are not suggesting to the CDF what actions need to be taken, they are merely drawing (or not even drawing, but pointing out) the lines in the sand regarding the sisters’s situation.

This too shall pass, and the Holy Spirit will have His way.
 
JReducation said:
My conclusion is that there is nothing here that is in conflict with the Church’s authorities.
Click to expand...
I appreciate you sharing your views Br. JR.

The silly notions of conspiracies is above you. 🙂 We’ll disagree on what was shared here by the CDF and move on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top