U.S.: Franciscans side with the LCWR

[iloveangels]

I went back and read the original article. It’s in “Church-speak.” It’s a statement of support religious-to-religious, which is probably appropriate as far as it goes. Franciscans trying to make peace, ho hum. On that level, sure, it’s clumsy but it’s ok.

I don’t think it’s meant to second-guess the judgment of the Holy See in any vigorous way, in the form of second-guessing the judgment of the CDF, but it’s not really clear when you read it what the level of concern expressed in the comment it is. Maybe someone with more facility in “Church-speak” could interpret it better, but honestly I think it’s unspecified. And the more I think about it, the more I think it is unspecified. Is that just tact and sympathy? I don’t know. Maybe, maybe not. Maybe it is just a “throwaway” letter because they’re expected to say something. Stranger things have happened.

Do I think that the CDF has the ability to appoint a panel of bishops to help the LCWR past their malfunction? Yes, I do, since they were approved by the Apostolic See in the first place, and sure enough, this is exactly what has happened. That is THE meaning of the approval or the lack of it.

 

[Julia_Mae]

I need to tell someone this, because in our constitution it says that the superior of the house mus serve dinner.

I wasn’t referring to youse guys.

 

[iloveangels]

I went back and read the original article. It’s in “Church-speak.” It’s a statement of support religious-to-religious, which is probably appropriate as far as it goes. Franciscans trying to make peace, ho hum. On that level, sure, it’s clumsy but it’s ok.

I don’t think it’s meant to second-guess the judgment of the Holy See in any vigorous way, in the form of second-guessing the judgment of the CDF, but it’s not really clear when you read it what the level of concern expressed in the comment it is. Maybe someone with more facility in “Church-speak” could interpret it better, but honestly I think it’s unspecified. And the more I think about it, the more I think it is unspecified. Is that just tact and sympathy? I don’t know. Maybe, maybe not. Maybe it is just a “throwaway” letter because they’re expected to say something. Stranger things have happened.

Do I think that the CDF has the ability to appoint a panel of bishops to help the LCWR past their malfunction? Yes, I do, since they were approved by the Apostolic See in the first place, and sure enough, this is exactly what has happened. That is THE meaning of the approval or the lack of it.

Note: The fact that they’re bishops may not be the big factor in this either. I don’t expect the pope himself to come over here and do it in person. He shouldn’t have to do that if he or the CDF, at his bequest, delegates someone that is trusted to do it.

Perhaps the difficulty is that religious think that only religious should have been delegated to do the work with the LCWR. Maybe. But for some reason, that choice was not made. It will be both clerical and religious, working together.

 

[archangel04]

The ministers did not endorse the problems. They offered fraternal support to the sisters, not the same thing. Why are you bringing it up?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

I guess I am just tired of it all. I am tired of all these self-entitled people in the Church who want it there way. I am tired with all the confusion coming from all these different orders especially from the Jesuits. Clergy treat protestants and homosexual better than their fellow Catholic. I guess I am just tired of all that’s going on in the Church. I turn to the Church to get away from the secular, world, but instead I find the same thing in the Church.

 

[JReducation]

I don’t think it takes much speculation to note that they chose the timing themselves. They want the letter read before the meeting. These are not exactly clueless guys, they are Ordinaries. They are saying something by the fact of the letter and that it is public.

The way that the letter is broken up in La Stampa makes it difficult to read. But the original is available on the OFM website and it makes much more sense when you see all of it in one piece.

I don’t see timing as a concern here. There is nothing in this letter that would imply that this has to be said today rather than tomorrow. Trust me, I’m a superior general.

There is one very important paragraph in the letter that La Stampa completely misrepresented. The writer of La Stampa did not understand it. The letter said
**
Finally, we realize and appreciate, as we are sure do you, the proper and right role of the
bishops as it is set out in Mutuae Relationes to provide leadership and guidance to religious
institutions. subliminal message to the LCWR about the role and authority of bishops
i
However, the same document clearly states:
**
since it is of utmost importance that the council of major superiors collaborate
diligently and in a spirit of trust with episcopal conferences, ‘it is desirable that
questions having reference to both bishops and religious should be dealt with by
mixed commissions consisting of bishops and major religious superiors, men or
women. …Such a mixed commission should be structured in such a way that
even if the right of ultimate decision making is to be always left to councils orconferences, according to the respective competencies, it can, as an organism of
mutual counsel, liaison, communication, study and reflection, achieve its
purpose.(#63)

We trust that CDF was attempting to follow their counsel from Mutuae Relationes;

[subtle message to the CDF reminding it of the law that the CDF itself created.[/COLOR]

however, we fear that in today’s public media world their action easily could be misunderstood.**

We hope that our bishops will take particular care to see that the way they take action is as important as the actions themselves in serving the People of God.**Otherwise, their efforts will surely be misunderstood and polarizing.**A simple and prudent message, how we do things is as important as what we do. This is necessary in order to avoid divisions and scandal. A very Franciscan peace keeping statement.

I went back and read the original article. It’s in “Church-speak.” It’s a statement of support religious-to-religious, which is probably appropriate as far as it goes. Franciscans trying to make peace, ho hum. On that level, sure, it’s clumsy but it’s ok.

I don’t think it’s meant to second-guess the judgment of the Holy See in any vigorous way, in the form of second-guessing the judgment of the CDF, but it’s not really clear when you read it what the level of concern expressed in the comment it is. Maybe someone with more facility in “Church-speak” could interpret it better, but honestly I think it’s unspecified. And the more I think about it, the more I think it is unspecified. Is that just tact and sympathy? I don’t know. Maybe, maybe not.

The letter has a little something for everyone without telling anyone that they are right or wrong. It starts with the authority of the bishops and the fact that bishops can guide religious, not govern them. There is a message there to both sisters and bishops.

It is very clear in it’s message that not every subject should be off limits. There are some subjects that should be discussed. It tries to express a concern that there is a lack of clarity. What can and cannot be discussed? Again, the bishops answered it very well.

They bring up a very valid point. Neither the US bishops nor the LCWR ever asked for a council of bishops and religious superiors to dialogue. That’s a law that the CDF created. Neither took advantage of it. There is a subtle message there. My guess is that it says something like don’t forget that we have this avenue that has not yet been tried.

Do I think that the CDF has the ability to appoint a panel of bishops to help the LCWR past their malfunction? Yes, I do, since they were approved by the Apostolic See in the first place, and sure enough, this is exactly what has happened. That is THE meaning of the approval or the lack of it.

No. A panel is not the same as a delegate. A panel is a delegation. Trent is very clear that bishops may never become involved in the affairs of religious nor may they ever correct religious. They must limit their influence to offering guidance.

As there is only one pope, he needs only one representative. For the study, there was a team. That team was not effecting any changes. It was a fact finding team. This bishop is going to rewrite their statutes. That can only be done by the pope. He is doing it in the name of the pope.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV **

 

[JReducation]

Perhaps the difficulty is that religious think that only religious should have been delegated to do the work with the LCWR. Maybe. But for some reason, that choice was not made. It will be both clerical and religious, working together.

Not at all. No one, not a single religious community has even questioned that the bishop is a secular priest. Bishop Blair is very highly respected and a very humble man. Also, remember that there are regular clerics. One of the “investigators” was a Franciscans bishop. He’s not a secular cleric. He’s regular. Clerical and religious working together has never been a problem for us. We’ve always had clerics in religious life.

I guess I am just tired of it all. I am tired of all these self-entitled people in the Church who want it there way. I am tired with all the confusion coming from all these different orders especially from the Jesuits. Clergy treat protestants and homosexual better than their fellow Catholic. I guess I am just tired of all that’s going on in the Church. I turn to the Church to get away from the secular, world, but instead I find the same thing in the Church.

Remember, the Church does not exist in a bubble. She is a microcosm of the world. Whatever you find in the world, will be found in the Church. It has always been that way. This is not new. I was just reading about that this morning in some of St. Augustine’s letters. I could have changed the names and no one would have known that it was a fifth century letter. It would have passed for a 21st century letter. It even had clergy sex abuse issues. The only thing missing were sister issues, because there were no sisters in the 5th century, only nuns.

My point, always remember that the Church is very human. Like humanity, it’s on a journey. It will not be perfect until it is perfected in the Kingdom and yet it is perfectly holy. How’s that for a mystery to contemplate?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Julia_Mae]

The letter has a little something for everyone without telling anyone that they are right or wrong. It starts with the authority of the bishops and the fact that bishops can guide religious, not govern them. There is a message there to both sisters and bishops.

Yes, that was kind of my point. Here’s a subliminal message: “We are just reminding everyone of how it is supposed to be handled and we want it known we are standing with our Sisters in this specific issue and if anyone tries to run over them we will assume in future they would try to run over us and, gosh, that wouldn’t be a good thing, would it?”

 

[iloveangels]

That’s fine as long as something gets done. This isn’t a game. People can’t go around saying things like:

*‘It can no longer be taken for granted that the members [of a given congregation] share the same faith.’” *

and:

*“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.” *

even if it is only in a convention of religious.

And that’s just two instances. There were plenty more on the LCWR website where they posted their papers from their conventions. The LCWR was eating this stuff up and keeping it for posterity.

I didn’t become Christian until I was 35 because I had a lot of trouble with faith. I was an even a fairly puzzled atheist for a short while… But even I, in all my stupidity, would have known better than to stand up in front of a conference room full of people and be recorded saying confrontational garbage like that. That’s just causing trouble. [Not to mention my additional objection, now that I’m Catholic. They’re both flat denials of faith and doctrine and that’s why they were picked up as example passages.]

This is what laypeople are reacting to. We’re not all reactionary idiots, as some people would like to think. The answer is not to attempt to keep laypeople in the dark, either, as is the reflex. The answer is this: There are many in the Church who need to clean up their acts, stop hiding behind things and playing with deceit, and actually BECOME Christian. Either that or they need to stop panhandling on Laity Street, one or the other.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Right now, on EWTN, is a Theology Roundtable regarding the LCWR situation. Ann Carey, author of Sisters in Crisis, is speaking right now. She says that in the last several years the situation has worsened, not improved. This program may be a repeat, but I did not see the first showing, so I’m watching.

 

[iloveangels]

Right now, on EWTN, is a Theology Roundtable regarding the LCWR situation. Ann Carey, author of Sisters in Crisis, is speaking right now. She says that in the last several years the situation has worsened, not improved. This program may be a repeat, but I did not see the first showing, so I’m watching.

I wonder when it was taped?

 

[Elizabeth502]

I don’t know, but it has to have been pretty recently, because there are not long delays between the Roundtable tapes and their airing.

The biggest news so far is supposedly how different many of the “grassroots” sisters feel, compared with the LCWR. They are the ones who contacted Ann Carey a few years ago to voice their displeasure.

 

[JReducation]

Yes, that was kind of my point. Here’s a subliminal message: “We are just reminding everyone of how it is supposed to be handled and we want it known we are standing with our Sisters in this specific issue and if anyone tries to run over them we will assume in future they would try to run over us and, gosh, that wouldn’t be a good thing, would it?”

The red part is impossible. Those of us who are major superiors are bound under obedience, at the risk of forfeiting our immortal souls never to doubt or threaten the Church. We can ask questions, but we don’t have a right to answers. We surrender that right when we make solemn vows.

No superior general would allow 7 provincial superiors to compromise themselves that way. Remember, this letter must have been seen by the Minister General. Were that not the case, it would have been retracted by the Generalate as soon as it became public. No superior general is going to allow his provincial superiors to make a statement that gives the Holy See the impression that it is being challenged.

Together, we’re about 1.7 million around the world and we may have about 100 really well known loose canons, like any large family. That’s not too bad. It’s less than one percent. None of the Franciscan communities are going to have seven loose canons governing an entire country and compromising their community… They may do something that others do not understand or that makes no sense to the laity or the secular clergy. Franciscans are very good at that. We learned from the best, St. Francis of Assisi. He was a master at confounding others and doing the unexpected. He learned it from Jesus. You had to think, if you wanted to understand.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Elizabeth502]

…just adding that this Roundtable discussion will repeat on Monday and on Tuesday. It’s good so far. Check your EWTN TV schedules for local airing times.

 

[JReducation]

That’s fine as long as something gets done. This isn’t a game. People can’t go around saying things like:

*‘It can no longer be taken for granted that the members [of a given congregation] share the same faith.’” *

and:

*“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.” *

even if it is only in a convention of religious.

And that’s just two instances. There were plenty more on the LCWR website where they posted their papers from their conventions. The LCWR was eating this stuff up and keeping it for posterity.

I didn’t become Christian until I was 35 because I had a lot of trouble with faith. I was an even a fairly puzzled atheist for a short while… But even I, in all my stupidity, would have known better than to stand up in front of a conference room full of people and be recorded saying confrontational garbage like that. That’s just causing trouble. [Not to mention my additional objection, now that I’m Catholic. They’re both flat denials of faith and doctrine and that’s why they were picked up as example passages.]

This is what laypeople are reacting to. We’re not all reactionary idiots, as some people would like to think. The answer is not to attempt to keep laypeople in the dark, either, as is the reflex. The answer is this: There are many in the Church who need to clean up their acts, stop hiding behind things and playing with deceit, and actually BECOME Christian. Either that or they need to stop panhandling on Laity Street, one or the other.

You lost me. I don’t see the connection between what you’re saying and the letter. Help me out here.

I don’t know, but it has to have been pretty recently, because there are not long delays between the Roundtable tapes and their airing.

The biggest news so far is supposedly how different many of the “grassroots” sisters feel, compared with the LCWR. They are the ones who contacted Ann Carey a few years ago to voice their displeasure.

I’ve always had problems with the number reported by the LCWR. I know that there are sisters who belong to the majority of the congregations in the country. I also know that they do not speak for their entire congregation. When the LCWR says that it represents 90% of the sisters in the USA, I have a problem with that number.

Many sisters at the grassroots seem to be pretty savvy about what they buy into and what they blow off. I believe that there are unorthodox women at the LCWR, but they don’t represent 80,000 equally unorthodox sisters. That’s part of the problem. They really need to start representing those sisters who are the silent majority.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[iloveangels]

Yes, that was kind of my point. Here’s a subliminal message: “We are just reminding everyone of how it is supposed to be handled and we want it known we are standing with our Sisters in this specific issue and if anyone tries to run over them we will assume in future they would try to run over us and, gosh, that wouldn’t be a good thing, would it?”

No. This would be like equating apples and oranges. The Franciscans are a medieval order with all that entails. It’s beyond the realm of possibility that they would “go non-canonical” or rebel in the same way as the LCWR. Although, yes, they have 100 or so loose cannons that somebody needs to do something about before they cause even more trouble than they already have.

The LCWR’s behavior and trajectory are something quite different, though. The LCWR isn’t a congregation; it’s a conference. Also it’s made up of a couple of hundred members from various congregations, most of them relatively modern as church history goes, and I don’t know how much these women’s views are like the congregations they come from.

 

[Elizabeth502]

iloveangels,
Colin Donovan just said that “by the time this program airs in June…[the LCWR will have met],” so it may have been taped in May, but nevertheless I consider it quite current as to discussing issues & controversies.

Some alarming things surfaced, even though I can’t say I’m surprised. I agree with Colin’s assessment that the impression/message left is that there is a sizeable minority (at least) whose consciousness is much more like that of a secular social worker than a religious. They even have a special handbook called Systems Thinking, which reads like an endorsement of religious life as secular (a-religious) bureaucracy which is opposed to traditional “hierarchies,” "dualisms, " “top-down” government, and much else … and that this “Systems Thinking” should replace the traditional model of religious life and should co-exist independent of Church regulation.

There was inexplicable mention of “going beyond Jesus” and similarly inexplicable offense taken at incorporation of the Eucharist into an important celebration of one Order, simply because the presider at the Mass would therefore have to be male !

 

[Julia_Mae]

The red part is impossible. Those of us who are major superiors are bound under obedience, at the risk of forfeiting our immortal souls never to doubt or threaten the Church.

Sometimes when I write I exaggerate a bit for effect. I would not consider it a threat.

You know, sometimes I think you think everyone in your position thinks exactly as you do. I don’t believe that’s reflective of reality.

 

[iloveangels]

iloveangels,
Colin Donovan just said that “by the time this program airs in June…[the LCWR will have met],” so it may have been taped in May, but nevertheless I consider it quite current as to discussing issues & controversies.

Some alarming things surfaced, even though I can’t say I’m surprised. I agree with Colin’s assessment that the impression/message left is that there is a sizeable minority (at least) whose consciousness is much more like that of a secular social worker than a religious. They even have a special handbook called Systems Thinking, which reads like an endorsement of religious life as secular (a-religious) bureaucracy which is opposed to traditional “hierarchies,” "dualisms, " “top-down” government, and much else … and that this “Systems Thinking” should replace the traditional model of religious life and should co-exist independent of Church regulation.

There was inexplicable mention of “going beyond Jesus” and similarly inexplicable offense taken at incorporation of the Eucharist into an important celebration of one Order, simply because the presider at the Mass would therefore have to be male !

Elizabeth502,

That’s actually not new information but maybe it’s just getting to a new audience. Right after the assessment was announced, stuff from the LCWR page moved around a bit, but prior to that, stuff from the annual conferences (and so on) was posted in public and accessible by search engines. In fact, I read the speech by Laurie Brink a long time ago online and already knew about the non-canonical defections. This stuff has been in pretty plain sight on the internet for quite some time. And I mean, it’s not like it was a big shock.

 

[Julia_Mae]

No. This would be like equating apples and oranges. The Franciscans are a medieval order with all that entails.

Except for the iPhones, blogs, Twitter accounts… not to mention Facebook.

It’s beyond the realm of possibility that they would “go non-canonical” or rebel in the same way as the LCWR.

Actually, a few Franciscans got burned at the stake by a Pope they refused to obey. Some had to be hidden from others who were hunting them at the behest of the Holy See. Those Franciscans have a darned interesting history for all the talk around here of complete humility and perfect submission.

The LCWR’s behavior and trajectory are something quite different, though. The LCWR isn’t a congregation; it’s a conference. Also it’s made up of a couple of hundred members from various congregations, most of them relatively modern as church history goes, and I don’t know how much these women’s views are like the congregations they come from.

And I don’t understand why you are here reading and posting about it. You just made a post about how upsetting this is to you. The fact is: it’s none of our business, anyway. It’s between the religious and the Vatican and what will be will be. I’m not in either place with no power whatsoever. i find it interesting but not very upsetting at all.

The Church has always had contrary factions. Always. It’s intrinsic to our history. It will never change. We are a contentious bunch of rabble:* ecclesia*.

I mean, it does my writer’s soul good to read a phrase like panhandling on Laity Street, but I wish you didn’t seem to take it all so seriously.

I was reading Julian of Norwich writings about her visions and Jesus chiding her for worrying by saying, “You think I made all this and would abandon it? You think I’m not taking care of things and won’t see it to the end?” (paraphrasing)

All will be well, all manner of things will be well.

Please find some peace for yourself. God’s got it.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Elizabeth502,

That’s actually not new information but maybe it’s just getting to a new audience. Right after the assessment was announced, stuff from the LCWR page moved around a bit, but prior to that, stuff from the annual conferences (and so on) was posted in public and accessible by search engines. In fact, I read the speech by Laurie Brink a long time ago online and already knew about the non-canonical defections. This stuff has been in pretty plain sight on the internet for quite some time.

Oh, I agree. And they made reference to something by Laurie Brink “awhile ago” (or words to that effect), so I don’t think this program is really dated, but yes, it was an opportunity to summarize for a wider audience, perhaps, what’s been bandied about here and there. (And they also referred to the changing nature of the website as well.) They were pulling together, summarizing, condensing, and highlighting. So it is still an important program for the average lay Catholic who may still be confused as to what the heck is even going on, and why.