U.S.: Franciscans side with the LCWR

[Elizabeth502]

Brother, thanks for the lengthy explanations, plural. It seems to me that there are three lenses here, not two, and perhaps that’s why things get confused & people on all sides get frustrated.

One lens is the one you have abundantly described about the Orders themselves (and that sensitive relationship to a different chain of command, which is the bishops and eventually Rome).

A second lens is the cloudy and convex or concave one: the press, especially the American press. (Not a mirror, by any means)

A third lens is the lens of the average Catholic layperson. Now when the second and third lenses get too interdependent, this can be a problem, as you well state. But this lens not only tries to filter lens #2, it has a separate lens, which is one combined from experience of one’s own Catholic schooling, one’s knowledge of the faith, and what any particular Catholic school --in some cases run by a particular Order-- can be expected to teach one’s children. (This is what Cinette is referring to.)

It is very much the business of any Catholic parent of a Catholic school child, to know what their child is being taught, and why. Even if the entire school is staffed exclusively by members of an Order, from the P.E. teacher to the Secretary. (Probably a nonexistent situation these days.) You referred to the gospel. Indeed. Where does the gospel say that Christians are not obligated to speak the Truth to the innocent ones whom they are teaching? The restlessness and disturbance resulting from actual parental experiences in the late 20th and now the 21st century is what is being referred to here. It’s not that lay people with not enough to do are morbidly curious with internal discipline of an Order (lens #1), nor that lens #2 suddenly made them aware of some sensationalistic crisis. It’s their own awareness, their own experience --lens #3-- that is the dominant lens, and that is only either magnified or disturbed by other lenses.

I respectfully disagree that Orders which either segmentally or individually are teaching heterodoxy in schools have an absolute right to privacy. Our children have a right to be taught Catholic doctrine in Catholic settings. And if in those cases, the autonomy of an Order trumps the CDF, then someone’s not minding the store.

Catholic lay people are also sad, disappointed in some Orders of religious sisters (or some individual members of them) seeming to go off the rails and teach New Age nonsense or syncretism at retreats and such. But there’s more of a remedy for that: don’t attend the retreats! It’s troubling, for sure, but unless those are the only retreats available, it is a sign that authority in that Order has been weakened or has itself lost its commitment to orthodoxy.

Lens #3, again, does not mainly grow out of Lens #2, but rather is one which most often reflects expectations quite different, even opposite, from Lens #2. This lens grows out of faith – not just Christian faith, Catholic faith, but a personal faith based on childhood experiences of being taught by models of giving, commitment, integrity, courage, prayer, and spirituality of an authentically Catholic nature. It is the assent to that experience and the trust that in some form – habit or no habit --continuity with that is available to modern Catholic children in a recognizably Catholic form, which motivates parents to enroll their children.

I’m sure you would agree that by definition, a charism and apostolate of an Order cannot conflict with the essentials of the Catholic faith. Otherwise, that Order would never have had the blessing of Rome. Second, the character of an Order remains. If the Order was founded, for example, a hundred years ago, its apostolate and charism didn’t conform to Catholic Christianity at its founding and is suddenly now about crystals, divination, and Reiki. At least, publicly, as that Order intersects with the world and witnesses to the World. (The question is, what is being witnessed?) In ways that this witness affects Catholic parents and their children, in that respect it is the business of the laity.

In closing I will note two things which were revealed by the EWTN Roundtable discussion which recently aired on the subject of the doctrinal assessment:

(1) One of the chief roles which religious Orders have is to pass on the faith, authentically: to echo Catholic doctrine. The concern that some in the Church, both lay and religous, have had, is where and when this has not been happening, but different doctrine is being transmitted and authentic doctrine has been actively opposed.

(2) The written documents referred to in that program (ones emanating from the leadership of Orders) strongly implied that the autonomy of an Order trumps the truths of the Catholic faith. There were fairly explicit references to this, going so far as to claim the right to dispense with “old models of authority and power,” and to claim that any Order could declare itself to be its own seat of authority – not just in the kinds of governance matters you have referred to-- but in the privilege to alter and recreate doctrine.

Lens #3 is very nuanced. Like the Franciscans, many if not most practicing, believing Catholics (parents and not) want to “root for the underdog.” Try to give credit to the average layperson for generosity and goodwill and enormous and humble gratitude for what Sisters have given them, given to others, and to what (most Sisters!) continue to provide in the way of essential Christian witness and apostolate. We just don’t want the Church to lose that gift, should leadership which possibly does not represent the majority of these Sisters threaten support for, and belief in, that witnessed dedication.

 

[Cathy]

Well said, Elizabeth 502!

 

[JReducation]

Brother, thanks for the lengthy explanations, plural. It seems to me that there are three lenses here, not two, and perhaps that’s why things get confused & people on all sides get frustrated.

One lens is the one you have abundantly described about the Orders themselves (and that sensitive relationship to a different chain of command, which is the bishops and eventually Rome).

A second lens is the cloudy and convex or concave one: the press, especially the American press. (Not a mirror, by any means)

A third lens is the lens of the average Catholic layperson. Now when the second and third lenses get too interdependent, this can be a problem, as you well state. But this lens not only tries to filter lens #2, it has a separate lens, which is one combined from experience of one’s own Catholic schooling, one’s knowledge of the faith, and what any particular Catholic school --in some cases run by a particular Order-- can be expected to teach one’s children. (This is what Cinette is referring to.)

It is very much the business of any Catholic parent of a Catholic school child, to know what their child is being taught, and why. Even if the entire school is staffed exclusively by members of an Order, from the P.E. teacher to the Secretary. (Probably a nonexistent situation these days.) You referred to the gospel. Indeed. Where does the gospel say that Christians are not obligated to speak the Truth to the innocent ones whom they are teaching? The restlessness and disturbance resulting from actual parental experiences in the late 20th and now the 21st century is what is being referred to here. It’s not that lay people with not enough to do are morbidly curious with internal discipline of an Order (lens #1), nor that lens #2 suddenly made them aware of some sensationalistic crisis. It’s their own awareness, their own experience --lens #3-- that is the dominant lens, and that is only either magnified or disturbed by other lenses.

I respectfully disagree that Orders which either segmentally or individually are teaching heterodoxy in schools have an absolute right to privacy. Our children have a right to be taught Catholic doctrine in Catholic settings. And if in those cases, the autonomy of an Order trumps the CDF, then someone’s not minding the store.

snip

I’m sure you would agree that by definition, a charism and apostolate of an Order cannot conflict with the essentials of the Catholic faith. Otherwise, that Order would never have had the blessing of Rome. Second, the character of an Order remains. If the Order was founded, for example, a hundred years ago, its apostolate and charism didn’t conform to Catholic Christianity at its founding and is suddenly now about crystals, divination, and Reiki. At least, publicly, as that Order intersects with the world and witnesses to the World. (The question is, what is being witnessed?) In ways that this witness affects Catholic parents and their children, in that respect it is the business of the laity.

In closing I will note two things which were revealed by the EWTN Roundtable discussion which recently aired on the subject of the doctrinal assessment:

(1) One of the chief roles which religious Orders have is to pass on the faith, authentically: to echo Catholic doctrine. The concern that some in the Church, both lay and religous, have had, is where and when this has not been happening, but different doctrine is being transmitted and authentic doctrine has been actively opposed.

(2) The written documents referred to in that program (ones emanating from the leadership of Orders) strongly implied that the autonomy of an Order trumps the truths of the Catholic faith. There were fairly explicit references to this, going so far as to claim the right to dispense with “old models of authority and power,” and to claim that any Order could declare itself to be its own seat of authority – not just in the kinds of governance matters you have referred to-- but in the privilege to alter and recreate doctrine.

Lens #3 is very nuanced. Like the Franciscans, many if not most practicing, believing Catholics (parents and not) want to “root for the underdog.” Try to give credit to the average layperson for generosity and goodwill and enormous and humble gratitude for what Sisters have given them, given to others, and to what (most Sisters!) continue to provide in the way of essential Christian witness and apostolate. We just don’t want the Church to lose that gift, should leadership which possibly does not represent the majority of these Sisters threaten support for, and belief in, that witnessed dedication.

Elizabeth: These are all very legitimate concerns, but they are not the concerns of the Holy See or the Holy Father. Neither the Holy See nor the pope himself deal with this kind of issue. This is to be dealt with at the local level.

At the present moment, the Holy See’s only concern is the LCWR, because it’s a canonically established conference of superiors licensed by the Holy See. Catholic schools have nothing to do with the Vatican. They are the problem of either the diocese or the religious communities who own them. Neither the Holy See nor the LCWR have jurisdiction over them or those who teach there. A religious superior has jurisdiction over his or her religious in a school, no one else. This situation deals with a conference of superiors, not the superiors themselves.

When I said that orders and congregations have a right to privacy, I’m speaking about what happens between a superior and his/her subordinates. Even if the issue on the table has to do with a pastoral incident or problem, such as what a religious is teaching, the Church’s law is very clear and so are the constitutions of every religious community. The superior may not make known his actions. Only if the individual religious speaks to those outside of that office, can the superior then speak about what is happening. Remember the case of Fr. Corapi. The superior kept silent until Father made the situation public. The superiors had been informed of the problems, but had said nothing to the public.

In my own situation, if you came to me and said that one of my brothers is teaching heresy in the classroom or wherever you heard him, I would be concerned. I would certainly take this up with the individual brother. I would tell you that I’m going to look into it. I will never get back to you and give you a blow by blow replay of our conversation. The law of the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life does not allow it, neither does the constitution. I can tell you that I addressed the problem. As far as results of the discussion, we have to wait and see. The superior takes the promise of the subordinate at face value. If he or she says that he will do as he is told, the superior can go no further. If individual fails to do as he promised, then the superior can take the next step allowed to him by the law, either proper law or Canon Law, but he cannot discuss it with anyone other than the governing council. If the fault is a moral one, the superior alone can know about it, not even the council, unless the guilty party wants to discuss it.

Because these things require so many details and there are many layers of law here, the Holy See (CDF) is limiting itself to the conference, not what happens at the lowest level. It’s impossible to navigate that without risking violating some laws. It’s impossible to cover all the bases too.

The idea is to give the LCWR the proper guidance, because it serves as a resource for superiors. Hopefully, the superiors can take what they can get from the LCWR into their communities at the level of which you’re speaking. But there is no guarantee that this will happen. Superiors are like bishops. Just as bishop is not bound by a conference, neither is a superior, unless there was an agreement to do something uniformly. This takes us back to Pope Pius XII who was the first pope to say that the papacy was not interested in engaging in the internal affairs of religious or in dealing with individual religious. His position was that this is the proper role of the superior. That position has been upheld by all of the popes from the Ven. Pius XII to Pope Benedict, by the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and by Canon Law.

I would not expect to see the Vatican involved in or voicing a position on what happens at the level schools or parishes. The Vatican has bigger and more important issues to deal with. The LCWR is only of many conferences of superiors and bishops around the world. Conferences are only one aspect of Church governance and Church life. It’s humanly impossible for those people at the Holy See to get involved or show any interest in the lowest rung on the ladder. What happens in our ministries is my problem, not the Vatican’s problem. As superior, I have to deal with it. That’s the same for every other superior.

We must remember that sisters, because they are women’s congregations are not bound by law to have superiors. As long as sisters have some kind of leadership, even a committee, they are good to go. Only men and nuns are bound by law to have superiors. Sisters do not need superiors to remain canonical. That’s another kink in the armor.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[JimG]

I respectfully disagree that Orders which either segmentally or individually are teaching heterodoxy in schools have an absolute right to privacy. Our children have a right to be taught Catholic doctrine in Catholic settings. And if in those cases, the autonomy of an Order trumps the CDF, then someone’s not minding the store.

I agree with this, and the rest of your post, and I would extend the sentiment further than just orthodoxy in the schools. Members of a religious order, like any Catholic, have a duty to pass on the Faith to others. If they instead teach heterodoxy, alternate morality, or new-age ideas, whether in schools, books, lectures, publications, retreats, conferences, RCIA, or any other manner, the laity do have a right to be concerned.

I have not followed this particular LCWR controversy, but just in the course of keeping up with Catholic news over the past decades, there has been enough to raise concerns in my mind about the LCWR leadership.

You lucidly set out the concerns of Catholic laity.

Brother JR has at great length explained the lines of authority. In so doing it almost seems as though the primary concern is protection of an order’s autonomy at the expense of protecting orthodoxy in the Church.

Most laity have no particular interest in how religious orders are governed, nor do they wish to interfere with their governance. They do, however, have a great interest in having those who profess to speak for Catholicism at least represent it correctly. It hardly seems just to say that ordinary Catholics simply have no recourse when the Faith is publicly undermined, especially if it impinges on our parish life or our students.

 

[catharina]

I agree with this, and the rest of your post, and I would extend the sentiment further than just orthodoxy in the schools. Members of a religious order, like any Catholic, have a duty to pass on the Faith to others. If they instead teach heterodoxy, alternate morality, or new-age ideas, whether in schools, books, lectures, publications, retreats, conferences, RCIA, or any other manner, the laity do have a right to be concerned.

I have not followed this particular LCWR controversy, but just in the course of keeping up with Catholic news over the past decades, there has been enough to raise concerns in my mind about the LCWR leadership.

You lucidly set out the concerns of Catholic laity.

Brother JR has at great length explained the lines of authority. In so doing **it almost seems as though the primary concern is protection of an order’s autonomy at the expense of protecting orthodoxy in the Church. **

Most laity have no particular interest in how religious orders are governed, nor do they wish to interfere with their governance. They do, however, have a great interest in having those who profess to speak for Catholicism at least represent it correctly. It hardly seems just to say that ordinary Catholics simply have no recourse when the Faith is publicly undermined, especially if it impinges on our parish life or our students.

Yet, last I heard, there ONLY four orders in the Church.
In protecting their own orthodoxy, these orders are protecting the Church.

 

[JReducation]

I agree with this, and the rest of your post, and I would extend the sentiment further than just orthodoxy in the schools. Members of a religious order, like any Catholic, have a duty to pass on the Faith to others. If they instead teach heterodoxy, alternate morality, or new-age ideas, whether in schools, books, lectures, publications, retreats, conferences, RCIA, or any other manner, the laity do have a right to be concerned.

I have not followed this particular LCWR controversy, but just in the course of keeping up with Catholic news over the past decades, there has been enough to raise concerns in my mind about the LCWR leadership.

You lucidly set out the concerns of Catholic laity.

Brother JR has at great length explained the lines of authority. In so doing it almost seems as though the primary concern is protection of an order’s autonomy at the expense of protecting orthodoxy in the Church.

Most laity have no particular interest in how religious orders are governed, nor do they wish to interfere with their governance. They do, however, have a great interest in having those who profess to speak for Catholicism at least represent it correctly. It hardly seems just to say that ordinary Catholics simply have no recourse when the Faith is publicly undermined, especially if it impinges on our parish life or our students.

I agree with you and Elizabeth that these concerns are valid and have to be addressed. The point that I’m trying to drive home here is that these concerns are being placed at the wrong doorstep. The pope and the Roman Curia are not interested in dealing with these concerns. These are local concerns that have to be dealt with by the local superior, not by the Vatican.

First, the CDF has no authority to deal with individual religious, only the pope does.

Second, there are too many religious for the pope to deal with.

Third, religious communities have some form of government that deals with such problems. The problems should be presented to the leadership of the community.

Fourth, this document has nothing to do with us at the local level. It has to do with the LCWR.

Pope Benedict has said to every general chapter that has taken place since he became pope. He is not interested in the internal or pastoral affairs of religious. It is the right and duty of the general chapter to deal with such things.

This brings me to my question, why do we insert these concerns into the dialogue between the Vatican and the LCWR when the Vatican is not interested in dealing with what happens at the grassroots level?

This thread is about a letter from one group of major superiors to another group of major superiors, not about the grassroots. When the Franciscans want to discuss what goes on in Catholic schools, parishes, retreats and other grassroots operations, they speak to their own men by means of a chapter.

Right now, the people in authority, the LCWR, the major superiors around the world and the CDF are interested in protecting the teachings of the Church while avoiding violating the autonomy of religious. Since that’s the subject on the table here, it would seem to me that should be the subject of discussion for us as well.

Our concerns of what happens in our community should be dealt with the appropriate authorities in our local community: school, parish, retreat center, etc, not inserted into a dialogue between the LCWR and the Vatican, because neither the LCWR nor the Vatican are directly involved with the grassroots community nor do they want to be. There are local authorities, religious and diocesan, who do that.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[JReducation]

Yet, last I heard, there ONLY four orders in the Church.
In protecting their own orthodoxy, these orders are protecting the Church.

We have to remember that the autonomy of religious order is a cannial point as well. This was established by the Council of Trent. This autonomy cannot be sacrificed for the sake of orthodoxy. Orthodoxy that violates its own laws is not orthodox. That’s the point that the Franciscans letter brings out.

The CDF has a law on how to deal with such conflicts between religious and bishops. That law came into existence, because of a canon from the Council of Trent that prohibits the intervention by bishops and laity in the affairs of religious and demands that bishops and laity protect and financially support religious.

In response to the need of laity and bishops to speak with religious superiors, without violating Trent, the CDF came up with a council of bishops and religious superiors that may be called, provided that the religious have the controlling number of votes on said council.

But this council is only for issues that are macro, not situation specific. What happens at St. Mary’s School is between the parents and the superior of the sisters who own St. Mary’s. What happens at St. John’s school is between the parents and the bishop who owns St. John’s. The rule is that the bishop and the religious superior must always have the last word. The parents and superiors or parents and bishop do not enter the dialogue as equals. The relationship is always vertical. Bishops and superiors have a moral obligation to listen and to correct what is damaging to the faith and morals of the people they serve. They do not have an obligation to fix things in the manner that others want them to do so.

Let’s say this was about hanging up a picture. Laity and religious superior agree that the picture is about to fall and needs to be secured. The laity says that a picture hook would work best. The superior says that a screw in the wall works fine. The screw in the wall it is. The superior agreed to fix the problem. He does not have to agree on the how. He retains his freedom to decide this part, because it’s his people doing the repair work. Only he can tell his people how to repair the problem. The superior relates the laity in the same manner as he relates to his or her subordinates in religious life.

He listens. He tries to be respectful and considerate. He tries to understand their needs and point of view. He answers questions. He may ask for suggestions. In the end, he decides what to do, how to do it and who’s going to do what part.

That’s why the Vatican does not want to deal with the congregations or the sisters, but only with the LCWR, which serves as a resources for the superiors. It wants to make sure that the resource is orthodox. And it’s trying to go about this in an orthodox way, by not violating boundaries. If the resource is orthodox, those superiors who are problem solving be with religious or with laity, we have something solid to fall back on. That’s the hope.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[M-Dent]

That’s why the Vatican does not want to deal with the congregations or the sisters, but only with the LCWR, which serves as a resources for the superiors. It wants to make sure that the resource is orthodox. And it’s trying to go about this in an orthodox way, by not violating boundaries. If the resource is orthodox, those superiors who are problem solving be with religious or with laity, we have something solid to fall back on.

That’s the hope.

Yes. This is important and most should agree. The study and findings of the doctrinal Assessment was focused on the LCWR. Not specific congregations.

The CDF, acting by authority of the Holy Father, found problematic areas involving *“essential questions of faith.” * Since the CDF functioning in its proper role and competency (not violating boundaries) they should be trusted.

The Holy Father has mandated a solution.

I’m not sure why an open letter needed to be drafted?

 

[triumphguy]

Yes. This is important and most should agree. The study and findings of the doctrinal Assessment was focused on the LCWR. Not specific congregations.

The CDF, acting by authority of the Holy Father, found problematic areas involving *“essential questions of faith.” * Since the CDF functioning in its proper role and competency (not violating boundaries) they should be trusted.

The Holy Father has mandated a solution.

I’m not sure why an open letter needed to be drafted?

So I’m waiting to pick up my kid after school. I know he’s a bit rambunctious. I see him come running out of school with obvious disregard for his safety or anyone else’s. A teacher (not his) or another parent starts to yell at him. I hustle over there and let it be known that I’m the dad.

But I’m kinda big and loud so it sounds more like this:

“Oy, that’s my kid you’re yelling at.”

And everyone notices.

Whatever, I’m big and kinda loud and can handle it.

But rest assured, rest very assured, I will make sure my kid obeys the rules in future.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Brother, my post 192 responded to your post 189. Perhaps I should have been clearer about that.
I am not, and was not, confused about the jurisdiction of the Holy See vs. Superior Generals of Orders, to wit:

they are not the concerns of the Holy See or the Holy Father. Neither the Holy See nor the pope himself deal with this kind of issue. This is to be dealt with at the local level.

Indeed. And again, you’ve made that clear, and much earlier. My simple point was that Orders who want to be left entirely “alone” (so to speak), to be independent from any controversy or even comment from the laity, should perhaps not intersect with the laity in a teaching role. Not in other roles, but in the teaching of juveniles. Because a third party will then enter into the picture: the first and second parties being the leaders of those Orders and the latter’s relationship with the Holy See. That third party is parents.

Now, when it comes to any remedy/redress for teaching that overtly does not adhere to doctrine, there may be some complexities involved, such as how that gets addressed, and to whom a parent or group of parents communicates, but parents are not concerned about that. Seriously, 99% of them are not curious enough to be concerned about internal governance of Orders. They care about what I discussed in my post 192, and (like the Holy See!) they wish to be proved wrong about any concerns/misgivings they have, when they have entrusted their children to be formed by members of religious communities, such as they, the parents, were often formed themselves. They’re interested in outcomes, not in privacy matters such as how Sister X or Brother Y gets disciplined.

Second, you probably did not mean your post 189 to read ambiguously, but in terms of media coverage, it did read that way to me. It seemed to imply that the U.S. laity (a) should have no more cause for concern than the Holy See does (and you explained well the moderate approach taken by Rome), and (b) receives most of its information from the U.S. (sensationalistic) press as their base of information, action, and reaction. That’s what my post 192 was all about: to frame the laity’s viewpoints as better informed and much more benevolent than all that (which I described as “Lens #3.”)

Orders who never want to be answerable in any fashion to Catholic laity should not send their members out to teach, because no matter how heterodoxy is corrected (whatever the internal means are for that), it will be exposed if/when it surfaces – and I don’t mean petty variances but major doctrinal controversies. (Naturally)

 

[M-Dent]

So I’m waiting to pick up my kid after school. I know he’s a bit rambunctious. I see him come running out of school with obvious disregard for his safety or anyone else’s. A teacher (not his) or another parent starts to yell at him. I hustle over there and let it be known that I’m the dad.

But I’m kinda big and loud so it sounds more like this:

“Oy, that’s my kid you’re yelling at.”

And everyone notices.

Whatever, I’m big and kinda loud and can handle it.

But rest assured, rest very assured, I will make sure my kid obeys the rules in future.

A musician/ composer plays an original piece of music on piano for a friend (who is a conductor). The composition expresses their love of a waterfall. After hearing the piece a conductor gains permission of the composer to use this piece with an orchestra he is performing with. The writer’s only direction is for the arrangement and melody to be presented without alteration. Counter melodies from the additional instrumentation is fine. Reasonable ornamentation & embellishments were expected.

The conductor has a strong aversion to chromatic descending notes. He finds them a bit irritating and unsophisticated. He makes some voicing changes to avoid this pattern in the chorus section of this piece.

When hearing the performance the composer of the piece is offended. He has words with the conductor after the show and criticizes the performance.

Another conductor (within ears distance) chimes in that the performance and direction was excellent and the conductor should be applauded not criticized.

The audience, also passionate about music, heard the squabble over a careless open mic. They began to murmur and argue in as well.

 

[JimG]

A musician/ composer plays an original piece of music on piano for a friend (who is a conductor). The composition expresses their love of a waterfall. After hearing the piece a conductor gains permission of the composer to use this piece with an orchestra he is performing with. The writer’s only direction is for the arrangement and melody to be presented without alteration. Counter melodies from the additional instrumentation is fine. Reasonable ornamentation & embellishments were expected.

The conductor has a strong aversion to chromatic descending notes. He finds them a bit irritating and unsophisticated. He makes some voicing changes to avoid this pattern in the chorus section of this piece.

When hearing the performance the composer of the piece is offended. He has words with the conductor after the show and criticizes the performance.

Another conductor (within ears distance) chimes in that the performance and direction was excellent and the conductor should be applauded not criticized.

The audience, also passionate about music, heard the squabble over a careless open mic. They began to murmur and argue in as well.

Of course, if the second conductor sends an “open letter,” which is by definition public, to the composer, then it wouldn’t be a matter of just overhearing the argument. The open letter would have in effect inivited public comment.

 

[JReducation]

Yes. This is important and most should agree. The study and findings of the doctrinal Assessment was focused on the LCWR. Not specific congregations.

The CDF, acting by authority of the Holy Father, found problematic areas involving *“essential questions of faith.” * Since the CDF functioning in its proper role and competency (not violating boundaries) they should be trusted.

The Holy Father has mandated a solution.

I’m not sure why an open letter needed to be drafted?

My GUESS is that there were two messages being sent, both subtle but obvious to the people who needed to see them.

To the LCWR:

1. We are your brothers and support you. (does not mean we approve or disapprove of what you do)
2. The bishops are the lawful teachers of doctrine

To the CDF

1. Don’t forget the law. If there needs to be a conversation involving the bishops, other than the apostolic delegate, there must be a council of religious superiors and bishops.

To both

Everyone is watching to make sure that you get this right.

Orders who never want to be answerable in any fashion to Catholic laity should not send their members out to teach, because no matter how heterodoxy is corrected (whatever the internal means are for that), it will be exposed if/when it surfaces – and I don’t mean petty variances but major doctrinal controversies. (Naturally)

First of all, religious orders never answer to the laity or to bishops. This has been Church law since Trent. We have to get that idea out of our heads. If we approach a religious superior with the attitude that he or she answers to us, we’re going to be disappointed. Superiors only answer to their chapter. Are they supposed to be open to the concern of others? Of course they are. Are they accountable to those outside the community? No. It’s a violation of a canon of Tent called the Right of Exemption. Lay people can address concerns with the local religious via the local bishop or directly with the local superior. The local bishop then acts as an intermediary or simply forwards the concern. Even on doctrinal issues, the local bishop can only pass the concern on to the major superior. He cannot intervene, except when the religious is employed by the diocese.

Second, there is no objection to laity expressing their concerns to religious superiors.

Third, the point I’m making is that the laity needs to go directly through the superior. Any attempt to go through the Holy See is only going to be ignored by the Holy See. They do this all the time. They either forward the communiques to the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life who then forwards it to the superior general who then forwards it to the provincial superior who then forwards it to the local superior or in this transit someone lays the communique on a desk and it never makes it to the local superior and the whatever it is that the laity needs, is never addressed, because the superior never heard about it. The appropriate route is through the local superior.

Having said this, whatever issues people are having at the grassroots level have nothing to do with this dialogue between the LCWR and the Vatican. The Vatican is not interested in getting involved at that level. It requires too much manpower and too many hours. Not to mention that it’s very touchy to do so, if the particular Vatican official is not diplomatic. Some are more diplomatic than others. To avoid such diplomatic complications, problems at that level are left to the local superior.

If your child attends a school run by the Sisters of St. X or the Brothers of St Y and there is a concern, it’s the local superior who deals with it, not the Vatican. Then things work up the ladder until they read the Sacred Congregation for Religious which is always the last stop. It never makes it to the CDF. The CDF only deals with issues on a macro level.

Fraternally,

Br.JR, FFV

 

[triumphguy]

A musician/ composer plays an original piece of music on piano for a friend (who is a conductor). The composition expresses their love of a waterfall. After hearing the piece a conductor gains permission of the composer to use this piece with an orchestra he is performing with. The writer’s only direction is for the arrangement and melody to be presented without alteration. Counter melodies from the additional instrumentation is fine. Reasonable ornamentation & embellishments were expected.

The conductor has a strong aversion to chromatic descending notes. He finds them a bit irritating and unsophisticated. He makes some voicing changes to avoid this pattern in the chorus section of this piece.

When hearing the performance the composer of the piece is offended. He has words with the conductor after the show and criticizes the performance.

Another conductor (within ears distance) chimes in that the performance and direction was excellent and the conductor should be applauded not criticized.

The audience, also passionate about music, heard the squabble over a careless open mic. They began to murmur and argue in as well.

I guess my parent and your composer need to get together for a beverage and a prayer session, though not necessarilly in that order.

 

[Elizabeth502]

First of all, religious orders never answer to the laity or to bishops. This has been Church law since Trent. We have to get that idea out of our heads. If we approach a religious superior with the attitude that he or she answers to us, we’re going to be disappointed.

Again, I believe you are over-interpreting. It’s not so much that the individuals are answerable, it’s the product (the teaching) that is, not “answerable,” but subject to review, and normally (in the case of Catholic schooling) categorically religious teaching that does not represent the core teaching of the Church (in and when, and rarely, it happens). Parents are the consumers of that child’s education. Catholic schools, not just secular schools, understand that. You can talk about all this canonical stuff, but Catholic school administrations are also wise enough in the ways of the world to understand the practical ramifications of providing a service and providing a product. There is in fact redress to higher authorities that is both implied and stated in tuition contracts. It’s not a question of the parents storming in to the hold a religious teacher hostage. It’s a question of the concept of accountability. I already said (that was clear in my last post) that whom they approach is a different matter than that those responsible for them can be approached. The school also represents to parents (the consumers) that it will indeed conform its teaching, in religious matters to authentically Catholic doctrine.

I have been a Catholic school parent for many years now. Even religious of various Orders (yes) have been held accountable by their higher-ups for the integrity of their religious teaching. Mostly (and thankfully!) it was not an issue, but parents were prepared to complain should it become an issue.

Second, there is no objection to laity expressing their concerns to religious superiors.

Great. And surely that conforms to the explicit Catholic understanding of the serious responsibility parents have for ultimate oversight of their child’s education. (Normally that is also explicitly laid out in contracts.)

Third, the point I’m making is that the laity needs to go directly through the superior. …The appropriate route is through the local superior.

I affirmed that, I think, in my recent post.

Having said this, whatever issues people are having at the grassroots level have nothing to do with this dialogue between the LCWR and the Vatican.

I definitely understand that. There have been side discussions on this thread which have popped up – in some cases by others. In view of those, and in view of some of the misunderstanding which I thought you might have about Catholic parents (vs. the exaggerated disenchatment by lay and clergy implied in the secular press), I thought I should clairfy a little.

If your child attends a school run by the Sisters of St. X or the Brothers of St Y and there is a concern, it’s the local superior who deals with it, not the Vatican. Then things work up the ladder until they read the Sacred Congregation for Religious which is always the last stop. It never makes it to the CDF. The CDF only deals with issues on a macro level.

Absolutely. No argument.

 

[iloveangels]

Again, I believe you are over-interpreting. It’s not so much that the individuals are answerable, it’s the product (the teaching) that is, not “answerable,” but subject to review, and normally (in the case of Catholic schooling) categorically religious teaching that does not represent the core teaching of the Church (in and when, and rarely, it happens). Parents are the consumers of that child’s education. Catholic schools, not just secular schools, understand that. You can talk about all this canonical stuff, but Catholic school administrations are also wise enough in the ways of the world to understand the practical ramifications of providing a service and providing a product. There is in fact redress to higher authorities that is both implied and stated in tuition contracts. It’s not a question of the parents storming in to the hold a religious teacher hostage. It’s a question of the concept of accountability. I already said (that was clear in my last post) that whom they approach is a different matter than that those responsible for them can be approached. The school also represents to parents (the consumers) that it will indeed conform its teaching, in religious matters to authentically Catholic doctrine.

I have been a Catholic school parent for many years now. Even religious of various Orders (yes) have been held accountable by their higher-ups for the integrity of their religious teaching. Mostly (and thankfully!) it was not an issue, but parents were prepared to complain should it become an issue.

Great. And surely that conforms to the explicit Catholic understanding of the serious responsibility parents have for ultimate oversight of their child’s education. (Normally that is also explicitly laid out in contracts.)

I affirmed that, I think, in my recent post.

I definitely understand that. There have been side discussions on this thread which have popped up – in some cases by others. In view of those, and in view of some of the misunderstanding which I thought you might have about Catholic parents (vs. the exaggerated disenchatment by lay and clergy implied in the secular press), I thought I should clairfy a little.

Absolutely. No argument.

It’s been interesting reading your replies but I have a couple of questions.

1. Do the schools where you are have many religious teaching in them? (They don’t here.)
2. Does complaining to the management really result in any changes at all? (It hasn’t here in the past. Of course, now, it’s mostly academic. I can’t honestly tell you we have more than a handful of religious in all the schools of the diocese taken together, and I don’t know whether most people here consider that much of a loss or not. It’s more expensive to have lay teachers and maybe that would be the biggest factor if there something to it.)

NOTE: I live in a small diocese and we’re not used to having a lot of consecrated religious around. We did have a mother house of teaching/nursing sisters, of the modern congregational type, but very, very few of them have been in service for literally decades. It more or less collapsed a long time ago and they’ve been “off the radar” of the local laypeople for a long time. A fair of number of the more devout type of laypersons have also had peculiar experiences with what’s left of the congregation so it’s no longer really a “go-to” organization for many people. [aka Nobody really drives over there for morning mass anymore and so on, like laypeople do in some localities. It’s not that kind of thing anymore.]

This diocese had a solid brush with Regnum Christi a decade or so ago, but that faltered too, in light of their recent problems. It’s left a bit of confusion and mistrust here. We’ve had several failed attempts at public associations of the faithful too, one of them rather badly confused with other factors which were political in nature. Maybe I live in an odd diocese.

The sole extent of our exposure now to religious orders is the few order priests that serve in parishes and about which parishioners are confused. They tend to believe that the priesthood part is the important part and the other, well, it’s a modifier that may or may not be important to them. The great majority of our priests here remain diocesan however.

 

[iloveangels]

We do have a tiny contingent of third order members, of about 3 types, but you could probably get them all around a single table. This aspect is also highly misunderstood here and not really on anyone’s radar, to speak of.

 

[M-Dent]

I guess my parent and your composer need to get together for a beverage and a prayer session, though not necessarilly in that order.

Our protagonist’s aside - I’ll most certainly join you in a prayer session. A prayer for more visible unity and peace in our Church.

(As for the beverage - the composer prefers Johnnie Walker Gold. )

 

[Elizabeth502]

It’s been interesting reading your replies but I have a couple of questions.

1. Do the schools where you are have many religious teaching in them? (They don’t here.)
2. Does complaining to the management really result in any changes at all? (It hasn’t here in the past. The religious oversee the religious instruction in the schools. Those religious are sometimes teachers sometimes administrators in those schools, sometimes administrators in the diocese in question.

1. They don’t have “many,” but they have some. And those some oversee religous instruction, as teachers and/or administrators in those schools, or administrators in the diocese in question.
2. Yes.

 

[iloveangels]

1. They don’t have “many,” but they have some. And those some oversee religous instruction, as teachers and/or administrators in those schools, or administrators in the diocese in question.
2. Yes.

You have a very different situation than we do then, Elizabeth 502.

We don’t have hardly any religious in the schools or hospitals anymore. Our one order of sisters is basically moribund, and withdrawn from Catholic society. Many people here under the age of 40 have never seen anyone in a religious habit outside of the movies, let alone had a conversation with one.

We do have a few religious order priests, but they don’t look any different to most of the laity than diocesan priests do, and generally speaking, the overwhelming majority of the laity here don’t comprehend or recognize the difference at all. They seem to come and go too. I mean we’ll get one from one order, and then he’ll go away and another order will show up and so on. The only parish that’s continuously been one order is way out in the boondocks and it’s tiny. I mean a 4-corners. And they dress just like diocesan priests.