Vatican demands reform of American nuns' leadership group [CWN]

[JimG]

I just found this thread. I am beginning to understand my catholic upbringing in the 60s and why I had no clue what my faith was about.

Thanks to IloveAngels for posting the IHM story and links. Things are becoming much clearer to me now why the catholic church seems so split today and why there seem to be two types of priests (not to mention sisters).

I can’t tell you how much this has helped me.

I was the second oldest of five siblings. The two oldest were largely finished with our Catholic schooling by the time the changes occurred.

Note that Vatican II made NO changes to Church doctrine. It made few actual changes to Church practice or liturgy. But it seemed to unleash a progressive movement in liturgy and doctrine and particularly in Catholic education.

I assumed that my younger siblings were receiving the same catechtical instruction that I had–which was very good. So did my parents. It only became apparent to me some years later that the youngest had been taught virtually nothing substantive of the Faith.

My own bishop–a product of that era, and quite orthodox in his Catholicism–once said at a meeting that until he was in seminary, he had no clue what the Eucharist was about. Not a clue. He said something like “well, I grew up in that period where they taught us to feel good about each other and to draw nice pictures. But nobody taught us doctrine!”

 

[Cyndita]

Does this organization represent all nuns in the U.S. Many of my friends and familiy have referred to articles in the New York Times and other places and refer to anectdotal stories about nuns and how they are more like Jesus than the Pope and bishops. I know many nuns who adhere to church teachings.

I do, too. It appears a lot of the posters on this thread have had very bad experiences; what a shame. All of the sisters I know live out the Gospel message each and every day - and often anonymously. They are intelligent, thoughtful, faithful, God loving women who love Jesus Christ and the Church. The Vatican representatives seem to be acting as ideologues rather than the rational, compassionate men they are called to be as Christians, let alone men of the cloth. And why do they want nuns to focus on homosexuality, of all things? The priesthood is rife with homosexuals and pedophiles…mustn’t they clean their own house first? I love the nuns and priests in my parish, as well as in all the many other parishes surrounding my very Irish Catholic neighborhood. The men and women religious work together here, and offer mutual support. When I read the Vatican’s findings, I almost fell off my chair! Good Lord, set us right! Pax Vobiscum.

 

[jwinch2]

The Vatican representatives seem to be acting as ideologues rather than the rational, compassionate men they are called to be as Christians, let alone men of the cloth.

Care to explain that?

 

[opus101]

. And why do they want nuns to focus on homosexuality, of all things? /QUOTE]

Where did you read that “they want nuns to focus on homosexuality”? I’ve been following this issue pretty closely, and have never heard or read that. What I DID read, however, was that, doctrinally, SOME of the LCWR religious sisters have been presenting false teachings on this topic. For a long time.

The Priests and Bishops are also to present the authentic teaching of the Church. Just because a few of them failed in this area doesn’t mean that the vast majority have not remained faithful.

Also, keep in mind that the Popes and Bishops have been trying to reach out to these religious for quite some time now (really, ever since they started the conference and changed its name, decades ago). The Pope and Bishops ARE “rational and compassionate”, in fact I’m surprised at the amount of patience they have had.

 

[IsabelG]

Our Diocese also has a convent of cloistered Carmelite nuns who are AWESOME. It’s mostly the Dominican Sisters who wear lay clothes around here that are wacky.Too bad the Bishop still puts them in charge of so much.

 

[IsabelG]

I followed that link to the lcwr, and it turns my stomach to see so many sisters looking so masculine…boy-short hair and wearing slacks…I know many of you will disagree, but as one who was once very rebellious and had a disdain for my own femininity, seeing it as weakness, I wonder if these sisters are experiencing the same thing, leading to bad doctine and practice???
From my experience, there is a different spirit that goes with wearing skirts and growing your hair (or covering one’s head) and it has something to do with submission to authority…Could that not be one reason why the Nuns in habits were more successful at remaining true to the Faith? And in attracting novices currently?

 

[Ignats75]

I was the second oldest of five siblings. The two oldest were largely finished with our Catholic schooling by the time the changes occurred.

Note that Vatican II made NO changes to Church doctrine. It made few actual changes to Church practice or liturgy. But it seemed to unleash a progressive movement in liturgy and doctrine and particularly in Catholic education.

I assumed that my younger siblings were receiving the same catechtical instruction that I had–which was very good. So did my parents. It only became apparent to me some years later that the youngest had been taught virtually nothing substantive of the Faith.

My own bishop–a product of that era, and quite orthodox in his Catholicism–once said at a meeting that until he was in seminary, he had no clue what the Eucharist was about. Not a clue. He said something like “well, I grew up in that period where they taught us to feel good about each other and to draw nice pictures. But nobody taught us doctrine!”

These sad stories is why we stopped sending our kids to Diocesean schools. Our two youngest are in an independent Roman Catholic school that belongs to NAPCIS. This is an association of schools that teach a more “classical” or “fundamental” curriculum. They teach the Baltimore Catechism and the older kids learn the Constitution of the US. Needless to say, this school is not run by nuns who belong to LCWR.

 

[Cyndita]

I followed that link to the lcwr, and it turns my stomach to see so many sisters looking so masculine…boy-short hair and wearing slacks…I know many of you will disagree, but as one who was once very rebellious and had a disdain for my own femininity, seeing it as weakness, I wonder if these sisters are experiencing the same thing, leading to bad doctine and practice???
From my experience, there is a different spirit that goes with wearing skirts and growing your hair (or covering one’s head) and it has something to do with submission to authority…Could that not be one reason why the Nuns in habits were more successful at remaining true to the Faith? And in attracting novices currently?

Women who do not have sex, or children, and who age as God intended them to age (eg., without cosmetics and/or surgery) often appear androgynous to others. Putting them in a habit and covering their hair doesn’t change what they are underneath! Have you ever worn a serge habit in 100 degree heat? Have you ever been required to take your habit apart stitch by stitch so that it can be laundered, and then put it back together stitch by stitch? My aunt (SNJM)) certainly did. And, today’s lay clothing (which should be accompanied by their Order’s cross or pin) is more about being practical and getting the work done without undue suffering. Remember all those irritated nuns who took out their habit-discomfort on their students? I, too, prefer habits, but I certainly know what sisters in the past have had to endure when wearing them! Lay clothing should not affect any religious person’s remaining true to the faith. If it does, there are always ways to change one’s vocation in life!

 

[Cyndita]

Our Diocese also has a convent of cloistered Carmelite nuns who are AWESOME. It’s mostly the Dominican Sisters who wear lay clothes around here that are wacky.Too bad the Bishop still puts them in charge of so much.

How are they whacky? They are often contemplative, and they are always apostolic. Can you give me an example? I’m just interested in what you have witnessed the Dominican sisters doing that appears whacky.

 

[jwinch2]

How are they whacky? They are often contemplative, and they are always apostolic. Can you give me an example? I’m just interested in what you have witnessed the Dominican sisters doing that appears whacky.

youtube.com/watch?v=buDXNhKvnV0&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Fr. Robert Barron talks about the investigation 3 years ago when it was first began. Some of his words seem remarkably prescient given where we find ourselves today. In addition, you can see the relationship between how people responded at the time the investigation was announced and since it has been concluded.

In this video, Fr. Barron also discusses the actions of a particular Dominican sister. There are other issues of course, but this is certainly whacky.

I know this thread is long, but I do encourage you to go back and read it. There are many links, articles, videos, etc. which deal with the questions you are asking and the comments you have made above.

Peace,

 

[Cyndita]

Cyndita;9259695:

. And why do they want nuns to focus on homosexuality, of all things? /QUOTE]

Where did you read that “they want nuns to focus on homosexuality”? I’ve been following this issue pretty closely, and have never heard or read that. What I DID read, however, was that, doctrinally, SOME of the LCWR religious sisters have been presenting false teachings on this topic. For a long time.

The Priests and Bishops are also to present the authentic teaching of the Church. Just because a few of them failed in this area doesn’t mean that the vast majority have not remained faithful.

Also, keep in mind that the Popes and Bishops have been trying to reach out to these religious for quite some time now (really, ever since they started the conference and changed its name, decades ago). The Pope and Bishops ARE “rational and compassionate”, in fact I’m surprised at the amount of patience they have had.

I have read in numerous articles in response to the Vatican’s report that the sisters should focus more on: the issue of homosexuality in the church, euthanasia, and abortion. I only mentioned the homosexuality component, since it seems so hypocritical.

It is also in this vein that it appears the ‘visitators’ were presenting an ‘ideal’, rather than focussing on the particular charism of individual orders. I don’t think the Vatican has shown much compassion or even insight into the current nature of women religious. In fact, several older priests who were in the minor seminary when they were adolescents often remember being taught that women were basically ordure. I understand that this was probably meant to make them feel guilty if they ever had sexual stirrings, but it also meant that these young boys were being taught that women were inferior and only upheld with respect when they were in the ‘mother’ status. Ideologues see the ideal, but this can also plays itself out as tunnel vision. The Vatican needs to witness to the periphery of religious who are living out the Gospel in ways not solely connected with homosexuality, euthanasia or abortion, but in helping the poor, the uneducated, the homeless and unemployed.

This is just my opinion, of course, and I do appreciate others’ sentiments as well. Thank you for replying to my post so that I could further explain my earlier statement! :nun1:

 

[opus101]

opus101;9259815:

I have read in numerous articles in response to the Vatican’s report that the sisters should focus more on: the issue of homosexuality in the church, euthanasia, and abortion. I only mentioned the homosexuality component, since it seems so hypocritical.

I’d like to know which articles said they should “focus more on” homosexuality. I’m aware of information that says they need to get on board with the Church’s teaching on the subject, but not about focusing on it with their ministry. Personally, I do not see this as hypocritical, because the priests and bishops are also required to uphold the truth on this subject. Those who failed in this regard, did just that: they failed. The truth remains the same. They are being dealt with now. Anyway, how can it be hypocritical if those who are now asking them to remain in accord with the truth are not the ones who caused the scandals?

The Vatican needs to witness to the periphery of religious who are living out the Gospel in ways not solely connected with homosexuality, euthanasia or abortion, but in helping the poor, the uneducated, the homeless and unemployed.

The Vatican DID commend them on their good work. You’re missing the entire point. It’s not that they don’t have these issues as their primary mission that is the problem. The problem is that many of them do not uphold Christian belief in these areas, and sometimes actually work AGAINST it! Not only do they not minister in the area of pro-life efforts for the unborn, they don’t even MENTION it! They are not in solidarity with the mission of the Church. The Church is a sign of contradiction. It’s not a “pick and choose” deal from a politically correct buffet. If they want to be known as Catholic religious, they need to be Catholic.

 

[jwinch2]

lifesitenews.com/blog/its-been-a-decade-and-we-still-havent-heeded-pope-jp-iis-advice-on-the-sex

…the Pastors of the Church need clearly to promote the correct moral teaching of the Church and publicly to reprimand individuals who spread dissent and groups which advance ambiguous approaches to pastoral care.

 

[Cyndita]

In this video, Fr. Barron also discusses the actions of a particular Dominican sister. There are other issues of course, but this is certainly whacky.

I know this thread is long, but I do encourage you to go back and read it. There are many links, articles, videos, etc. which deal with the questions you are asking and the comments you have made above.

Peace,

Jason, thank you for directing me to these helpful links. I offer another opinion from the US Catholic, April 19, 2012, author Bryan Cones. You may read it online.

I do not think Sr. Laurie Brink is ‘whacky’, and using that term automatically (and most disrespectfully) negates her background, education, and keen knowledge of scripture. She also states that her opinion does not reflect the teachings of the Church, nor the Dominicans. (Thus, Dominican sisters should not be lumped into the category of ‘whacky’, as that is very unfair and prejudicial.) She also posits that the messages of the Gospel are also present in other faiths such as Buddhism, Native American spirituality, Judaism, etc., and which was quoted as ‘going beyond Jesus’; in fact, opening the doors to ecumenism was a position held by Pope John Paul II. This was what I garnered from her talk - that not only Jesus, but the true spirit of God’s love, can be found in other religions, not just in Christianity. I did not find any reference to turning away from Christ, but, rather, of embracing ongoing metanoia which would enable a closer union with God. I don’t know why the Vatican picked on this particular keynote speech as being scandalous, but it did. When the Vatican wants to find ‘dirt’, they’ll pick up on every little nuance that, to them, smacks of disobedience. In my opinion, what they are disagreeing with is rather minute. And again, why don’t they clean their own house of rampant homosexuality and pedophila?

Thank you, again, Jason!

 

[KSU]

I followed that link to the lcwr, and it turns my stomach to see so many sisters looking so masculine…boy-short hair and wearing slacks…I know many of you will disagree, but as one who was once very rebellious and had a disdain for my own femininity, seeing it as weakness, I wonder if these sisters are experiencing the same thing, leading to bad doctine and practice???
From my experience, there is a different spirit that goes with wearing skirts and growing your hair (or covering one’s head) and it has something to do with submission to authority…Could that not be one reason why the Nuns in habits were more successful at remaining true to the Faith? And in attracting novices currently?

A powerful case can be made for habits being symbols of the spiritual armour St. Paul tells us to put on because our battle in this world is a spiritual one.
It ALWAYS all comes down to a choice between Holy Mother Church on the one hand, and, on the other, the flesh (e.g., homosexualism), the world (e.g., “feminism”–see catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8138 ) and the devil, whose greatest weapon is deception,viz:
“It is an astonishing thing that historians will look back and puzzle over, that in the 21st century, American women were such hunted creatures”; “Even as Republicans try to wrestle women into chastity belts, the Vatican is trying to muzzle American nuns”; “Who thinks it’s cool to bully nuns? While continuing to heal and educate, the community of sisters is aging and dying out because few younger women are willing to make such sacrifices for a church determined to bring women to heel”;“It’s not terribly unlike the days of yore when they singled out people in the rough days of the Inquisition”; “the church’s obsession, at times, with the sexual relationships is a serious problem.” catholicworldreport.com/Item/1313/the_angry_lazy_bigotry_of_maureen_dowd.aspx

I am afraid for these poor women who have been deceived. It’s an ancient story, and was foretold:
"And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat.” (Luke 22:31)
“Jesus turned to them and said, Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me; weep instead for yourselves and for your children, for indeed, the days are coming when people will say, ‘Blessed are the barren, the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed.’” (Luke 23:28-29)

 

[Cyndita]

Cyndita;9261039:

I’d like to know which articles said they should “focus more on” homosexuality. I’m aware of information that says they need to get on board with the Church’s teaching on the subject, but not about focusing on it with their ministry. Personally, I do not see this as hypocritical, because the priests and bishops are also required to uphold the truth on this subject. Those who failed in this regard, did just that: they failed. The truth remains the same. They are being dealt with now. Anyway, how can it be hypocritical if those who are now asking them to remain in accord with the truth are not the ones who caused the scandals?

Oh my. I did not mean to imply that the sisters were being asked to FOCUS on homosexuality; rather, that they are being encouraged to more fully address the Church’s teachings on homosexuality, euthanasia, and abortion. I apologize if my post came off that way, as I probably did use less than desirable vocabulary to describe what I was feeling. Again, mea culpa. In using the term ‘hypocritical’, I was addressing the fact that so many priests are gay and/or have other sexual mental disorders. The wayward priests have done the most damage to the faithful, in that they have betrayed trusts and confidences, and have introduced sexual feelings to young people who are not yet mentally, emotionally or physically equipped to deal with sexual encounters - or rapes, as was sometimes the case. To me, these disorders are egregious and must be dealt with as severely as the sisters are being treated.

The Vatican DID commend them on their good work. You’re missing the entire point. It’s not that they don’t have these issues as their primary mission that is the problem. The problem is that many of them do not uphold Christian belief in these areas, and sometimes actually work AGAINST it! Not only do they not minister in the area of pro-life efforts for the unborn, they don’t even MENTION it! They are not in solidarity with the mission of the Church. The Church is a sign of contradiction. It’s not a “pick and choose” deal from a politically correct buffet. If they want to be known as Catholic religious, they need to be Catholic.

 

[Cyndita]

opus101;9261097:
And I would like proof that ‘many’ of ‘them’ (meaning sisters, I believe) are working against the Church. Really? None of my sisters do (I am a religious associate), and I am baffled by all of this vitriol being spilled here. We mustn’t be so legalistic that we lose the real meaning of why we’re Roman Catholic!

 

[KSU]

Cyndita;9261342:

And I would like proof that ‘many’ of ‘them’ (meaning sisters, I believe) are working against the Church. Really? None of my sisters do (I am a religious associate), and I am baffled by all of this vitriol being spilled here. We mustn’t be so legalistic that we lose the real meaning of why we’re Roman Catholic!

Cyndita, thank you. You are providing this thread with living proof of what the Vatican finally revealed to the world about the LCWR/NETWORK/CTA et al.

 

[Cyndita]

Cyndita;9261352:

Cyndita, thank you. You are providing this thread with living proof of what the Vatican finally revealed to the world about the LCWR/NETWORK/CTA et al.

I will pray for you, KSU. You seem unwilling or unable to have respectful dialogue with those who may question your positions. May the peace of God be with you.

 

[jilly4ski]

opus101;9259815:

I have read in numerous articles in response to the Vatican’s report that the sisters should focus more on: the issue of homosexuality in the church, euthanasia, and abortion. I only mentioned the homosexuality component, since it seems so hypocritical.

It is also in this vein that it appears the ‘visitators’ were presenting an ‘ideal’, rather than focussing on the particular charism of individual orders. I don’t think the Vatican has shown much compassion or even insight into the current nature of women religious. In fact, several older priests who were in the minor seminary when they were adolescents often remember being taught that women were basically ordure. I understand that this was probably meant to make them feel guilty if they ever had sexual stirrings, but it also meant that these young boys were being taught that women were inferior and only upheld with respect when they were in the ‘mother’ status. Ideologues see the ideal, but this can also plays itself out as tunnel vision. The Vatican needs to witness to the periphery of religious who are living out the Gospel in ways not solely connected with homosexuality, euthanasia or abortion, but in helping the poor, the uneducated, the homeless and unemployed.

This is just my opinion, of course, and I do appreciate others’ sentiments as well. Thank you for replying to my post so that I could further explain my earlier statement! :nun1:

Cyndta, like someone said before, you need to go to the source and quit relying on other peoples (especially secular medias’) understanding of the issue. The particular issue being discussed in this thread, is about doctrinal issues and the Vatican’s response to the LCWR, which is one of the leadership conferences in the US. Not the individual congregations and religious themselves. The Church is concerned that the** leadership conference** is not supporting Christian ideals (especially in the abortion, homosexual marriage, and other moral issues) and promoting non-Christian and Catholic theology and doctrine. How can they be effectively serving the congregations under their banner if they are not doing this. (If indeed the congregations have varied charisms). Thus with this renewal the leadership conference will be in a better position to help and support its member congregations.