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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Corki
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tigg said:
This touches on a very sore spot and the reason why I stated earlier that the needed reform should go way beyond women religious. I am in no way defending them, but their camp is much larger than some suspect.

slatts.blogspot.com/2010/01/catholic-relief-services-forms.html
Click to expand...
You’re absolutely correct,Tigg, and I think that’s why the Holy Father is claimed by many to have long ago indicated that the answer may have to be a smaller, purer Church.

Wether he meant it or not, and, if he did, what the Holy Father may have meant exactly, we can’t yet know. But there are some in the LCWR/NETWORK/CTA camp who fear that a Catholic campaign for a smaller but purer Church may have begun with the CDF’s doctrinal assessment concerning the LCWR. Whatever the case may be, there is absolutely no doubt that that the homosexual and Socialist lobbies, in and out of the Church, are enraged to the point of being unable to deal with the situation rationally or civilly.

So the beat goes on: the Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development continues its own campaign against the Republican’s proposed budget cuts because the cuts are " immoral"; our Catholic Vice President comes out publicly for homosexual “marriage”; and our stellar Catholic Congressperson Pelosi speaks “glowingly of the comments President Barack Obama made Wednesday when he said he supported same-sex marriage”:
cnsnews.com/news/article/pelosi-catholic-faith-compels-her-be-against-discrimination-and-same-sex-marriage
 
KSU said:
You’re absolutely correct,Tigg, and I think that’s why the Holy Father is claimed by many to have long ago indicated that the answer may have to be a smaller, purer Church.

Wether he meant it or not, and, if he did, what the Holy Father may have meant exactly, we can’t yet know. But there are some in the LCWR/NETWORK/CTA camp who fear that a Catholic campaign for a smaller but purer Church may have begun with the CDF’s doctrinal assessment concerning the LCWR. Whatever the case may be, there is absolutely no doubt that that the homosexual and Socialist lobbies, in and out of the Church, are enraged to the point of being unable to deal with the situation rationally or civilly.

So the beat goes on: the Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development continues its own campaign against the Republican’s proposed budget cuts because the cuts are " immoral"; our Catholic Vice President comes out publicly for homosexual “marriage”; and our stellar Catholic Congressperson Pelosi speaks “glowingly of the comments President Barack Obama made Wednesday when he said he supported same-sex marriage”:
cnsnews.com/news/article/pelosi-catholic-faith-compels-her-be-against-discrimination-and-same-sex-marriage
Click to expand...
Except that the seminaries in the US (and one male religious order) had a visitation and “crackdown” before the women’s religious and the LCWR had theirs. So it has started long before this incident, which is another reason I can’t believe the LCWR was surprised or shocked by this.
 
I’m starting to view the attempt at reforming the LCWR as a type of “rescue mission”. There is no way (aside from a HUGE miracle) that the entire group of leaders will convert back to real Catholicism. However, SOME might repent and change ways, and the example of all of this will effect individual religious sisters in various communities. SOME of them will renew their loyalty to Christ and His Church (and I’m aware that some have never left it to begin with).

This is the same with the opposite end of the spectrum: the SSPX issue. SOME will accept the terms, some won’t.

They are both rescue missions. Let’s pray for our Bishops, our spiritual SWAT team.
 
opus101 said:
I’m starting to view the attempt at reforming the LCWR as a type of “rescue mission”. There is no way (aside from a HUGE miracle) that the entire group of leaders will convert back to real Catholicism. However, SOME might repent and change ways, and the example of all of this will effect individual religious sisters in various communities. SOME of them will renew their loyalty to Christ and His Church (and I’m aware that some have never left it to begin with).

This is the same with the opposite end of the spectrum: the SSPX issue. SOME will accept the terms, some won’t.

They are both rescue missions. Let’s pray for our Bishops, our spiritual SWAT team.
Click to expand...
There is no doubt that it’s a rescue mission, and a spiritual SWAT team is a very good analogy. I believe however that the PRIMARY objective is to rescue the Church in America–its maligned bishops, its teachings and its faithful, some of whom are sorely confused and even being led into grievous sin and error. We can hope that a high priority also will be assigned to rescuing the long suffering nuns and Sisters in the underlying orders.

But, as in any last resort SWAT team action, sometimes the bad guys get hurt. “They have eyes to see but do not see and ears to hear but do not hear, for they are a rebellious people.”😦
 
Thanks for the link, ellie. IMO, Michael Voris is a bit “out there”. Even though I agree with his basic ideas, he always comes off as a bit nasty. Although there is such a thing as righteous anger, his sneering tone won’t assist in its cause.

Some of these sisters have gone astray and, woefully, took many people along with them. They are in a grave situation that needs correction, and to many of us , it seems like it took way too long. The longer things take, the more souls it affects.
 
opus101 said:
Thanks for the link, ellie. IMO, Michael Voris is a bit “out there”. Even though I agree with his basic ideas, he always comes off as a bit nasty. Although there is such a thing as righteous anger, his sneering tone won’t assist in its cause.
Click to expand...
It’s amazing how different authentic Catholics can be, but still stay unified where it counts. I find Voris to be refreshingly honest and truthful. If we had many more like him to publicize the truth, groups such as the LCWR, Call to Action, Catholics for a Free Choice, etc. would be afraid to come out of the shadows in search of souls to corrupt.
 
jwinch2 said:
ncregister.com/blog/tim-drake/when-reverend-mothers-cease-being-motherly
Click to expand...
Thank you for the link, jwinch. That NCR article could have been written by Michael Voris.

It’s about time–long past the time–that “mainstream” Catholic voices such as the excellent National Catholic Register joined the lone voices crying out in the wilderness, such as Real Catholic TV, in defending Holy Mother Church and Mother Mary against, blasphemy, sacrilege and heresy. We’ve had 40 years of looking the other way out of a well intentioned but false sense of tolerance and compassion. At best, we’ve mustered a lukewarm defense, and we all know how that’s worked out.
 
I think we need to be very careful here.

First, Fr. Martin and his orthodoxy or lack thereof, is not germane to this discussion.

Second, Fr. Martin is correct in that many women religious are not supposed to be in habits. One of the comments on the website linked above disputed that, they are wrong. No, the documents of V2 did not state that women should discard the habit. However, what they did do was tell them to look to the writings of their founders and their constitutions. Many of them, per their founders and their constitutions, were never supposed to be in a habit and living a semi-cloistered life in the first place. Instead, many women religious were supposed to be out in the world doing good works. This is not a problem. Afterall, the laity are expected to maintain our faith wearing secular clothing and living in the world. It obviously can be done. It is not an issue of wearing or not wearing a habit. It is an issue of following or not following their vows and Church teaching.

Third, Fr. Martin does need to acknowledge that many of the women he has held up as a role model have actually strayed a long way from the Church and probably induced others to do the same. Many of them have been dissidents in terms of Church teaching for a long time, and that does need to stop. He is also wrong in his interpretation of the investigation by the CDF. This was a much needed step, that has been overdue for quite some time. No matter when or how it was done, it would have been received poorly by many of the sisters, co-called Catholics who openly dissent from Church teachings, and the popular media.
 
“No, the documents of V2 did not state that women should discard the habit. However, what they did do was tell them to look to the writings of their founders and their constitutions. Many of them, per their founders and their constitutions, were never supposed to be in a habit and living a semi-cloistered life in the first place.”–jwinch2

Teach us something here, jwinch; your orthodoxy is well respected and applauded in this thread, at least by me, and I would like to know the names of the orders that adopted the wearing of habits in contradiction of their founders and constitutions.
 
Michael_Mayo said:
They aren’t all bad, you know.

americamagazine.org/content/video/video-index.cfm?series_id=1338
Click to expand...
This was a very misleading video. Near the beginning of the video he
said “I’m not here to talk about the Vatican document” etc. Of course not. That would have shown the truth of the matter, which is that it has nothing to do with anything he was talking about!

So a few LCWR communities historically started with women who wore secular dress - but does that mean that they ALL did? To see them, you would think so. I’m starting to wonder about that much repeated story anyway.

He gave us little close-up vignettes about certain sisters, highlighting their strong points. Again, what does that have to do with anything? We already know that, and they’ve been commended on their good work. But that doesn’t make them Catholic, let alone religious sisters. Lots of people of all different denominations and faiths serve the poor in the missions, and they too have been martyred. But here’s a difference: they are honest. They don’t claim to be Catholic. Some of what they teach and stand for is at odds with Catholicism, but at least they don’t call it Catholic! But some of these LCWR sisters are not only at odds with Catholic doctrine, they actually actively work against it. To me, that seems dishonest.

Fr. Martin said that these sisters are “demoralized” because of the reform. Has he ever considered that hundreds of thousands of Catholics have been repeatedly demoralized, scandalized and led astray for 40 years by these very same people?

He defends their fidelity to the Second Vatican Council and documents on religious life that call for updating and reform. But they were to do all of that under the guidance of the Church. How does “updating” equal changing Church doctrine and guidelines?
 
KSU said:
…and I would like to know the names of the orders that adopted the wearing of habits in contradiction of their founders and constitutions.
Click to expand...
First, thanks for the kind words. I try to be faithful and hopefully objective and fair as well, though I often do not succeed at any of those things.

As for the rest, I don’t have a list, if that is what you are after. You would have to look to the individual congregations to figure that out. And even then, you would have to go back to the original set of constitutions for the congregation and perhaps the writings of the founder if any survived.

Mostly, because of my looking into the Dominicans, I know that there are multiple groups of Dominican apostolic sisters who used to wear habits and now do not per the writings of their founders. Its important to note that Dominican sisters, unlike the nuns, friars, and laity, were not founded by St. Dominic. They came much later and are a bit a different canonical beast as a result.

I have also spoken to some of the sisters who work in our parish and local community about the situation. They are a young community compared to many and have pictures of their founder and the first generation of sisters who wore plain secular dress with a distinctive cross pendant. Then about 30 years later, there are pictures of sisters in habits which grew progressively larger and more pronounced through the years.

I cannot quote you numbers in terms of how many congregations were or were not founded wearing the habit. I used the term “many” because I honestly do not know the percentage. If you are looking for more detail or examples, Brother JR would be a much better person to answer this question, he has written on this exact subject many times on CAF in the past.

I think the larger picture is whether or not the habit is even the issue. If there are congregations who were supposed to be in the habit and they stopped wearing them with Vatican II as justification, that would bother me. Its about fidelity in my opinion. I have argued on CAF in the past that I like the habit and feel it can serve as an important witness in the world today. I still believe that. However, whether or not I like them, it would be wrong for me to wish that women who are not supposed to be in the habit would start wearing them again. All I can reasonably ask is that they try to be faithful to their vows, their charism, their constitutions/Rule, and the Church.

Peace,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top