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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Corki
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
KSU said:
“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.
Click to expand...
I’m interested in this as well, It might be hard to find out, but it sure would be interesting. Is it possible that some started out without a habit, but never intended things to stay that way? I can think of several scenarios that would make that possible. For instance, even today, when most new congregations are starting, during the first few years they are not yet recognized as a congregation - they might have the status of “Association of the Faithful” , or maybe not even that. They might not be able to wear a habit for a while, until the group has the proper status.

Also, in certain countries, during certain times in history, it could have been dangerous to be seen in a religious habit (for instance, around the time of the French Revolution). That doesn’t mean that they wouldn’t have worn one if they could.

I’m completely willing to accept facts, and if it’s true that some of these communities were founded as non-habited religious, then it only seems right that they should continue in this vein. But I’m having a hard time believing that the majority of them were founded this way. Also, even though they wore secular dress, did they not have any visible sign whatsoever on them that showed that they were religious?

This is an interesting topic.
 
I have another question, too. I was told by an aspirant to the Srs. of St. Joseph that the reason why they wear secular dress is because the original habits reflected the style of the times - long dress, etc., similar in style to the clothing of the day.

My question is this: even though the original habits were similar to secular styles of the time, they were still habits weren’t they? I mean, they all wore basically the same thing, didn’t they? I’m interested in finding the answer to this. The SSJ sisters in my area all wear different clothing - a great variety of secular clothes/jewelry etc.
 
An ex Fort Worthian thanks you for that info (Post #578), Jason. And I mean no disrespect whatsoever when I say that it doesn’t change my opinion of the intentions of Father James Martin, S.J.

Father Jim, as he prefers to be called, used the apparent grain of truth you referred to-- habits and the intent of founders-- as a means of standing on its head the actual reasons for the Vatican’s major DOCTRINAL problems with the LCWR. Contrary to what he very clearly implied, I would be willing to bet that neither one of the Popes since VCII, nor one drafter or author of the doctrinal assessment at issue in this thread, nor a single angel or founder/foundress in heaven, ever had a problem about the issue. And that’s because there was no such issue!

Nevertheless, the fairy tale issue was converted by Father Jim into a mean-spirited action by the Vatican’s CDF against long suffering nuns who had sacrificed greatly in discarding their habits in their simple obedience to the dictates of VCII.

Puh-leeze! 🙂
 
This statement from the sisters themselves says that the original habits were like the garb worn by the widows of the day.
csjssm.ca/faqs.html#1
Personally, I think their conclusions are a bit of a stretch.
 
KSU said:
Nevertheless, the fairy tale issue was converted by Father Jim into a mean-spirited action by the Vatican’s CDF against long suffering nuns who had sacrificed greatly in discarding their habits in their simple obedience to the dictates of VCII.

Puh-leeze! 🙂
Click to expand...
I definitely do not agree with the rest of Fr. Martin’s assertions in that video. Nor do I agree with many other stances and statements he has made on other controversial issues.
 
jwinch2 said:
I definitely do not agree with the rest of Fr. Martin’s assertions in that video. Nor do I agree with many other stances and statements he has made on other controversial issues.
Click to expand...
No need to state the obvious, Jason. Again, your orthodoxy is beyond question, which is why I love to read and learn from posts by you and opus 101,
 
opus101 said:
This statement from the sisters themselves says that the original habits were like the garb worn by the widows of the day.
csjssm.ca/faqs.html#1
Personally, I think their conclusions are a bit of a stretch.
Click to expand...
That would not seem to match up with the link which discusses the habit worn by the Sisters of St. Joseph. Someone should probably point that out to Fr. James.
 
I don’t know about the rest of you but I know plenty of faithful religious sisters (as they prefer to be called) most now in their 60’s, 70’s, 80’s and even 90’s who persevered through the upheaval 50 years ago to serve, sacrifice and inspire.
 
jwinch2 said:
That would not seem to match up with the link which discusses the habit worn by the Sisters of St. Joseph. Someone should probably point that out to Fr. James.
Click to expand...
Unless the type of habit that he described is similar to that of the secular garb of a widow.
I found this, which describes the widow’s clothing:

“For nuns such as the Sisters of St. Joseph, founded in the 17th century, they found that by adopting the widow’s attire of a black serge cloak and veil hid their femininity and sexuality - which were no longer important to them or society - and gave them greater freedom and independence when out attending the poor and sick in the community.”

web.prm.ox.ac.uk/bodyarts/index.php/body-arts-and-lifecycles/death.html

It gave them greater freedom because women who were not widowed were not permitted to go out as much.
 
Michael_Mayo said:
I don’t know about the rest of you but I know plenty of faithful religious sisters (as they prefer to be called) most now in their 60’s, 70’s, 80’s and even 90’s who persevered through the upheaval 50 years ago to serve, sacrifice and inspire.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I suspect that they are the overwhelming majority. Unfortunately, the dissidents get all the press and for whatever reason, also seem to end up in the leadership roles within LCWR. Sort of like the Jesuits I suppose. However, that is also the reason why the Vatican had to step in and do something.

We have to be careful (I’m really wearing that phrase out in this thread) in focusing too much on the good work that these sisters do. I am not attempting to diminish it, but it is important to note that consecrated religious are supposed to be more than social workers. Serving, sacrificing, and inspiring does not necessarily equal holiness or a devout Christian life.

Peace,
 
Michael_Mayo said:
I don’t know about the rest of you but I know plenty of faithful religious sisters (as they prefer to be called) most now in their 60’s, 70’s, 80’s and even 90’s who persevered through the upheaval 50 years ago to serve, sacrifice and inspire.
Click to expand...
I do too. The Vatican document wasn’t aimed at the sisters in general. It was aimed at only the leaders of the communities who belong to the LCWR. It wasn’t aimed at all of the religious sisters, nor at the ones who belong to the other conference or those who belong to no conference.

Anyway, the fact that there are many good religious sisters is not the issue. Lots of people “serve, sacrifice and inspire”. The issue is with really off-base theology and doctrinal problems, plus questionable interpretation of what the Church defines as consecrated life.
 
opus101 said:
I do too. The Vatican document wasn’t aimed at the sisters in general. It was aimed at only the leaders of the communities who belong to the LCWR. It wasn’t aimed at all of the religious sisters, nor at the ones who belong to the other conference or those who belong to no conference.

Anyway, the fact that there are many good religious sisters is not the issue. Lots of people “serve, sacrifice and inspire”. The issue is with really off-base theology and doctrinal problems, plus questionable interpretation of what the Church defines as consecrated life.
Click to expand...
Pardon my ignorance, but what is the other conference? Up until this thread, I wasn’t aware of the LCWR.
 
Michael_Mayo said:
I don’t know about the rest of you but I know plenty of faithful religious sisters (as they prefer to be called) most now in their 60’s, 70’s, 80’s and even 90’s who persevered through the upheaval 50 years ago to serve, sacrifice and inspire.
Click to expand...
Michael, after reading all or at least many of the posts in this thread about the nuns who run the LCWR, you said, “They aren’t all bad, you know.” To back it up, you then provided the link to Fr. Martin’s video extolling the virtues of some of them. Now you go on to say you know plenty of faithful religious sister who persevered to serve, sacrifice and inspire.

In an effort to avoid misunderstanding your point, would you please tell me if the nuns extolled by Fr. Martin are examples of those who persevered to serve, sacrifice and inspire?

Thanks, Michael.
 
opus101 said:
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?
Click to expand...
👍

Excellent points!
 
Michael_Mayo said:
I don’t know about the rest of you but I know plenty of faithful religious sisters (as they prefer to be called) most now in their 60’s, 70’s, 80’s and even 90’s who persevered through the upheaval 50 years ago to serve, sacrifice and inspire.
Click to expand...
Faithful to what? Faithful to the teachings of Christ and His Church? Faithful to their political party? Faithful in their own pursuit of moral relativism like Sr. Elizabeth Johnson, who was praised in your link by Fr. Martin and who claims to be a theologian, but recently was chastized by the bishops for her latest book in which they question her very theology?

The job of the sisters, which never changed with Vat II is to live and defend the fullness of the faith by their consecrated life and witness. Of primary concern is the defense of innocent and unborn life. A link was posted in which appeared a picture of one of these sisters wearing a sweatshirt that touts, “nuns for choice” What does it say for them to be constantly at odds with Rome, contradicting and challenging the hierarchy at every turn and being antithetical to the most basic of church doctrine?

And I would like to know if their own brand of social justice activism leaves any room for the pursuit of holiness by the practice of heroic virtue - remember obedience and faithfulness and humility?
 
Interesting…found this information on a type of headdress: A “barbe” was a “pleated linen veil and wimple often worn by widows and nuns.”

It seems that the nuns’ headdress was similar to that of widows, but not necessarily like that of the ordinary secular non-widowed person. It wasn’t exactly the “every-day” dress of lay women.
 
Tigg said:
Faithful to what? Faithful to the teachings of Christ and His Church? Faithful to their political party? Faithful in their own pursuit of moral relativism like Sr. Elizabeth Johnson, who was praised in your link by Fr. Martin and who claims to be a theologian, but recently was chastised by the bishops for her latest book in which they question her very theology?

The job of the sisters, which never changed with Vat II is to live and defend the fullness of the faith by their consecrated life and witness. Of primary concern is the defense of innocent and unborn life. A link was posted in which appeared a picture of one of these sisters wearing a sweatshirt that touts, “nuns for choice” What does it say for them to be constantly at odds with Rome, contradicting and challenging the hierarchy at every turn and being antithetical to the most basic of church doctrine?

And I would like to know if their own brand of social justice activism leaves any room for the pursuit of holiness by the practice of heroic virtue - remember obedience and faithfulness and humility?
Click to expand...
Tigg, their own brand of social justice activism, as you may know, has been called the heresy of Americanism, and you and Pope Leo XIII think alike:

“Americanism it is not a condemnation of America as such but a condemnation of the false notions as introduced into the faith… many Catholics while claiming to be Catholics are not Catholic but ‘Americanists’ who deny the influence of Christ and His Church in the social sphere. For this reason Americanism leads to the public denial of Christ the King and ultimately to the destruction of society since there can never be a true peace without Christ, the Prince of Peace.” catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/americanism/index.htm
 
KSU said:
Tigg, their own brand of social justice activism, as you may know, has been called the heresy of Americanism, and you and Pope Leo XIII think alike:
Click to expand...
😊

He’s one of my favorites, you know!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top