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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Corki
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Michael_Mayo said:
It is hard to imagine some of those women doing that.
So I wonder how things would play out.
Sanctions on LCWR? Some individual women or orders going Episcopal or something?
Click to expand...
I think the investigation and the Apostolic Visitation on women’s religious congregations will likely be treated as separate but related issues. In this current situation, I think the any action taken will be in the context of LCWR rather than going after specific groups or women. Some may go Episcopal of their own choosing.
 
Michael_Mayo said:
It is hard to imagine some of those women doing that.
So I wonder how things would play out.
Sanctions on LCWR? Some individual women or orders going Episcopal or something?
Click to expand...
That’s one of the issues, yes. The ones that have left didn’t go “episcopal” because there’s no point in that from their point of view. They went non-canonical.
 
iloveangels said:
That’s one of the issues, yes. The ones that have left didn’t go “episcopal” because there’s no point in that from their point of view. They went non-canonical.
Click to expand...
iloveangels, you probably are correct. As we discussed earlier, the leadership doesn’t want to lose the perk$ and credibility that a Catholic identity provides.
The leadership’s objective is to replace (they use the words “renew” and “reform”) Church doctrine from within because they know it would be impossible from the outside. Not that Sister Joyce Rupp’s New-Ageism or Sister Joan Chittister’s old “Women-Church” or new “Women of Spirit” church (global-sisterhood-network.org/content/view/2703/59/) has even a prayer (pun intended) of replacing Church doctrine from within.
 
If a community “goes non-canonical”, and is no longer approved by the Vatican or a diocese, can it still be called Catholic? What are the ramifications of “going non-canonical”? For them (the religious communty), what are the pros and cons? What is the main reason that a community would pursue this route? Would the sisters still be Catholics in good standing, or would they be removing themselves from the Church?
 
I think the boundaries need to be clear and people need to be honest about where they want to stand. This is not just about sisters.
 
opus101 said:
If a community “goes non-canonical”, and is no longer approved by the Vatican or a diocese, can it still be called Catholic?.. Would the sisters still be Catholics in good standing, or would they be removing themselves from the Church?
Click to expand...
To answer that question, opus 101, please scroll down the link to section IV, “Priestesses and Goddesses: The Myth, Liturgy
and Imaginings of Women-Church”, viz:

"Some feminists are not content with a dream of being Bishops. They are determined to progress into Divinity itself, a final stage in their struggle against mere religion. Lilliana Audrey Kopp, sociologist, psychologist, anthropologist and “catalyst” for the “Sisters for Christian Com-munity,” draws on Lawrence Kohlberg’s theories of stages of development to conclude:

"Kohlberg speculated that were . . . conditions of hopelessness, frustration and despair to obtain (against liberated “sixth stage” sisters) 6th stagers would survive by moving upward to the 7th stage of maturation for which utter despair is a PRECONDITION! At the moment when 6th stage persons would contemplate the utter futility of self-autonomy, the pervasiveness of injustice, and the meaninglessness of finite values, they would be catapulted upward toward embracing a ‘more cosmic perspective’ and toward identifying with the INFINITE.

“… Walter E. Conn, professor of religious studies at Villanova University . . . wrote that such a religious conversion is not only rare but is probably not even religious in the ordinary sense. In fact, such a serious and radical transformation might be better described as " conversion from religion to God.(31)”
wandererforum.org/publications/focus010.html
 
Michael_Mayo said:
I think the boundaries need to be clear and people need to be honest about where they want to stand. This is not just about sisters.
Click to expand...
I agree completely. If there is a group which is not going to embrace the teachings of the Catholic Faith, then they should be honest and stop calling themselves Catholic. The same thing goes for non-religious Catholics who dissent from the teachings of the Church and also deacons, priests, and bishops. As an example, Pope Benedict just installed a new Bishop in Australia where he had to previously remove the bishop due to dissent from Church teaching. What is interesting is that the diocese where the heretical bishop was had only one priestly vocation in 18 years. That sounds eerily similar to the lack of vocations to religious congregations who have strayed from their magesterial fidelity.
hancaquam.blogspot.com/2012/05/how-to-get-one-priestly-vocation-in-18.html

Please note, I am not talking about those who try to be faithful but struggle to accept certain teachings or fail to live up to their ideals, but those who knowingly dissent by choice.
 
jwinch2 said:
Please note, I am not talking about those who try to be faithful but struggle to accept certain teachings or fail to live up to their ideals, but those who knowingly dissent by choice.
Click to expand...
Especially when they know some things are nonnegotiable. Why stay an be frustrated when other denominations provided a better fit?
 
KSU said:
👍
Click to expand...
The poor little things might need some help getting to their ‘7th stage of maturation.’

Sorry, that was mean. I put no judgment on those who leave the Catholic Church for another denomination following their conscience. Some women make excellent pastors there as do some married men. But those who stay thinking it is thier prophetic ministry to the Church really need to reconsider. I don’t think that is the real reason they stay. I guess one would have to read feminist theologians to understand. I am not THAT interested. But why does someone like Pelosi stay? Doesn’t want to give up what she likes about her Catholic heritage? A cultural Catholic like so many others? Maybe it is that sense of family that one can never really leave. Still, while living in the house we follow the rules, we try and we respect them even if we may not like them.

I have more respect for the Catholic thologians who struggled, dialogued and left when they realized they belonged somewhere else.
 
Michael_Mayo said:
The poor little things might need some help getting to their ‘7th stage of maturation.’

Sorry, that was mean. I put no judgment on those who leave the Catholic Church for another denomination following their conscience. Some women make excellent pastors there as do some married men. But those who stay thinking it is thier prophetic ministry to the Church really need to reconsider. I don’t think that is the real reason they stay. I guess one would have to read feminist theologians to understand. I am not THAT interested. But why does someone like Pelosi stay? Doesn’t want to give up what she likes about her Catholic heritage? A cultural Catholic like so many others? Maybe it is that sense of family that one can never really leave. Still, while living in the house we follow the rules, we try and we respect them even if we may not like them.

I have more respect for the Catholic thologians who struggled, dialogued and left when they realized they belonged somewhere else.
Click to expand...
That’s pretty much the position I would like to see taken by all Catholics–left, right and uninterested. Sadly, that’s never going to happen in our lifetimes, which emboldens the anti-Catholic, pro-LCWR politicians and media.

It always boils down to the world, the flesh and the devil.
 
opus101 said:
If a community “goes non-canonical”, and is no longer approved by the Vatican or a diocese, can it still be called Catholic? What are the ramifications of “going non-canonical”? For them (the religious communty), what are the pros and cons? What is the main reason that a community would pursue this route? Would the sisters still be Catholics in good standing, or would they be removing themselves from the Church?
Click to expand...
Here are some examples of women’s congregations that have gone canonical:
benedictinewomen.org/
mtabor.com/

In answer to your questions:
The Catholic church has not legally guarded the word “catholic” so it is used by all kinds of groups on the street. Ask any Anglican to explain his faith to you, and you will hear the word “catholic” within 30 seconds, guaranteed. Nevertheless, non-canonical groups tend to be a little bit careful about the word “catholic,” although I don’t think that dioceses can do much to them, to be honest. There is a huge amount of easy-to-invoke imagery that suggests Catholicism and that’s far more effective, as well as being much less risky to use. And the imagery is VERY VERY EFFECTIVE for the purposes of gaining goodwill with people in the neighborhood and maintaining funding.

Non-canonical means that an organization no longer has canonical status. Non-canonical status can be as simple as a break from the diocese. Once the dependence on canon law has been denied by the group, they no longer have the (somewhat dubious) advantages of being recognized by the Church, but they do retain almost all the advantages. If they have done their legal homework with respect to property law, yes, they can take all the property and be none the worse off for having gone non-canonical. The Church does not own property that belongs to congregations; the congregations do. They church can’t usually touch it.

Sisters belonging to these congregations usually have left the church. Although if you are out of the reach of canon law, it really has no impact on you and you don’t need to acknowledge any disciplines such as owning up to where you are spiritually or organizationally. You can do as you please as long as your lawyers keep you out of civil trouble. See the Benedictine Women of Madison for how that looks.
 
jwinch2 said:
I agree completely. If there is a group which is not going to embrace the teachings of the Catholic Faith, then they should be honest and stop calling themselves Catholic. The same thing goes for non-religious Catholics who dissent from the teachings of the Church and also deacons, priests, and bishops. As an example, Pope Benedict just installed a new Bishop in Australia where he had to previously remove the bishop due to dissent from Church teaching. What is interesting is that the diocese where the heretical bishop was had only one priestly vocation in 18 years. That sounds eerily similar to the lack of vocations to religious congregations who have strayed from their magesterial fidelity.
hancaquam.blogspot.com/2012/05/how-to-get-one-priestly-vocation-in-18.html

Please note, I am not talking about those who try to be faithful but struggle to accept certain teachings or fail to live up to their ideals, but those who knowingly dissent by choice.
Click to expand...
True, but the potential is enormous for religious fraud. Much of it goes on and always has.

It’s just more prevalent now among Catholic religious groups than it used to be, and the types of fraudulent behavior seen among Catholics have become far more diverse.

And, one of the biggest problems about all this is that there are many, many people too ignorant of the facts of Catholicism to be able to tell when they are being defrauded.
 
“And, one of the biggest problems about all this is that there are many, many people too ignorant of the facts of Catholicism to be able to tell when they are being defrauded.”

Let’s leave contributions to the Industrial Areas Foundation out of this;)
 
iloveangels said:
Here are some examples of women’s congregations that have gone canonical:
benedictinewomen.org/
mtabor.com/

In answer to your questions:
The Catholic church has not legally guarded the word “catholic” so it is used by all kinds of groups on the street. Ask any Anglican to explain his faith to you, and you will hear the word “catholic” within 30 seconds, guaranteed. Nevertheless, non-canonical groups tend to be a little bit careful about the word “catholic,” although I don’t think that dioceses can do much to them, to be honest. There is a huge amount of easy-to-invoke imagery that suggests Catholicism and that’s far more effective, as well as being much less risky to use. And the imagery is VERY VERY EFFECTIVE for the purposes of gaining goodwill with people in the neighborhood and maintaining funding.

Non-canonical means that an organization no longer has canonical status. Non-canonical status can be as simple as a break from the diocese. Once the dependence on canon law has been denied by the group, they no longer have the (somewhat dubious) advantages of being recognized by the Church, but they do retain almost all the advantages. If they have done their legal homework with respect to property law, yes, they can take all the property and be none the worse off for having gone non-canonical. The Church does not own property that belongs to congregations; the congregations do. They church can’t usually touch it.

Sisters belonging to these congregations usually have left the church. Although if you are out of the reach of canon law, it really has no impact on you and you don’t need to acknowledge any disciplines such as owning up to where you are spiritually or organizationally. You can do as you please as long as your lawyers keep you out of civil trouble. See the Benedictine Women of Madison for how that looks.
Click to expand...
Thankyou, iloveangels. Next question: Can a diocesan priest legally celebrate Mass for a non-canonical community ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top