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

[_Abyssinia]

Sisters’ Conference rejects Vatican report as ‘flawed’

The national board of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious has said the assessment that led to a Vatican order to reform the organisation “was based on unsubstantiated accusations and the result of a flawed process that lacked transparency.”

“Moreover, the sanctions imposed were disproportionate to the concerns raised and could compromise their [board members’] ability to fulfil their mission,” the board said in a statement. “The report has furthermore caused scandal and pain throughout the Church community and created greater polarisation.”

The board released the statement the morning after it concluded a special meeting in Washington on May 29-31 held to review and plan a response to the report issued to LCWR by the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

In April the doctrinal congregation had announced a major reform of LCWR to ensure its fidelity to Catholic teaching in areas including abortion, euthanasia, women’s ordination and homosexuality. The congregation cited “serious doctrinal problems which affect many in consecrated life”.

The Vatican appointed Archbishop Peter Sartain of Seattle to provide “review, guidance and approval, where necessary, of the work” of LCWR.

LCWR’s board members raised concerns about both the content of the doctrinal assessment and the process by which it was prepared.

The board said in its statement, issued on June 1, that LCWR’s president Franciscan Sister Pat Farrell and its executive director Sister Janet Mock would return to Rome on June 12 to meet Cardinal William Levada, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and Archbishop Sartain, “to raise and discuss the board’s concerns”.

catholicherald.co.uk/news/2012/06/01/sisters-conference-rejects-vatican-report-as-flawed

Archbishop Peter Sartain of Seattle, who is overseeing reform of LCWR writes his plan:

americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=13456

Evidence for Vatican’s concerns about LCWR:

**Amid Vatican probes, LCWR keynote speaker is papal critic, opponent of partial-birth abortion ban **

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=3754
Exhibit A for Explaining the LCWR Report

patheos.com/blogs/godandthemachine/2012/04/exhibit-a-for-explaining-the-lcwr-report
Nuns Gone Wild: A Trip Down Memory Lane

wdtprs.com/blog/2012/04/nuns-gone-wild-a-trip-down-memory-lane
Vatican Names Archbishop Sartain To Lead Renewal Of LCWR

usccb.org/news/2012/12-062e.cfm
Important background information about the CDF-LCWR situation

catholicworldreport.com/Blog/1288/important_background_information_about_the_cdflcwr_situation.aspx
**Secular commentators completely misunderstand the Vatican-LCWR conflict **

catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=908

 

[jay29]

I’m sick and tired of people defending these nuns that don’t uphold authentic teachings of the Church. They do a great job for the poor and such, but fail miserably to teach authentic Catholicism. If fighting abortion is not their number one concern, they have serious mental issues. We have a Holocaust and human sacrifices for “inconvenience” happening all around us and it is NOT the number one concern? People need to wake up. Satan is having a field day with abortion.

 

[KSU]

The following comments are from just this page 48 :

“… it seems like there are an overwhelming majority who are supporting the LCWR.”

“…I find some Catholics around here getting upset about the Vatican persecuting the poor LCWR.”

“I’m sick and tired of people defending these nuns that don’t uphold authentic teachings of the Church.”

Again, folks, that’s part of the strategy; you are supposed to believe that a majority of Catholics favors the LCWR over the Vatican. It seems that way because the anti-Catholic “Catholic” media as well as the anti-Catholic secular media want you to believe it. It’s no secrete-- that’s how politics is played, even before Goebbels 'Big Lie" technique. Under whose nose do you suppose the media will stick its microphone–yours or Sister Snakebite’s? And do you suppose the topic will be dissident politics, such as robbing women of their power, or the theological significance of the Magnificat?

People who get upset about the Vatican persecuting the poor LCWR either are not authentic Catholics to begin with or are suffering from willful ignorance. Neither group deserves more than our prayers because they are pawns of the Enemy.

The statement, “I’m sick and tired of people defending these nuns that don’t uphold authentic teachings of the Church.”, could be re-stated as , “I’m sick and tired of people that don’t uphold authentic teachings of the Church defending these nuns.”

Our Lord said: “Now, however, the man who has a purse must carry it; the same with the traveling bag. And the man without a sword must sell his coat and buy one." He was saying that in our journey through life we will be attacked; that we will be expected to be prepared for the fight; and that we should “Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.”

He told us not to be afraid because, “I am with you always.” We have our swords, which are the truth, the Church and free speech–at least in this country where we still can put names on the faces of the Enemy.

“Be not afraid”–JPII

 

[KSU]

The disgraced priest, Fr. James Martin, SJ, must know that the Vatican won’t put up with much more of his nonsense. What is his objective?

wdtprs.com/blog/2012/06/fr-james-martin-sj-sticks-up-for-sr-farley-and-her-teachings/

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=14519

 

[ellipsis2]

The disgraced priest, Fr. James Martin, SJ, must know that the Vatican won’t put up with much more of his nonsense. What is his objective?

wdtprs.com/blog/2012/06/fr-james-martin-sj-sticks-up-for-sr-farley-and-her-teachings/

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=14519

Fr. Martin is disgraced? How so? Fr. Z’s rant sounds more like a petulant teenager than a grown-up writer.

 

[jwinch2]

The disgraced priest, Fr. James Martin, SJ, must know that the Vatican won’t put up with much more of his nonsense. What is his objective?

wdtprs.com/blog/2012/06/fr-james-martin-sj-sticks-up-for-sr-farley-and-her-teachings/

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=14519

I am very glad that the CDF came out with their statement on the book in question and that hey are standing up for authentic Catholic teaching. I have also disagreed with Fr. Martin on many things and will likely continue to do so.

However, I didn’t see anything in Fr. Martin’s statement that was out of line. He comes across as sympathetic to someone that I disagree with significantly, but pretty much reports facts without editorializing. Fr. Z’s additions and comments come across like those of a snotty teenager and frankly, should be beneath him. He has many good things to say but it would behoove him to remember that how the message is communicated is important.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Fr. Z’s rant sounds more like a petulant teenager than a grown-up writer.

I agree. I am not defending Fr. Martin nor the sister. But Fr Z’s comments are beneath him when he could provide much more insightful comment on the theology or the CDF process of review.

 

[KSU]

On June 3, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) noted that Just Love: A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics, by Sister Margaret Farley, RSM:

is“in direct contradiction with Catholic teaching in the field of sexual morality.”;

contains “erroneous propositions, the dissemination of which risks grave harm to the faithful…[E.G.]positions on masturbation, homosexual acts, homosexual unions, the indissolubility of marriage and the problem of divorce and remarriage”;

“is not in conformity with the teaching of the Church [and]… cannot be used as a valid expression of Catholic teaching, either in counseling and formation, or in ecumenical and inter-religious dialogue." ; and

puts forward “a defective understanding of the objective nature of the natural moral law
[E.G.,]“that same-sex relationships and activities can be justified,” and that “a marriage commitment is subject to release.”

As CATHOLIC WORLD NEWS points out in my link, “The CDF warning is not the first public confrontation between Sister Farley and the Vatican. In 1984 she was one of the women religious who faced disciplinary action after signing an advertisement in the New York Times that said Catholics could legitimately support legal abortion. Sister Farley has said that she never retracted her position on that point.”

Yet Sister Farley, a former president of the Catholic Theological Society of America, remains a Catholic professor at Yale Divinity School.

To compound that disgrace, Fr. James Martin, SJ, who promotes homosexuals in the priesthood ( americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&entry_id=2947 ) and who supports the Magisterium of Nuns over the CDF regarding the LCWR , now predictably jabs the CDF in the eye by extolling Sister Farley as one of the most respected Catholic theologians in the United States.

As another jab, he gratuitously recounts a disgraceful review of Sister Farley’s condemed book: “This long-awaited work by America’s leading Catholic feminist theological ethicist, Margaret A. Farley, is the product of years of experience, reflection, scholarship and wisdom.”
He then continues to jab the CDF with this: "Margaret Farley is an immensely well respected theologian and scholar, and is a revered mentor for many Catholic theologians… This Notification will certainly sadden Sister Margaret’s many colleagues, her generations of students, and those many Catholics who have profited by her decades of reflection on the faith. It will also, inevitably, raise strong emotions among those who already feel buffeted by the Vatican’s Apostolic Visitation of Catholic sisters in the US, and its intervention into the LCWR…NCR also has an extensive list of reactions from prominent Catholic theologians here. And Michael Peppard provides an analysis of the CDF Notification on Dotcommonweal. "

To me, that is beyond disgrace; a slickly worded defense of Sister Farley and a reminder to the CDF that the so-called Catholic Left is greater than the LCWR/NETWORK, and that it will not be silenced. As expected, the president of Sister Farley’s order, a member of the LCWR, joins in the defense of their “highly respected and valued member” who has “enlivened the Sisters of Mercy of the Americas and enriched the entire Church”
sistersofmercy.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=55&Itemid=205%20website#mcd

That people nevertheless can make the issue to be not Fr. Martin’s and the Left’s continued battle cry against the CDF, but Fr. John Zuhlsdorf style, is telling.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

That people nevertheless can make the issue to be not Fr. Martin’s and the Left’s continued battle cry against the CDF, but Fr. John Zuhlsdorf style, is telling.

What is needed is adult rational discourse by all concerned.

What good purpose is served by phrases such as,

“no wonder so many of them are so screwed up”

“aka Fishwrap. They all stick together, don’t they?”

"I suspect this gobbledygook is merely a justification for “You can have sex with whatever and however many warm-blooded critters you want without anyone mentioning sin.”

“Boo hoo.”

 

[KSU]

What is needed is adult rational discourse by all concerned.

Do you really expect after all these years and attempts by the CDF to see adult rational discourse by the LCWR or its defenders?

Fr. Zuhlsdorf was expressing some rather mild righteous anger about that in a blog. His style, however, is not the issue. Fr. Martin’s disgraceful jab at the CDF is the issue. Can Fr. Martin’s duck and dodge article be considered rational Catholic discourse?

Seriously, it seems only to sidestep Fr. Zuhlsdorf 's points when people label his article a petulant teenage rant because it did not provide more insightful theological comment on Sister Farley’s positions.

Neither I nor Father Zuhlsdorf’s readers believe we require him to provide us with more theological insight into why the CDF condemned Sister’s positions on masturbation, homosexual acts, homosexual unions, the indissolubility of marriage and the problem of divorce and remarriage. Nor do we need any more theological insight into why Fr. Martin wrote his article, or why Fr. Zuhlsdorf made fun of it.

 

[LisaA]

Seriously, it seems only to sidestep Fr. Zuhlsdorf 's points when people label his article a petulant teenage rant because it did not provide more insightful theological comment on Sister Farley’s positions.

Neither I nor Father Zuhlsdorf’s readers believe we require him to provide us with more theological insight into why the CDF condemned Sister’s positions on masturbation, homosexual acts, homosexual unions, the indissolubility of marriage and the problem of divorce and remarriage. Nor do we need any more theological insight into why Fr. Martin wrote his article, or why Fr. Zuhlsdorf made fun of it.

Agree with you on Fr Z. I thought it was clearly tongue in cheek and frankly laugh out loud funny. I don’t think it sounded snotty or juvenile.

I think we have to be understand the media LOVES dissenting “Catholics” and will put them on a pedestal along with their errant supporters. Fr. Z was giving Sr Farley’s ridiculous book and the positive press the kind of respect it deserved.

Lisa

 

[Michael_Mayo]

I hope the CDF comes down effectively on all dissent so that people from bishops to laity make a decision to either accept teaching as it is or leave. But it all must be done with care and dispassion (and I know the CDF can do this) not vitriole or it becomes even more shameful for the Church. You enjoy FR. Z’s style. I don’t. I think in this case it lowers the level of discourse and diminishes the true Catholic image which has already been dragged through the mud. We need calm cool heads, not more fuel on the fires.

 

[jwinch2]

Seriously, it seems only to sidestep Fr. Zuhlsdorf 's points when people label his article a petulant teenage rant because it did not provide more insightful theological comment on Sister Farley’s positions.

Then he should stop acting like a petulant teenager, because that is exactly what he sounded like. I don’t care if he provides any amazing theological content or if he simply lays out his position regarding why he disagrees with Fr. Martin and Sister Farley in an adult and rational manner. He can even get a bit angry if the situation calls for it, I have no problem with that.

I disagree vehemently with Fr. Martin and Sister Farley on a great many things, and I am happy to see the actions which the CDF have taken.

 

[KSU]

Michael, ellipsis2 and jwinch2, I hope you all agree at least that Father’s style when he is poking fun at the LCWR and its supporters (whether you like it or not) is to be greatly preferred over the object of his ridicule: the calm, lawyerly, measured, weasel words (as we used to call it at the office), or “gobbledygook”, as Father called it, which has characterized the Left’s discourse since VCII.

Remember that the average Catholic doesn’t have the theological sophistication all of you possess. For them, Father Z’s style may be just the ticket to get their attention. They have been bamboozled by smooth-talking dissidents for decades, and we have lost two generations of Catholics to seemingly calm, scholarly rationalization of heresy and sin–the object of Father’s derision.

And when you all agree that “Fr. Z’s rant sounds more like a petulant teenager than a grown-up writer”, and Michael says that Father “… lowers the level of discourse and diminishes the true Catholic image which has already been dragged through the mud…[and adds] more fuel on the fires”, I have to ask: How is that the calm, cool, rational discourse you and they seek from Father? It’s long since past time that a few Catholic apologists add some fuel to this fire.

All of you should either knock off your own hyperbole or cut Father some slack. At least look up the meaning of rant; it’s too pejorative for this case because it’s often understood to mean a sudden, long speech that usually results in rambling and repeating of nonsense.

I assume that is not what you mean, and it’s not Father’s style regardless of what you mean. In any case, I for one would not care at all if he ridicules the next offering of Fr. Martin’s efforts on behalf of the LCRW and its ilk.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

To me, that is beyond disgrace; a slickly worded defense of Sister Farley and a reminder to the CDF that the so-called Catholic Left is greater than the LCWR/NETWORK, and that it will not be silenced.

Yes the CDF possibly needs to be reminded of the depth and extent of the situation. Fr. Z, as a blogger, has an opportunity to teach and influence by example. In any effective conflict resolution we need to deal with unacceptable behaviors not just toss about ad hominem jabs. The CDF has done this pretty well in the past with individuals but it needs to cast a wider net. Anger can be a good motivator but it also needs to be carefully worded. Lashing out has no constructive place especially in the Church. The devil loves it.

 

[KSU]

I hope the CDF comes down effectively on all dissent so that people from bishops to laity make a decision to either accept teaching as it is or leave. But it all must be done with care and dispassion (and I know the CDF can do this) not vitriole or it becomes even more shameful for the Church. You enjoy FR. Z’s style. I don’t. I think in this case it lowers the level of discourse and diminishes the true Catholic image which has already been dragged through the mud. We need calm cool heads, not more fuel on the fires.

That’s a rather harshly worded and uncharitable characterization of a well known and very well respected cleric; a defender of the Church and orthodoxy in Her battle with dissidents. You should consider retracting the entire post.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

That’s a rather harshly worded and uncharitable characterization of a well known and very well respected cleric; a defender of the Church and orthodoxy in Her battle with dissidents. You should consider retracting the entire post.

Well it seems my quotes from his blog as well as your link to it have been deleted.
Wise move by the moderator?

 

[KSU]

Under those circumstances it would have been a better move had your characterization of Fr. Z been deleted as well.

 

[McCall1981]

I have a question for anyone who knows a little more about this than me.

I’ve seen it implied in this thread and in other places that the leadership of the LCWR that is being told to reform is mostly made up of older women, from the generation that joined in the 1960’s. And conversely that the younger generations that have come in since then are generally more in line with the teachings of the Church.

Does anyone know about this, or to what extent the leadership represents the feelings of the rest of the sisters? Thanks

 

[JimG]

I have a question for anyone who knows a little more about this than me.

I’ve seen it implied in this thread and in other places that the leadership of the LCWR that is being told to reform is mostly made up of older women, from the generation that joined in the 1960’s. And conversely that the younger generations that have come in since then are generally more in line with the teachings of the Church.

Does anyone know about this, or to what extent the leadership represents the feelings of the rest of the sisters? Thanks

I think that what you say is generally true, but I don’t have statistics.

Here are the member communities of the CMSWR:
cmswr.org/member_communities/membercommunities.html

Click on the names of a few of the member member communities to see some photos of the nuns.

I couldn’t find a similar listing on the LCWR website, on this membership page:
lcwr.org/about/membership