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

[Elizabeth502]

Sorry, I did not mean to presume anything. It just sounded like you knew and were trying to explain why they do these things.

No problem. I was just concerned about my own communication.

My question is as applicable to this year’s speaker as it has been to any other that’s been brought up, I suppose. I wonder what Miss Hubbard could possibly have to do with their belief system or their work, either one.

I could only surmise, and that would be only a guess, based on various statements from various LCWR reps over time. There seems to be an effort (even aside from choice of speakers) to convey a global mission. But that was my earlier point (on this or a similar thread, I forget). Working the Gospel is indeed global, just as the Church is universal, and just as Jesus’ Mystical Body is far-reaching. There’s no need to insist that the sisters’ work is supra-Christological. It’s Christological, period, which means its efficacy is potentially unbounded.

Jesus didn’t say, “Just give to poor Jews; ignore poor Gentiles.” He came for, and spoke to, Jew and Gentile alike, including through his apostolic successors. (And various congregations call themselves apostolic communities!) When you minister, you’re evangelizing, and you’re being ecumenical. (Both.) The sisters don’t work exclusively or even mainly in Catholic communities.

The “message” seems somewhat redundant & forced to me, but that’s just my impression.

 

[iloveangels]

No problem. I was just concerned about my own communication.

I could only surmise, and that would be only a guess, based on various statements from various LCWR reps over time. There seems to be an effort (even aside from choice of speakers) to convey a global mission. But that was my earlier point (on this or a similar thread, I forget). Working the Gospel is indeed global, just as the Church is universal, and just as Jesus’ Mystical Body is far-reaching. There’s no need to insist that the sisters’ work is supra-Christological. It’s Christological, period, which means its efficacy is potentially unbounded.

Jesus didn’t say, “Just give to poor Jews; ignore poor Gentiles.” He came for, and spoke to, Jew and Gentile alike, including through his apostolic successors. (And various congregations call themselves apostolic communities!) When you minister, you’re evangelizing, and you’re being ecumenical. (Both.) The sisters don’t work exclusively or even mainly in Catholic communities.

The “message” seems somewhat redundant & forced to me, but that’s just my impression.

I still don’t see why that makes it understandable, or even passable, to bring someone like Barbara Marx Hubbard in to be the keynote speaker at the annual convention of a Catholic group. Have you seen what it is that she teaches? It’s not “how to get along with poor people of all kinds.” Pretty far from it, actually.

If this is in any way a matter of evangelization and ecumenism, then, it’s all that much more important that what’s going on is right.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I still don’t see why that makes it understandable, or even passable, to bring someone like Barbara Marx Hubbard in to be the keynote speaker at the annual convention of a Catholic group. Have you seen what it is that she teaches? It’s not “how to get along with poor people of all kinds.” Pretty far from it, actually.

If this is in any way a matter of evangelization and ecumenism, then, it’s all that much more important that what’s going on is right.

I’m just reaching for some kind of a logical connection; that’s all. Again, this is based on other communications from various members/leaders over the last several years. I agree it’s a stretch. Just trying to answer the question as best I can guess.

Also, I didn’t mean that the “message” is “how to get along with poor people of all kinds,” but rather that what they have been implying in these cumulative messages is that their ministries themselves, collectively, imply a “new” theology. And my point is, they do not imply any such thing. I mean, Catholic missionaries themselves (including lay men and clergy) have always worked globally. Ministering to the world does not establish a new theology; it incarnates Christian witness, it seems to me.

 

[iloveangels]

…

Also, I didn’t mean that the “message” is “how to get along with poor people of all kinds,” but rather that what they have been implying in these cumulative messages is that their ministries themselves, collectively, imply a “new” theology. And my point is, they do not imply any such thing. I mean, Catholic missionaries themselves (including lay men and clergy) have always worked globally. Ministering to the world does not establish a new theology; it incarnates Christian witness, it seems to me.

I agree that ministering to people doesn’t establish a new theology (which is an over-used word) but instead incarnates Christian witness—drawn directly from the deposit of faith that we already have, and are not going to change. The case can be made that many of us, perhaps including a great number of Catholics consecrated or not, don’t understand the details of incarnating witness very well.

I believe that, even if some of these organizations have some missionaries, that the LCWR is headquartered and properly located in the United States. Other countries, I believe, have their own associations for religious. This is how it was originally set up with the predecessor name and constitutions, if I’m not mistaken. The name and constitutions were changed circa 1971 in the US. I’ve read several fairly detailed informative books on this, and that’s how it’s always been presented.

If we’re going to talk global, the CDF is more global in scope and experience than the LCWR. I mean they have a much better handle on the scriptural and traditional reasons why we do the things we do as Catholics. Not only that but the Church has had missionaries, as you say, for millennia. We’re not the first generation of Christians.

 

[zz912]

Personally, I only wish that they would eliminate stuff such as the draped-scarves ritual described in the Register article, because episodes like that are fodder for misunderstanding and i.m.o. unnecessarily distract from the work of religious. There’s no need to create bizarre rituals, liturgies, or off-beat ‘theologies.’ The sisters are doing the work of the traditional, timeless Gospel. They have been doing so for decades. The vast majority of that work is as genuinely Catholic as one can get. Why call it something else?

When it comes to the Particular Judgment and the General Judgment, they’ll have to be right up there with the Righteous in the Kingdom. They have left everything and have followed Jesus. (Mt 19:21; Mk 10:21; Lk 18:22) (Unless and until they proclaim they are not following Jesus.) If anyone can point to apostasy, that’s a serious matter.

Why create bizarre rituals and liturgies? Why do they have draped-scarves rituals?

Because it is a vital and central part of the message they are conveying. It is NOT ancillary and immaterial part of their viewpoint. They spout platitudes and structure their prayers specifically to be tangentially Christian-sounding, but have a completely different intent and expression in the rituals and prayers.

The scarve ritual and giving homage to the speaker was intentional and espoused who and what they believe and worship. They aren’t Catholic.

 

[KSU]

I can’t remember; has someone posted info about where the member organizations which fund the LCWR get most of their money?

I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s the same people who fund the CCHD–you and I in the pews.

 

[jwinch2]

LCWR statement and response to Vatican.

ncregister.com/daily-news/religious-sisters-conference-plans-to-continue-vatican-dialogue/

ncronline.org/news/women-religious/lcwr-will-continue-dialogue-not-compromise-mission

Pretty much what many have predicted. More talk, non-committed-comments, and vague statements of dialogue.

Of course, there are a few gems in there:

In light of Hubbard’s talk, Sr. Farrell said “it is easy to see this LCWR moment as a microcosm of a world in flux.”
“The cosmic breaking down and breaking through we are experiencing gives us a broader context,” she said.
Sr. Farrell believes the reason “many institutions, traditions and structures seem to wither” is that “the philosophical underpinnings of the way we hold reality really no longer hold.”
“The human family is not served by individualism, patriarchy, a scarcity mentality or competition,” she explained.
Moreover, the LCWR president asserted that the world is “outgrowing the dualistic constructs” of “good/bad” and “domination/submission.”
“Breaking through in their place are equality, communion, collaboration, synchronicity, expansiveness, abundance, wholeness, mutuality, intuitive knowing and love,” she said.
Archbishop Sartain is expected to meet with the conference’s national board on Aug. 11 for a discussion that is expected to last two hours.

So, we are outgrowing the need for good/bad. Excellent, I can stop worrying about that whole sin versus virtue thing.

 

[jwinch2]

I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s the same people who fund the CCHD–you and I in the pews.

Sadly, you are probably correct.

Peace,

 

[KSU]

Now, now, Jason, let’s be fair. All Sister was saying is that we can go forward with love and compassion to heal the Church with conscious evolution as a microcosm of a world in flux–the cosmic breaking down and breaking through in a broader context because, unlike the LCWR, the reason many institutions, traditions and structures seem to wither is that the philosophical underpinnings of the way we hold reality really no longer hold, and because the human family is not served by individualism, patriarchy, a scarcity mentality or competition, i.e., the world is outgrowing the dualistic constructs of good/bad and domination/submission, and that breaking through in their place are equality, communion, collaboration, synchronicity, expansiveness, abundance, wholeness, mutuality, intuitive knowing and love in order to recognize that many lay people help reconcile the differences that exist within the Catholic church (as opposed to the Roman Catholic Church) and create spaces for honest and open conversation on the critical moral and ethical questions that face the global community.

Makes sense to me.

 

[iloveangels]

LCWR statement and response to Vatican.

ncregister.com/daily-news/religious-sisters-conference-plans-to-continue-vatican-dialogue/

ncronline.org/news/women-religious/lcwr-will-continue-dialogue-not-compromise-mission

Pretty much what many have predicted. More talk, non-committed-comments, and vague statements of dialogue.

Of course, there are a few gems in there:

So, we are outgrowing the need for good/bad. Excellent, I can stop worrying about that whole sin versus virtue thing.

Absolutely and completely predictable. I figured this is what the press conference was going to be about. Listen, the nuns aren’t stupid. Stalling and “dialoguing” has worked so far and my guess is that they’re going to drag that out as long as possible because it’s worked for them in the past. They’re counting on history of the last 40 years to allow them to keep doing exactly what they’ve been doing.

The interesting thing right now is the differing definitions of dialogue between the LCWR and the CDF. That’s the centerpiece of this mess. Those definitions are radically different.

Did they set up a contingency plan? I don’t know, but my wild guess is that they already had one and have had one for some time. My guess is that they’re hoping they won’t have to use it, but rather that they can keep doing exactly what they’ve been doing. That’s what was reflected in today’s statement.

 

[iloveangels]

Now, now, Jason, let’s be fair. All Sister was saying is that we can go forward with love and compassion to heal the Church with conscious evolution as a microcosm of a world in flux–the cosmic breaking down and breaking through in a broader context because, unlike the LCWR, the reason many institutions, traditions and structures seem to wither is that the philosophical underpinnings of the way we hold reality really no longer hold, and because the human family is not served by individualism, patriarchy, a scarcity mentality or competition, i.e., the world is outgrowing the dualistic constructs of good/bad and domination/submission, and that breaking through in their place are equality, communion, collaboration, synchronicity, expansiveness, abundance, wholeness, mutuality, intuitive knowing and love in order to recognize that many lay people help reconcile the differences that exist within the Catholic church (as opposed to the Roman Catholic Church) and create spaces for honest and open conversation on the critical moral and ethical questions that face the global community.

Makes sense to me.

It’s nonsense. Some things never change and the deposit of faith is one of them.

If a person “moves beyond Christ” they’re not Christian anymore. In which case, it’s not the deposit of faith that’s changed but them.

A person who’s changed so that the deposit of faith doesn’t reach them anymore has lost their faith by definition.

 

[iloveangels]

Sadly, you are probably correct.

Peace,

I give very carefully and only locally. Many parishes or dioceses will let you make donations for particular things, like goods for the food bank or a stack of identical new books that the parish needs & has asked for, and so on. I prefer to give brand new goods that I will deliver, or have delivered, rather than cash.

I want to know exactly where the money goes when I donate. That way I know it’s not being used for funny stuff. Too many people are fooled by these big groups who really run a business and use donations as income or for PR or ideological purposes, politics, etc.

I wish more parishes and dioceses would post their bills (like the light bill or the water bill from the city) and let people pay a few dollars to them directly by calling the provider and paying on the account. A good way to donate.

Some people say that this is not very trustful. That’s probably true, but I’ve seen too much corruption. And it needs to stop.

BTW, I don’t donate to secular umbrella groups, like United Way either. Same reason.

 

[KSU]

I give very carefully and only locally. Many parishes or dioceses will let you make donations for particular things, like goods for the food bank or a stack of identical new books that the parish needs & has asked for, and so on. I prefer to give brand new goods that I will deliver, or have delivered, rather than cash.

I want to know exactly where the money goes when I donate. That way I know it’s not being used for funny stuff. Too many people are fooled by these big groups who really run a business and use donations as income or for PR or ideological purposes, politics, etc.

I wish more parishes and dioceses would post their bills (like the light bill or the water bill from the city) and let people pay a few dollars to them directly by calling the provider and paying on the account. A good way to donate.

Some people say that this is not very trustful. That’s probably true, but I’ve seen too much corruption. And it needs to stop.

BTW, I don’t donate to secular umbrella groups, like United Way either. Same reason.

Sister sees a need for lay people to open conversations on the critical moral and ethical questions facing us today. So, and I’m being serious, I think we lay people should open a conversation on the moral and ethical question of how to contribute only directly to transparent charitable causes (including of course chancery and parish Church upkeep) and papal appeals, without being forced to indirectly fund political activities of some USCCB committees, the CCHD, the LCWR or the contributions from organizations which fund the LCWR.

Surely, our Bishops see our moral and ethical problems with giving blindly so that the LCWR/NETWORK can continue its “mission”. Contributions only increase if beneficiaries can be designated.

Money (i.e., power, arrogance, influence and temptation) is the root of much of the evil eating away at the Church. That root can be severed. The reason why it has not been severed is a critical moral and ethical question.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Anyone who has watched the relationship between women religious and the hierarchy unfold much more than recently will understand that the situation, for lack of a better analogy, very much resembles a protracted divorce which refuses to conclude. It did not start yesterday or even in the 1980’s. According to these women, io some degree it can be said to pre-date Vatican 2. However, with Vatican 2, came a sense among reliigous that they were due more autonomy, or would soon have more autonomy, than in fact they were ever intended to have. Women religious for many, many years have complained about being infantilized by hierarchy both within the Vatican and without. I’m not talking about vows of obedience here, but what they viewed as heavily paternalistic over-reaching and a lack of trust in the sister’s more than adequate self-governance, before there was any justification for concern about doctrinal and lifestyle matters.

(I am just reporting on what I have been told; not verifying what did and did not happen, or playing advocate.)

It has often seemed to women religious that the hierarchy alternated between treating them like young children and ignoring/neglecting them altogether (for long periods). Again, I cannot verify how accurate that is, merely that it is a long-standing theme among very many women religious, especially older women, and I think that’s the crux of it. It’s not just a matter of today’s younger sisters being more faithful and cooperative; it’s that the younger ones did not experience a much “older” model of authority and assumptions. I think women in general in all walks of life are respected much more by clergy today. So some of these older sisters are carrying some very outdated baggage, i.m.o., in that they are clinging to old resentments of conditions and assumptions not operating today.

And that’s why there will never be “dialogue,” let alone “equality” sufficient enough to please them. They went through the mental marital separation quite some time ago, establishing their own practical and spiritual residencies “elsewhere.” And like many people in a divorce, the sisters are magnifiying all the previous injustices done to them, to include not only some potentially real ones, but features of the “partner” that are crucial to his identity. (It’s a destructive “divorce.”) Now they not only hate what they maintain was done to them, they reject the very “personality” of the partner, his essence. That means patriarchy and manhood itself.

There’s a logic to this, but here’s what I don’t get: At what point did they discover that the Roman Church is patriarchal in its governance? Hmmm. They in fact always knew. They certainly knew when they made vows. That would include the knowledge that the vow of obedience is linked with obedience to Mother Church. But this is about emotional rejection. The intellectual stuff is merely the cover and the vehicle for the emotional separation.

Only my opinion.

 

[KSU]

Sounds plausible.

 

[_Abyssinia]

LCWR assembly: some sisters disagree with panelist over response to Vatican

At the second day of the annual assembly of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR), the publisher of the National Catholic Reporter called upon the sisters present to “just say no” to Vatican concerns—leading to “audible groans” from some of the sisters.

Ann Carey of the National Catholic Register reported that Tom Fox, who was taking part in a panel discussion,

seemed to be taken aback by this reaction, and he scrambled to recover. “What I mean by that is that you are who you are, and you can’t say anything other than ‘Yes’ to who you are. You cannot,” Fox said. “So how that ‘Yes’ is made, or how you say ‘No’ to abuse and misunderstanding and misrepresentation is something left to determine.”
Fox had earlier told the sisters that “it is very, very important for you to know that you are the most prayerful, most experienced, most professional, most loved and most creative women to sit under one roof at any time in history.

“And you must understand the obligations and responsibilities that that entails. … You are speaking for the future, and you are speaking to give us hope.”

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=15214

 

[iloveangels]

Sister sees a need for lay people to open conversations on the critical moral and ethical questions facing us today. So, and I’m being serious, I think we lay people should open a conversation on the moral and ethical question of how to contribute only directly to transparent charitable causes (including of course chancery and parish Church upkeep) and papal appeals, without being forced to indirectly fund political activities of some USCCB committees, the CCHD, the LCWR or the contributions from organizations which fund the LCWR.

Surely, our Bishops see our moral and ethical problems with giving blindly so that the LCWR/NETWORK can continue its “mission”. Contributions only increase if beneficiaries can be designated.

Money (i.e., power, arrogance, influence and temptation) is the root of much of the evil eating away at the Church. That root can be severed. The reason why it has not been severed is a critical moral and ethical question.

They can’t force you. Just don’t.

 

[iloveangels]

Anyone who has watched the relationship between women religious and the hierarchy unfold much more than recently will understand that the situation, for lack of a better analogy, very much resembles a protracted divorce which refuses to conclude. It did not start yesterday or even in the 1980’s. According to these women, io some degree it can be said to pre-date Vatican 2. However, with Vatican 2, came a sense among reliigous that they were due more autonomy, or would soon have more autonomy, than in fact they were ever intended to have. Women religious for many, many years have complained about being infantilized by hierarchy both within the Vatican and without. I’m not talking about vows of obedience here, but what they viewed as heavily paternalistic over-reaching and a lack of trust in the sister’s more than adequate self-governance, before there was any justification for concern about doctrinal and lifestyle matters.

(I am just reporting on what I have been told; not verifying what did and did not happen, or playing advocate.)

It has often seemed to women religious that the hierarchy alternated between treating them like young children and ignoring/neglecting them altogether (for long periods). Again, I cannot verify how accurate that is, merely that it is a long-standing theme among very many women religious, especially older women, and I think that’s the crux of it. It’s not just a matter of today’s younger sisters being more faithful and cooperative; it’s that the younger ones did not experience a much “older” model of authority and assumptions. I think women in general in all walks of life are respected much more by clergy today. So some of these older sisters are carrying some very outdated baggage, i.m.o., in that they are clinging to old resentments of conditions and assumptions not operating today.

And that’s why there will never be “dialogue,” let alone “equality” sufficient enough to please them. They went through the mental marital separation quite some time ago, establishing their own practical and spiritual residencies “elsewhere.” And like many people in a divorce, the sisters are magnifiying all the previous injustices done to them, to include not only some potentially real ones, but features of the “partner” that are crucial to his identity. (It’s a destructive “divorce.”) Now they not only hate what they maintain was done to them, they reject the very “personality” of the partner, his essence. That means patriarchy and manhood itself.

There’s a logic to this, but here’s what I don’t get: At what point did they discover that the Roman Church is patriarchal in its governance? Hmmm. They in fact always knew. They certainly knew when they made vows. That would include the knowledge that the vow of obedience is linked with obedience to Mother Church. But this is about emotional rejection. The intellectual stuff is merely the cover and the vehicle for the emotional separation.

Only my opinion.

Actually, Elizabeth, from all my reading I’d say you are not far off. I’m not sure if the situation is reconcilable or not.

 

[jwinch2]

Although we may never know what really happened, we do know that the story told in the Gospels is that Jesus’ resurrection was a first demonstration of what I call the post-human universal person. We are told that he did not die. He made his transition, released his animal body, and reappeared in a new body at the next level of physicality to tell all of us that we would do what he did. The new person that he became had continuity of consciousness with his life as Jesus of Nazareth, an earthly life in which he had become fully human and fully divine. Jesus’ life stands as a model of the transition from Homo sapiens to Homo universalis.

A little reminder of one of the more awesome quotes from this year’s keynote speaker at the LCWR conference. I think she stole that from an episode of the Tomorrow People.

 

[iloveangels]

A little reminder of one of the more awesome quotes from this year’s keynote speaker at the LCWR conference. I think she stole that from an episode of the Tomorrow People.

This stuff is going to be laughing material for a decade. I can tell. It’s outlandish.