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

[iloveangels]

To a point I agree. Though, the issues with LCWR have been in the open for some time. I don’t believe that the Vatican was oblivious to this when you have a mob of sisters show up to protest in support of women’s ordination. That happened a long time ago. One of the articles earlier in this thread discussed efforts to reign these sisters in prior to the apostolic visitations, but I can’t remember the details now.

The trends right now indicate you are correct in that we have the attention of Rome. We have certainly seen the appointment of many more conservative and orthodox bishops in recent years. Whether this attention translates into anything tangible in terms of a resurgence of fidelity in the US Church remains to be seen. The problems were not created overnight, though it almost seems like it at times, and they will take a generation or two of sustained focus from the Vatican and strong, orthodox, leadership by the USCCB, to right themselves.

Well, that’s the problem. This has gone on so long that there are many really, really confused people in the Church, even in places of authority relative to the average layperson. (Talking about the US specifically here.) I also truly believe that there are in the Church a sizable number of people who wouldn’t really commit themselves to the teachings and understandings of genuine Christianity in their wildest dreams, but who are culturally Catholic, and don’t understand the relationship between the two things–and the relationship between those two things and history, including the history of the Catholic Church. (Or perhaps I should say, Salvation History. Pretty much the same thing post-Incarnation.)

I believe that you are correct when you say that the problems were not created overnight, and we’re not going to solve them overnight. But as we go forward, things are getting better from a Catholic Christian point of view, believe it or not. That doesn’t mean they’re trouble-free or even good-looking. It may even mean that there is a pruning coming, but the faith will live on.

NB: In Europe and in other global regions, the problems and understandings are often quite different. If you have a chance to spend some time in Europe, for instance, you’ll find that the arguments that go on over coffee about religion and Christianity are quite different from the ones we have here. I use that example because it’s the one I’m personally better acquainted with.

 

[iloveangels]

To a point I agree. Though, the issues with LCWR have been in the open for some time. I don’t believe that the Vatican was oblivious to this when you have a mob of sisters show up to protest in support of women’s ordination. That happened a long time ago. One of the articles earlier in this thread discussed efforts to reign these sisters in prior to the apostolic visitations, but I can’t remember the details now.

The trends right now indicate you are correct in that we have the attention of Rome. We have certainly seen the appointment of many more conservative and orthodox bishops in recent years. Whether this attention translates into anything tangible in terms of a resurgence of fidelity in the US Church remains to be seen. The problems were not created overnight, though it almost seems like it at times, and they will take a generation or two of sustained focus from the Vatican and strong, orthodox, leadership by the USCCB, to right themselves.

Yes, well the issues with our translations were on display for a long time before they finally kicked in as critical in Rome too. You have to understand that they think, and they have solid grounds for this, that Americans are nuts. We interpret the English language in a very elastic way due to our fashion & business conscious culture. We thrive on word games and deviancy in this culture. Surely you know that. It’s only gotten worse with post-modernity.

I’ve worked with many people from other cultures and this non-literalism that Americans thrive on really creates interesting (and sometimes funny) results for people trying to learn American social and linguistic systems.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Yes, but you have to be careful with that turn of phrase, Elizabeth (We are Church). It’s used in a couple of radically different ways. It’s even the name of a dissident organization that defies the authority of the Church. I don’t want to link it here, but if you Google or Bing those 3 words, that organization comes right up. That’s why the phrase gets the response it sometimes does, and sometimes why it’s used in Catholic word games of various sorts.

I knew that. And that’s why I elaborated as I did. The dispute is not over whether we are all Church, but whether that needs to be, or can be, translated to dissent. Many older religious sisters equate the institutional church with a “male patriarchy” which they reject, and with a style of authority which they reject. That’s from their very own statements, not something I’m deducing even.

Since you are observant, hopefully you have noticed (I’ve read lots of quotes from those at their meetings), the enormous emphasis on “the process” they undergo at their meetings. They make a huge point of setting apart their “process” as non-linear, non-hierarchical, and …well…vague. That’s very deliberate – the constant reference to this, and their contention that their decision-making process has equal “authority” to the process of the insitutional hierarchy.

The point is that they annoint their own processes, as well as their own ministries, as well as their own derived “theologies,” as co-equal with that of the CDF, the College of Cardinals, and the papacy. (Notice I said co-equal, not equal. That’s also deliberate.)

 

[Edward_H]

I knew that. And that’s why I elaborated as I did. The dispute is not over whether we are all Church, but whether that needs to be, or can be, translated to dissent. Many older religious sisters equate the institutional church with a “male patriarchy” which they reject, and with a style of authority which they reject. That’s from their very own statements, not something I’m deducing even.

Since you are observant, hopefully you have noticed (I’ve read lots of quotes from those at their meetings), the enormous emphasis on “the process” they undergo at their meetings. They make a huge point of setting apart their “process” as non-linear, non-hierarchical, and …well…vague. That’s very deliberate – the constant reference to this, and their contention that their decision-making process has equal “authority” to the process of the insitutional hierarchy.

The point is that they annoint their own processes, as well as their own ministries, as well as their own derived “theologies,” as co-equal with that of the CDF, the College of Cardinals, and the papacy. (Notice I said co-equal, not equal. That’s also deliberate.)

The error made by those people who use many of the catch phrases you use above (such as “hierarchy” “institutional” “patriarchy”) is rooted on the thinking and terminolgy cut out of secular, political, feminist, academic world of the late 50s, the 60s, 70s. At bottom, it’s relativism. It’s certainly not similar to any way of thinking from the early Church, from Acts, etc.

You can see the same terminology and thought patterns by reading just about any article from the National Catholic Reporter, or any comments submitted by readers of these NCR articles.

They try to set up this terms of debate in this language, and all their thinking is shoehorned into the language of power politics. Very limiting. Leads to a lot of angst on the part of the authors and readers. Their arguments never gain any ground because they are not based on the essential truths. There can be no joy or growth for these sorts of people, trapped in this mode of thinking. These are some of the most depressing people to be around, but we need to engage them cheerfully, with a lot of prayer and generosity.

 

[Elizabeth502]

The error made by those people who use many of the catch phrases you use above (such as “hierarchy” “institutional” “patriarchy”) is rooted on the thinking and terminolgy cut out of secular, political, feminist, academic world of the late 50s, the 60s, 70s.

I’m quoting them, as opposed to “using phrases”[of my own]

I agree that the effort to stay agitated, as it were, and to make sure that one is sufficiently oppositional (or negative), is trying – not to mention unattractive and misguided.

 

[iloveangels]

I knew that. And that’s why I elaborated as I did. The dispute is not over whether we are all Church, but whether that needs to be, or can be, translated to dissent. Many older religious sisters equate the institutional church with a “male patriarchy” which they reject, and with a style of authority which they reject. That’s from their very own statements, not something I’m deducing even.

Since you are observant, hopefully you have noticed (I’ve read lots of quotes from those at their meetings), the enormous emphasis on “the process” they undergo at their meetings. They make a huge point of setting apart their “process” as non-linear, non-hierarchical, and …well…vague. That’s very deliberate – the constant reference to this, and their contention that their decision-making process has equal “authority” to the process of the insitutional hierarchy.

The point is that they annoint their own processes, as well as their own ministries, as well as their own derived “theologies,” as co-equal with that of the CDF, the College of Cardinals, and the papacy. (Notice I said co-equal, not equal. That’s also deliberate.)

Right. That’s in keeping with their account or narrative of what’s going on.

 

[iloveangels]

The point is that they annoint their own processes, as well as their own ministries, as well as their own derived “theologies,” as co-equal with that of the CDF, the College of Cardinals, and the papacy. (Notice I said co-equal, not equal. That’s also deliberate.)

This is interesting too. I’m not sure they’re even claiming that their “theologies” or whatever they want to call them are merely co-equal.

Based on the statement: …Farrell said that “some larger movement in the church … has landed on LCWR,” she is really saying far more than that.

She is saying that somehow she is a witness or prophet who has some information of “some larger movement in the Church” that somehow is more important than the Church’s information. And she’s saying that it’s “landed on the LCWR,” which means in other words that the LCWR is the receptor of it instead of the CHurch as a whole.

In other words, she is saying that her “theology,” or whatever it is, trumps the Church’s, and that she is some kind of primary conduit of authority for the rest of the Church. Which is frankly ludicrous.

This is why when I first saw this quote, even before you placed it in here, I was struck by it. It very directly gets to the heart of this whole problem.

 

[jwinch2]

This is interesting too. I’m not sure they’re even claiming that their “theologies” or whatever they want to call them are merely co-equal.

Based on the statement: …Farrell said that “some larger movement in the church … has landed on LCWR,” she is really saying far more than that.

She is saying that somehow she is a witness or prophet who has some information of “some larger movement in the Church” that somehow is more important than the Church’s information. And she’s saying that it’s “landed on the LCWR,” which means in other words that the LCWR is the receptor of it instead of the CHurch as a whole.

In other words, she is saying that her “theology,” or whatever it is, trumps the Church’s, and that she is some kind of primary conduit of authority for the rest of the Church. Which is frankly ludicrous.

This is why when I first saw this quote, even before you placed it in here, I was struck by it. It very directly gets to the heart of this whole problem.

Combine that with her statements that the “men never get it” and that the “women will have to show them the way” and you have them believing, fully, that it is their ordained mission to correct the bishops and the Holy Father and show them the error of their ways.

 

[iloveangels]

Combine that with her statements that the “men never get it” and that the “women will have to show them the way” and you have them believing, fully, that it is their ordained mission to correct the bishops and the Holy Father and show them the error of their ways.

Yes, and the gender thing really is a red herring. I mean, it’s not a red herring from their point of view, because the way their narrative is constructed it’s one of the factors simply because they’re all women. But nevertheless it’s immaterial simply because people have done this sort of thing before from a gender-neutral perspective, so gender specificity is not necessary for this to occur. It’s really about “our narrative tops your narrative.”

But you know if you have a narrative that’s drawn almost completely from your own psychological makeup and your experiences, it can conclude just about anything. Really. This is what’s so strikingly naive about this whole thing. Compounding that is the dependence on consensus and transactional analysis techniques that I’m seeing in their press releases that simply compound the effect. I mean this is really right out of the late 20th century, like the intervening years never happened. It’s really fairly amazing.

In contrast, the Church’s narrative is Salvation history, scripture and tradition. There’s no co-equal to this. The sister’s narrative is just a spurious narrative, pure and simple.

 

[iloveangels]

Here’s that whole statement without the “…” in the middle. I’ve also captured surrounding text from the original address which is on the LCWR website.

“Clearly, there has been a shift! Some larger movement in the Church, in the
world, has landed on LCWR. We are in a time of crisis and that is a very hopeful
place to be. As our main speaker, Barbara Marx Hubbard, has indicated, crisis
precedes transformation.”

lcwr.org/sites/default/files/news/files/pat_farrell_-_presidential_address_1.pdf

 

[jwinch2]

There was a post on here recently, or another similar thread, about the significance of the scarves that the members of LCWR were waving around Hubbard as they were chanting and doing their thing.

I can’t seem to find it now. Can anyone remind me of that and perhaps provide a link?

Thanks,

 

[iloveangels]

There was a post on here recently, or another similar thread, about the significance of the scarves that the members of LCWR were waving around Hubbard as they were chanting and doing their thing.

I can’t seem to find it now. Can anyone remind me of that and perhaps provide a link?

Thanks,

There were a couple, but I think I know which one you mean. The one that had a meaning for the color orange? Try searching “orange” post by post instead of thread by thread. It’s at the bottom of the search feature in here.

 

[Elizabeth502]

There was a post on here recently, or another similar thread, about the significance of the scarves that the members of LCWR were waving around Hubbard as they were chanting and doing their thing.

It had something to do with the color orange being associated with some New Age cults or followings. Scarves – or anything – waved “around” a figure is very close to idolatry, i.m.o. We don’t even quite do this toward a Pope. Cloths are waved in front of him, but he is not encircled by priests or laity as if he is being worshipped. Respect/honor is not quite the same as what occurred here, i.m.o. And we certainly don’t perform such rituals with regard to a priest (or bishop, or Cardinal). Members of the laity (and sometimes also clergy) process in with the priest, before Masses both ordinary and solemn.

So I’m less concerned with the color, more concerned with the gratuitous adulation.

Again, I do not understand the wish to “separate.” I’ll say it again: The ministries of the various congregations are, as a whole, above criticism. Add to those, the missionary work also performed by religious – all of which is a life defined by sacrifice – and whenever I hear about the specifics of their work, I am humbled beyond measure at the living saints among us. The Particular Judgments of some of these people (men and women) are going to take like 2 seconds: “OK, go to my right hand. Next…” And the rest of us will have our accountings to make.

It is distilled Gospel. It is not New Age. It is not “outside the Church.” It is not “a different paradigm,” “an evolved consciousness,” or anything else abstractly vague. Their work could not be more concrete and transparent in terms of Christian action. Holy smoke, women: What do you want? And why must you analyze with big words what you are already doing according to the simple commands of Jesus? Why claim that “someone else” (“The Force?”) is commanding you? It seems like such an affect.

 

[iloveangels]

It had something to do with the color orange being associated with some New Age cults or followings. Scarves – or anything – waved “around” a figure is very close to idolatry, i.m.o. We don’t even quite do this toward a Pope. Cloths are waved in front of him, but he is not encircled by priests or laity as if he is being worshipped. Respect/honor is not quite the same as what occurred here, i.m.o. And we certainly don’t perform such rituals with regard to a priest (or bishop, or Cardinal). Members of the laity (and sometimes also clergy) process in with the priest, before Masses both ordinary and solemn.

So I’m less concerned with the color, more concerned with the gratuitous adulation.

Again, I do not understand the wish to “separate.” I’ll say it again: The ministries of the various congregations are, as a whole, above criticism. Add to those, the missionary work also performed by religious – all of which is a life defined by sacrifice – and whenever I hear about the specifics of their work, I am humbled beyond measure at the living saints among us. The Particular Judgments of some of these people (men and women) are going to take like 2 seconds: “OK, go to my right hand. Next…” And the rest of us will have our accountings to make.

It is distilled Gospel. It is not New Age. It is not “outside the Church.” It is not “a different paradigm,” “an evolved consciousness,” or anything else abstractly vague. Their work could not be more concrete and transparent in terms of Christian action. Holy smoke, women: What do you want? And why must you analyze with big words what you are already doing according to the simple commands of Jesus? Why claim that “someone else” (“The Force?”) is commanding you? It seems like such an affect.

I hear you, Elizabeth. There’s one other thing to think about. The average age is about 73 or 74 or so now, you realize. A very large proportion of them are retired, you realize. It’s tempting to remember how they used to be instead of thinking about how they are now. The ones you see in the news and at that conference are the younger ones.

 

[jwinch2]

ncregister.com/daily-news/holy-see-mandates-reform-of-u.s.-women-religious-conference/

Quote of the day:

I asked Sister Pat if LCWR’s expected dialogue with Archbishop Sartain would be different than the several years of dialogue the sisters had with the CDF already. And I noted that Cardinal William Levada, who was prefect of the CDF during that dialogue, had characterized the experience as a “dialogue with the deaf.”

Brutal.

 

[jwinch2]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=701098

This thread is getting very close to the 1000 post mark when they are typically closed for getting too long. As such, I recommend that we continue the discussion at the thread I linked above which seems to be generating some decent discussion on the matter. I will leave a link to this thread, for anyone who reads that one and wishes to learn more about the genesis of this situation and its background.

You of course, are under no obligation to go with my recommendation, but I thought I would throw it out there.

Peace of Christ,

Jason

 

[iloveangels]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=701098

This thread is getting very close to the 1000 post mark when they are typically closed for getting too long. As such, I recommend that we continue the discussion at the thread I linked above which seems to be generating some decent discussion on the matter. I will leave a link to this thread, for anyone who reads that one and wishes to learn more about the genesis of this situation and its background.

You of course, are under no obligation to go with my recommendation, but I thought I would throw it out there.

Peace of Christ,

Jason

Thank you, Jason.

 

[Alan55]

The error made by those people who use many of the catch phrases you use above (such as “hierarchy” “institutional” “patriarchy”) is rooted on the thinking and terminolgy cut out of secular, political, feminist, academic world of the late 50s, the 60s, 70s. At bottom, it’s relativism. It’s certainly not similar to any way of thinking from the early Church, from Acts, etc.

You can see the same terminology and thought patterns by reading just about any article from the National Catholic Reporter, or any comments submitted by readers of these NCR articles.

They try to set up this terms of debate in this language, and all their thinking is shoehorned into the language of power politics. Very limiting. Leads to a lot of angst on the part of the authors and readers. Their arguments never gain any ground because they are not based on the essential truths. There can be no joy or growth for these sorts of people, trapped in this mode of thinking. These are some of the most depressing people to be around, but we need to engage them cheerfully, with a lot of prayer and generosity.

I think you have it partly right. The leadership of the LCWR generally are highly suspicious of so-called “essential truths” that relate to gender roles and authority in the Church, including the reasoning behind recent papal/CDF teaching on women’s ordination, seeing such reasoning as theologically weak and designed less to elucidate Christian truth and more as a means of maintaining male control of power in the Church. While this thinking certainly had its roots in the 1960s and 1970s, it still current and influential. If you think its influence ended in the 1970s, you aren’t keeping up with current theological writing. If anything, liberation theology, including feminist theory, is mainstream thinking among theologians, although the Vatican has done its best to suppress it within the institutional Church.

As for your comment about depression and joylessness among women religious, your comments do not describe the women religious that I know. Frankly, in my experience, the traditionalist Catholics who are attacking contemporary women religious strike me as the ones who are fearful, angry, and joyless.

 

[KSU]

Frankly, in my experience, the traditionalist Catholics who are attacking contemporary women religious strike me as the ones who are fearful, angry, and joyless.

Who/what are “traditionalist Catholics”?

 

[iloveangels]

I think you have it partly right. The leadership of the LCWR generally are highly suspicious of so-called “essential truths” that relate to gender roles and authority in the Church, including the reasoning behind recent papal/CDF teaching on women’s ordination, seeing such reasoning as theologically weak and designed less to elucidate Christian truth and more as a means of maintaining male control of power in the Church. While this thinking certainly had its roots in the 1960s and 1970s, it still current and influential. If you think its influence ended in the 1970s, you aren’t keeping up with current theological writing. If anything, liberation theology, including feminist theory, is mainstream thinking among theologians, although the Vatican has done its best to suppress it within the institutional Church.

As for your comment about depression and joylessness among women religious, your comments do not describe the women religious that I know. Frankly, in my experience, the traditionalist Catholics who are attacking contemporary women religious strike me as the ones who are fearful, angry, and joyless.

Again, I really don’t think that there’s adequate comprehension here of the difference between 3 very discrete and different things:

1. the progressive opinions of Tom Fox and the NCR which are their opinions to which they have a right, no matter what I think of them, VS.
2. the normal definitions and operations of religious life as given by canon law and the long and laudable history of religious orders & congregations, VS
3. the method that the LCWR is pushing–and I quote:
   *"The depth of the experience, however, belies the apparent simplicity. It’s a suspension of rational Western thinking as the participants drop into what Zinn calls "a contemplative way of seeing what God sees. McCarthy added that the process allows “whatever wishes to emerge from within to do so.” *

ncronline.org/news/women-reli…religious-life