What effect will the Vatican's reform of the LCWR have on religious in America?

[Tarpeian_Rock]

The reform can only bring good things.

It’s time for the women religious to wear the habit and embrace their primitive constitutions.

I’m open to correction from Bro. JR on this, but I do not see imposing the dress of 17th and 18th Century European widows - which I understand to be the historic basis for many of the “habits” we came to see - on current women religious as necessary to restoring the vision and ministry of the founders and their constitution. In threads like this one I see way too much bias in the form of imposing a mold on religious sisters to make them conform to the images that we grew up with in the 1950’s, on the apparent theory that doing so will make everything “all better” again.

 

[commenter]

The LCWR is not the only US conference for women. The Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious (CMSWR) has equal “recognition”. Many religious orders pulled out of the LCWR to form this group. Some new communities joined this group, rather than the LCWR. The CMSWR differs from the LCWR in that it collaborates well with the Vatican, with American bishops, and its member communities such as Mother Theresa’s sisters are attracting far more vocations than those affiliated with the LCWR. The media focuses exclusively on the LCWR, not CMSWR, which seems more successful by any measure I can think of. Rather than continuing the expensive, time intensive unsuccessful 40 year struggle to reform the LCWR, it would be better if the CMSWR became the single recognized entity for the Vatican and bishops. The LCWR will continue to function as an unofficial organization, they will keep getting calls from CNN; but the young women are going to other kinds of religious communities.

 

[otjm]

I’m open to correction from Bro. JR on this, but I do not see imposing the dress of 17th and 18th Century European widows - which I understand to be the historic basis for many of the “habits” we came to see - on current women religious as necessary to restoring the vision and ministry of the founders and their constitution. In threads like this one I see way too much bias in the form of imposing a mold on religious sisters to make them conform to the images that we grew up with in the 1950’s, on the apparent theory that doing so will make everything “all better” again.

From what little I have been able to observe, the communities which are growing have, as a first, a clear grasp of what their charism is; and second, some form of modified habit (modified, that is, from what was the norm say in the 1950’s, and was handed down for who knows how long).

Another 20 to 30 years will most likely result in the sorting out of a lot of this; those which cannot grow sufficiently to a sustainable level will either disband or simply die off; and those which seem to have a clue will for the larger part, thrive.

And thriving may never reach the numbers of the 1950’s and early 1960’s, but that may not be much of a proper marker anyway.

 

[Jimmygill88]

Be careful here. The original constitutions of many religious communities did not call for a habit. In many communities, habits were adopted later for varying reasons. Even among Franciscans, we don’t have a prescribed habit. For that reason, you’ll see an assortment of habits and non-habited Franciscans. St. Clare wrote that the habit should be whatever is comfortable, practical, poor, and of the liking of the sisters. You have Poor Clares who wear a Benedictine habit, such as the PCPA at EWTN and those who wear no habit.

Having said this, I agree that we need to go back to the roots.
Jimmygill88;10637272:

Then we should stop calling the Church, “Mother”. We should also stop saying that sisters are brides of Christ, because they are not truly brides of Christ. It’s allegorical language. Nor should we call religious institutes orders and congregations, since most people today don’t know the difference between the two. These words no longer mean the same in the secular world.

Yes, that’s correct.

For example, I belong to the Conference of Major Superiors of Men Religious. The conference is a resource body. It has no authority over the superiors and much less over the general chapter of each community, just as the Conference of Bishops of any nation has no authority over individual bishops, unless they all agree to do X instead of Y. Their successor is free to change this and go with Y.

I don’t see ANY problem with the analogy of sisters as brides of Christ they are women. Holy Mother Church is , as you say allegorical. The Italian language would call 4 sisters and one or other ‘5 brothers’ but that is not the English custom and our language is there for us to make sense of the world not to be set in arcane tablets of stone

 

[McCall1981]

From what little I have been able to observe, the communities which are growing have, as a first, a clear grasp of what their charism is; and second, some form of modified habit (modified, that is, from what was the norm say in the 1950’s, and was handed down for who knows how long).

Another 20 to 30 years will most likely result in the sorting out of a lot of this; those which cannot grow sufficiently to a sustainable level will either disband or simply die off; and those which seem to have a clue will for the larger part, thrive.

And thriving may never reach the numbers of the 1950’s and early 1960’s, but that may not be much of a proper marker anyway.

This is pretty much how I think (and hope) it will play out.

Do you think the CDF’s reform of the LCWR will play any role in it going forward?

 

[JReducation]

QUOTE=Tarpeian Rock;10641791]I’m open to correction from Bro. JR on this, but I do not see imposing the dress of 17th and 18th Century European widows - which I understand to be the historic basis for many of the “habits” we came to see - on current women religious as necessary to restoring the vision and ministry of the founders and their constitution. In threads like this one I see way too much bias in the form of imposing a mold on religious sisters to make them conform to the images that we grew up with in the 1950’s, on the apparent theory that doing so will make everything “all better” again.

What a religious community wears is decided by the founder, not by the CDF or by us. If a religious community goes back to its roots and finds that the founder did not impose a habit, then the Church accepts that community with whatever it chooses to wear. Such is the case with the Poor Clares. St. Clare did impose a habit on our nuns. St. Francis did not impose a habit on the friars either. Hence the diversity of habits and non-habits. The CDF does not have the authority to engage in the internal affairs of religious communities other than the Traditionalist Communities, because the Ecclesia Dei Commission has been placed under the CDF. All other communities are under the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life.

I don’t see ANY problem with the analogy of sisters as brides of Christ they are women. Holy Mother Church is , as you say allegorical. The Italian language would call 4 sisters and one or other ‘5 brothers’ but that is not the English custom and our language is there for us to make sense of the world not to be set in arcane tablets of stone

There is one sense, though it’s not an important issue. We, male religious, made solemn vows while sisters do not. We belong to religious orders, while most sisters do not. Our life and work is similar to that of sisters. If sisters are the brides of Christ, what does that make male religious? I’m not talking about priests. Not every priest is a religious and not every religious is a priest. Only 40% of our priests are religious and only 20% of religious are priests.

This is pretty much how I think (and hope) it will play out.

Do you think the CDF’s reform of the LCWR will play any role in it going forward?

The hope is that the LCWR will play a positive role in the education and promotion of women’s religious life in this country.

The LCWR is not the only US conference for women. The Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious (CMSWR) has equal “recognition”. Many religious orders pulled out of the LCWR to form this group.

This is not accurate. There are no and there never were any religious orders of women in either of these groups. These groups are for the major superiors of women religious, not for the major superiors of women’s orders. In women’s orders there are no major superiors. Every house is autonomous. Every superior is “major”.

 

[commenter]

In my diocese, there is a college that formerly was completely committed to Catholic doctrine, and under the authority of the bishop. Later was not the case. After a period of trying to reengage the college without success, the diocese dropped the college from our diocesan directory. It is not a Catholic college. This is no condemnation of individuals at the college, some of whom may be excellent Catholics, but a recognition of current reality. The same thing needs to happen with the LCWR. It is no longer a Catholic organization. That fact needs to be communicated by the Vatican and the bishops. 40 years of attempted reform have failed. They will continue to live on. They’ll have massive support from the secular media, as long as they are willing to say the Catholic Church is bad. The Church should give more support to our major success story, the Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious, which is expanding ministries through its related communities. The media may ignore this group, but their affiliated communities are getting the vocations, not the ones linked to the LCWR. For all the media’s attention, the LCWR communities are cutting the number of sisters in ministry to the poor, children, and others.

 

[edwest2]

Just pointing out that archaic language isn’t helpful in my opinion. We could of course go back to Old Norse if you prefer! Language EVOLVES

Language evolves? I don’t think so. A friend of mine went to England not long ago and made it a point to say she could understand people in some areas perfectly well, while in others, she could barely do so. Dialects still exist in modern times. Sure, we have “new” names for new things, but, if anything, words have become standardized, with certain forms being less used. What we call English is a mixture of borrowed words that have been Anglicized just as the French, for example, have created French twists to English words. It is amusing to see the Japanese English spelling for the words high heel.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Jimmygill88]

Language evolves? I don’t think so. A friend of mine went to England not long ago and made it a point to say she could understand people in some areas perfectly well, while in others, she could barely do so. Dialects still exist in modern times. Sure, we have “new” names for new things, but, if anything, words have become standardized, with certain forms being less used. What we call English is a mixture of borrowed words that have been Anglicized just as the French, for example, have created French twists to English words. It is amusing to see the Japanese English spelling for the words high heel.

Peace,
Ed

Of course language living languages evolve. Which is why English is spoken in different ways in different parts of the world. I’m sorry to shoot down your theory but your friend did not encounter dialects what they encountered was accent. Because I can assure you there aren’t pockets of the UK still using Anglo-Saxon. As you point out English has borrowings from Norse, French, German, Sanskrit Et.Al. One interesting example is the American use of the word ‘fall’ and the British ‘Autumn’ Fall was quite coming in Tudor England which is when it was introduced into the American English lexicon while it fell into disuse in the UK in favour of Autumn. The language evolved in different was in different parts of the world. We don’t speak in the same way that contemporaries of Chaucer or Shakespeare did. Nor do we speak in the same way that people did in the 1950s

 

[commenter]

What effect do you think the Vatican’s reform of the LCWR will have on women religious in the US? I mean this both for the short term during the reform itself, and in the longer term as the results of the reform play out.

The Vatican can’t “reform” the LCWR. The members would have to decide what, if any, changes they will make. Only 3% of sisters are members, but they get enormous support from the media. Keep in mind that the Vatican’s intervention is coming partly at the request of American bishops, and partly at the request of some American sisters, who said “they don’t speak for me”. To compare the LCWR with the CMSWR, the LCWR seems neutral towards Catholic Church authority, and attentive to the authority of the media; the CMSWR is the reverse. I don’t anticipate the LCWR members, themselves, changing their minds. I think leaders of some moderate religious communities will leave it, perhaps to join the CMSWR. The “reform” of religious life is playing out by demographics, as certain types of religious communities attract vocations, and others - who have similar views to the LCWR - slowly die out. Let us pray for all involved.

 

[opus101]

Here is a link from the CMSWR website re: the religious habit. It is an interesting read.
It mentions Canon Law and Perfectae Caritatis.

cmswr.org/articlesonreligiouslife/habit.html

The religious garb is to be distinctive, so (IMO), “18th & 19th century widows’ garb” is more distinctive than 21st century widows garb - which is exactly like what everyone else wears.

Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but the “widows’ garb” habits of yore applied only to certain congregations, some of them wore distinct “habits”.

 

[McCall1981]

What specific “reforms” are they gonna do?
Hard to say what the effect will be if we don’t know what changes they intend to make. Do you know? Has the Vatican specifically said?

.

This is what I have seen:

"The mandate of the Archbishop Delegate, Archbishop Sartain, includes the following:[33]

To revise LCWR Statutes to ensure greater clarity about the scope of the mission and responsibilities of this conference of major superiors. The revised Statutes will be submitted to the Holy See for approval by the CICLSAL.
To review LCWR plans and programs, including General Assemblies and publications, to ensure that the scope of the LCWR’s mission is fulfilled in accord with Church teachings and discipline. In particular:
Systems Thinking Handbook will be withdrawn from circulation pending revision
LCWR programs for (future) Superiors and Formators will be reformed
Speakers/presenters at major programs will be subject to approval by Delegate
To create new LCWR programs for member Congregations for the development of initial and ongoing formation material that provides a deepened understanding of the Church’s doctrine of the faith.
To review and offer guidance in the application of liturgical norms and texts. For example:
The Eucharist and the Liturgy of the Hours will have a place of priority in LCWR events and programs.
To review LCWR links with affiliated organizations, e.g. Network and Resource Center for Religious Life."

Though this is still somewhat vague. If anyone has better info than this, please post

 

[JReducation]

The same thing needs to happen with the LCWR. It is no longer a Catholic organization. That fact needs to be communicated by the Vatican and the bishops. 40 years of attempted reform have failed.

The Vatican cannot legally cut off the LCWR. The LCWR was created by the Vatican, chartered by the Vatican and is the Vatican’s communication bridge between the sisters, bishops and the Holy See. Unless the Vatican has something to put in its place, it has to work with the LCWR to get it going in the right direction.

Here is a link from the CMSWR website re: the religious habit. It is an interesting read.
It mentions Canon Law and Perfectae Caritatis.

cmswr.org/articlesonreligiouslife/habit.html

The religious garb is to be distinctive, so (IMO), “18th & 19th century widows’ garb” is more distinctive than 21st century widows garb - which is exactly like what everyone else wears.

Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but the “widows’ garb” habits of yore applied only to certain congregations, some of them wore distinct “habits”.

The habit is not an issue. I wish the laity would leave the habit alone. It only muddles the waters. At the Holy See and at the general chapter of each religious community, everyone knows what founders deliberately instituted a habit and which ones did not. The key then is to go back to the founder. If the founder did not institute a habit, but a habit was adopted later, the community should return to the founder’s wishes and lay aside any habit that it may have adopted. If the founder did impose a habit, the community should guide itself by the founder’s vision and wishes. It’s that simple.

Perfectae Caritatis, Canon Law, and Vita Consecrata are not saying that every religious community must wear a habit. They are speaking only to those religious communities whose founders prescribed a habit. The law must always be read in its historical context. If the founder did not prescribe a habit, the canon on habits does not apply, because there is no historical requirement.

For example, you cannot impose a habit on the Missionary of Charity Brothers, because Mother Teresa explicitly said that they were NOT TO WEAR A HABIT when she founded them. There is no mention of a habit in their general constitutions. There is a dress code, but not a habit. The canon about habits does not fit this historical context. Therefore, it’s not applicable.

This is what I have seen:

"The mandate of the Archbishop Delegate, Archbishop Sartain, includes the following:[33]

To revise LCWR Statutes to ensure greater clarity about the scope of the mission and responsibilities of this conference of major superiors. The revised Statutes will be submitted to the Holy See for approval by the CICLSAL.
To review LCWR plans and programs, including General Assemblies and publications, to ensure that the scope of the LCWR’s mission is fulfilled in accord with Church teachings and discipline. In particular:
Systems Thinking Handbook will be withdrawn from circulation pending revision
LCWR programs for (future) Superiors and Formators will be reformed
Speakers/presenters at major programs will be subject to approval by Delegate
To create new LCWR programs for member Congregations for the development of initial and ongoing formation material that provides a deepened understanding of the Church’s doctrine of the faith.
To review and offer guidance in the application of liturgical norms and texts. For example:
The Eucharist and the Liturgy of the Hours will have a place of priority in LCWR events and programs.
To review LCWR links with affiliated organizations, e.g. Network and Resource Center for Religious Life."

Though this is still somewhat vague. If anyone has better info than this, please post

There is probably more, but the CDF has been warned by the male superiors that it must call a council of bishops and religious superiors to go beyond this. Otherwise, the CDF can be dragged into a tribunal. The law requires such a council for certain issues. The number of religious superiors must exceed the number of bishops by one. The advantage must always be given to the religious superiors, for several reasons that are not important here.

 

[opus101]

The habit is not an issue. I wish the laity would leave the habit alone. It only muddles the waters. At the Holy See and at the general chapter of each religious community, everyone knows what founders deliberately instituted a habit and which ones did not. The key then is to go back to the founder. If the founder did not institute a habit, but a habit was adopted later, the community should return to the founder’s wishes and lay aside any habit that it may have adopted. If the founder did impose a habit, the community should guide itself by the founder’s vision and wishes. It’s that simple.

Perfectae Caritatis, Canon Law, and Vita Consecrata are not saying that every religious community must wear a habit. They are speaking only to those religious communities whose founders prescribed a habit. The law must always be read in its historical context. If the founder did not prescribe a habit, the canon on habits does not apply, because there is no historical requirement.

Yes, this is what I meant when I said that some of the congregations originally wore a habit, and some wore “widows’ garb”.

As far as “laity” leaving the habit alone goes, it has to be mentioned that it is not only they who are concerned about this, but religious themselves, as evidenced in the link I gave to the CMSWR page on habits.

Quite frankly, I’m glad that many sisters do not wear habits - a picture paints a thousand words, and can you imagine the effect it would have if those who publicly oppose Catholic teaching wore habits? Imagine a habited sister defying Pope John Paul II to his face. Not such pretty picture.

That said, I do realize that there are many good sisters who do not wear a habit.

Question: Does the veil also follow the same guidelines as you said? The CMSWR site says that the veiling of virgins goes back to the 3rd century. So, if a Sister does not wear a distinctive garment, how does this affect/not affect the wearing of a veil?

 

[JReducation]

Yes, this is what I meant when I said that some of the congregations originally wore a habit, and some wore “widows’ garb”.

As far as “laity” leaving the habit alone goes, it has to be mentioned that it is not only they who are concerned about this, but religious themselves, as evidenced in the link I gave to the CMSWR page on habits.

It is quite appropriate for us to have discussions on the habit, because we’re the ones who have to pay for them and to wear them. It is a violation of our rights according to Trent, to have every layman and bishop trying to tell us what to wear, when the Council was clear that we are exempt from both the laity and the bishops. The only obligation that we have to each other is: religious serve the apostolic needs of the Church and the laity and bishops financially support these apostolic works. All other matters, including dress, are internal.

That said, I do realize that there are many good sisters who do not wear a habit.

Question: Does the veil also follow the same guidelines as you said? The CMSWR site says that the veiling of virgins goes back to the 3rd century. So, if a Sister does not wear a distinctive garment, how does this affect/not affect the wearing of a veil?

Actually, it does. The veil is considered a habit.

It’s important to remember that many communities that had habits, did not have a veil. Some communities wore hats. Not all communities who wore habits wore floor length skirts either. I remember the Missionaries of the Most Blessed Trinity. They had a hat with their hair exposed and they wore a black dress just below the knee. They never wore the European habit.

The early poor Clares did not all wear veils. The Rule of St. Clare speaks about the veil being given to a woman when she makes solemn vows. Today, it’s given to the postulant.

Also, not all communities of women require virginity. There are very few that do so. I’m trying to think of any that require that women be virgins. Many communities were founded by widows.

 

[McCall1981]

The Vatican cannot legally cut off the LCWR. The LCWR was created by the Vatican, chartered by the Vatican and is the Vatican’s communication bridge between the sisters, bishops and the Holy See. Unless the Vatican has something to put in its place, it has to work with the LCWR to get it going in the right .

Can the Vatican create an organization to replace the LCWR? Can they replace it with the CMSWR?

Since there is nothing inherently wrong with the institutional structure of the LCWR can the CDF simply replace the problematic individuals?

 

[opus101]

Are there any non-habited orders/congregations in the CMSWR? They seem to emphasize the habit. Is it a requirement with them? If so, how can that be justified?

Another question: would it be okay for a congregation that was founded without a habit to adopt one, if the reason was good? For instance, some did not wear the habit originally due to persecution in the particular area that they lived in. If they now live in an area where they have the freedom to wear one, can they?

 

[JReducation]

]

Can the Vatican create an organization to replace the LCWR? Can they replace it with the CMSWR?

Since there is nothing inherently wrong with the institutional structure of the LCWR can the CDF simply replace the problematic individuals?

The Vatican can replace the LCWR with another body that does the same thing. I’m no sure that this is the solution. Unless the guidelines are clear, you run the risk of repeating history.

The Vatican does not have the authority to removed the leaders at the head of the LCWR. They are elected by the membership. The law gives them the right to do so. The Vatican would have to change the law. I don’t think that it wants to do that.

Are there any non-habited orders/congregations in the CMSWR? They seem to emphasize the habit. Is it a requirement with them? If so, how can that be justified?

The CMSWR is not a canonical organization. It can require anything it wants. If it ever becomes a canonical organization, then it has to allow for diversity. It would have to welcome superiors from non-habited communities.

Another question: would it be okay for a congregation that was founded without a habit to adopt one, if the reason was good?

As long as the founder allowed for this or at the very least, did not explicitly prohibit it, as did Mother Teresa of her brothers. Mother covered herself by including the prohibition in their constitutions. The only person who can go around that would be the pope. I know of a least four founders with whom the popes have always been very opposed to resisting or with whose statutes no pope has felt that he had the moral authority to alter: Benedict, Francis, Ignatius and Teresa of Calcutta. These are giants in the religious life. I don’t see a pope deleting anything from their statutes and wishes or allowing the members to do.

Again, if the founder did not prohibit it, the community is free to vote on a habit and adopt one. That’s the case with the Franciscan family. Have you noticed how many different Franciscan habits there are and how there is only one Dominican habit?

Dominic was very specific about dress.

Francis simply said a tunic with a cord. Clare came behind him and said that the superior could change this according to the climate, work, custom, and preferences of the brothers and sisters. It’s in the hands of the superiors who take their clue from the governed. Whereas among the Dominicans, Dominic did not put this in the hands of his successors. Ignatius, on the other hand, prohibited habits. The Jesuits have always been religious who dress like secular clergy to remain anonymous.

 

[Cojuanco]

That last paragraph interests me, given the PM I sent you about the Dominican who seems not to wear habit outside of Mass. He’s a phenomenal preacher, but is this allowed?

 

[commenter]

from an earlier post:
“The Vatican can replace the LCWR with another body that does the same thing.”

from the CMSWR website:

“The Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious (CMSWR) is a canonically approved organization founded in 1992, to promote religious life in the United States. Its statutes were definitively approved by the Vatican Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life on October 26, 1995.”

The CMSWR doesn’t route their work through the LCWR in their liaison with the Holy See, the bishops, and other entities. The leaders of some communities belong directly to CMSWR, and have nothing to do with the LCWR. The bishops and the Holy See can choose to increase the portion of their liaison effort with the other canonical body already in place, while still respecting the rights of the LCWR members.