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

[McCall1981]

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.

 

[JReducation]

What effect do you think the Vatican’s reform of the LCWR will have on women (and men) 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.

It will have none on men. We’re not part of the LCWR. We have our own conference of major superiors. It will have none on nuns. They do not belong to the LCWR. The LCWR is only for sisters.

We also have to remember that the reform is of the LCWR, not of the congregations. In the congregations, life will continue as usual. The LCWR does not rule the congregations. The leadership of different congregations belongs to the LCWR. However, the LCWR is a fraternal organization, not a legislative organization. It has no authority over the sisters.

The problem with the LCWR is that it does not provide for the sisters the guidance that they need to function according to the teachings of the Church. Many of the education programs and services that it provides are very political, feminist and at times in conflict with Church teaching. Basically, the reform of the LCWR is to protect those communities of sisters to take advantage of what the Conference has to offer. Those religious communities that do not get their education and guidance from the LCWR are not affected by this revision, as is the case for those communities who subscribe to the LCWR, but are selective in what they use and what they don’t use from the LCWR, remembering that the LCWR has no jurisdiction to dictate to sisters.

 

[McCall1981]

It will have none on men. We’re not part of the LCWR. We have our own conference of major superiors. It will have none on nuns. They do not belong to the LCWR. The LCWR is only for sisters.

We also have to remember that the reform is of the LCWR, not of the congregations. In the congregations, life will continue as usual. The LCWR does not rule the congregations. The leadership of different congregations belongs to the LCWR. However, the LCWR is a fraternal organization, not a legislative organization. It has no authority over the sisters.

The problem with the LCWR is that it does not provide for the sisters the guidance that they need to function according to the teachings of the Church. Many of the education programs and services that it provides are very political, feminist and at times in conflict with Church teaching. Basically, the reform of the LCWR is to protect those communities of sisters to take advantage of what the Conference has to offer. Those religious communities that do not get their education and guidance from the LCWR are not affected by this revision, as is the case for those communities who subscribe to the LCWR, but are selective in what they use and what they don’t use from the LCWR, remembering that the LCWR has no jurisdiction to dictate to sisters.

 

[Jimmygill88]

It will have none on men. We’re not part of the LCWR. We have our own conference of major superiors. It will have none on nuns. They do not belong to the LCWR. The LCWR is only for sisters.

We also have to remember that the reform is of the LCWR, not of the congregations. In the congregations, life will continue as usual. The LCWR does not rule the congregations. The leadership of different congregations belongs to the LCWR. However, the LCWR is a fraternal organization, not a legislative organization. It has no authority over the sisters.

The problem with the LCWR is that it does not provide for the sisters the guidance that they need to function according to the teachings of the Church. Many of the education programs and services that it provides are very political, feminist and at times in conflict with Church teaching. Basically, the reform of the LCWR is to protect those communities of sisters to take advantage of what the Conference has to offer. Those religious communities that do not get their education and guidance from the LCWR are not affected by this revision, as is the case for those communities who subscribe to the LCWR, but are selective in what they use and what they don’t use from the LCWR, remembering

‘However, the LCWR is a fraternal organization, not a legislative organization’. No wonder the sisters consider themselves feminists if men like you describe an organisation of women as a brotherhood

 

[_Abyssinia]

I hope the long term effect is that people understand that dissent will not be tolerated

 

[JReducation]

JReducation;10636598:

It will have none on men. We’re not part of the LCWR. We have our own conference of major superiors. It will have none on nuns. They do not belong to the LCWR. The LCWR is only for sisters.

We also have to remember that the reform is of the LCWR, not of the congregations. In the congregations, life will continue as usual. The LCWR does not rule the congregations. The leadership of different congregations belongs to the LCWR. However, the LCWR is a fraternal organization, not a legislative organization. It has no authority over the sisters.

The problem with the LCWR is that it does not provide for the sisters the guidance that they need to function according to the teachings of the Church. Many of the education programs and services that it provides are very political, feminist and at times in conflict with Church teaching. Basically, the reform of the LCWR is to protect those communities of sisters to take advantage of what the Conference has to offer. Those religious communities that do not get their education and guidance from the LCWR are not affected by this revision, as is the case for those communities who subscribe to the LCWR, but are selective in what they use and what they don’t use from the LCWR, remembering

‘However, the LCWR is a fraternal organization, not a legislative organization’. No wonder the sisters consider themselves feminists if men like you describe an organisation of women as a brotherhood

I didn’t call it a brotherhood. I called it a fraternal organization. That is the correct terminology in religious life. All organizations that bring religious together are legally fraternal organizations.

The congregations are sisterhoods and the orders of women as monastics. Even the term “monastic” is a masculine term. In Latin an organization is feminine. But when translated to English, it’s masculine.

 

[JReducation]

I hope the long term effect is that people understand that dissent will not be tolerated

The legal issue is not dissention. The Sacred Congregations for the Faith and for Religious did not charge the Conference with dissention. It has found that the Conference has given a patform to dissenting voices. At the moment, the Congregations are not interested in the dissenting voices, but in the permissiveness of the LCWR. What they are asking is that the LCWR correct this.

 

[Dempsey1919]

The reform can only bring good things.

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

 

[Jimmygill88]

Jimmygill88;10636794:

I didn’t call it a brotherhood. I called it a fraternal organization. That is the correct terminology in religious life. All organizations that bring religious together are legally fraternal organizations.

The congregations are sisterhoods and the orders of women as monastics. Even the term “monastic” is a masculine term. In Latin an organization is feminine. But when translated to English, it’s masculine.

Well in that case the ‘correct terminology’ needs to be looked at with a view to bringing it into the 21st century. We envisage the world with the help of our language, and calling a sororem a frater is daft

 

[St_Nephi]

Well in that case the ‘correct terminology’ needs to be looked at with a view to bringing it into the 21st century. We envisage the world with the help of our language, and calling a sororem a frater is daft

What I find ‘daft’ is a person who, after being politely corrected on their erroneous beliefs about language, insist on doubling down on the ignorance and digging their heels in the sand even further.

Orders of women religious are not fraternities, however they are properly described using the adjective fraternal, just as female dizygotic twins are nevertheless referred to as fraternal twins.

 

[Rich_C]

We also have to remember that the reform is of the LCWR, not of the congregations. In the congregations, life will continue as usual. The LCWR does not rule the congregations. The leadership of different congregations belongs to the LCWR. However, the LCWR is a fraternal organization, not a legislative organization. It has no authority over the sisters.

I didn’t realize this. So it’s like their version of the USCCB basically?

 

[Jimmygill88]

What I find ‘daft’ is a person who, after being politely corrected on their erroneous beliefs about language, insist on doubling down on the ignorance and digging their heels in the sand even further.

Orders of women religious are not fraternities, however they are properly described using the adjective fraternal, just as female dizygotic twins are nevertheless referred to as fraternal twins.

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

 

[Jimmygill88]

What I find ‘daft’ is a person who, after being politely corrected on their erroneous beliefs about language, insist on doubling down on the ignorance and digging their heels in the sand even further.

Orders of women religious are not fraternities, however they are properly described using the adjective fraternal, just as female dizygotic twins are nevertheless referred to as fraternal twins.

Fraternal or dizygotic (DZ) twins (also referred to as “non-identical twins”, “dissimilar twins”, “biovular twins”, and, in cases of females, sororal twins) usually occur when two fertilized eggs are implanted in the uterus wall at the same time.

 

[McCall1981]

My thought is that the generation that makes up the LCWR and their supporters is mostly older (I believe the average age of the congregations under LCWR is 74 or 76), and due to a lack of vocations, is mostly not being replaced. I think there would have been a natural “reform” of women religious soon anyway, given that one generation is giving way to the next.

My hope is that the Vatican’s reform will set the framework for this younger generation to lead a renewal that will be more orthodox, and eventually lead to more vocations.

 

[Melchior_1]

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

I’m guess you don’t like Latin, then…?

 

[JReducation]

The reform can only bring good things.

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

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.

JReducation;10636832:

Well in that case the ‘correct terminology’ needs to be looked at with a view to bringing it into the 21st century. We envisage the world with the help of our language, and calling a sororem a frater is daft

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.

I didn’t realize this. So it’s like their version of the USCCB basically?

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.

 

[McCall1981]

Having said this, I agree that we need to go back to the roots.

What would “going back to the roots” consist of?

Do you think the reform will help bring this about?

 

[JReducation]

What would “going back to the roots” consist of?

Do you think the reform will help bring this about?

Please allow me to begin with the second question first. The answer is “Negative.” The apostolic review and revision of the LCWR is being undertaken by the Sacred Congregation for the Faith. Said congregation has no authority over religious. Church law is very clear that in the event that the CDF has a problem with religious, a formal council must be invoked in which the 2/3 of the active members must be religious. This council will settle disputes between the CDF and religious.

Only the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life has authority over religious. The Congregation of Institutes of Consecrated Life is not involved in this process. This process is about reforming the Conference, not the religious communities. The Sacred Congregation only becomes involved if you’re reforming a religious community.

What would “going back to the roots” consist of?

1. It’s necessary to go back to the life of the founder. The community has to become familiar with the founder’s vision, his or her understanding of the Church, the mission to which the Holy Spirit called him/her and how the founder responded.
2. Then you have to go to the first generation of your religious community. Here’s where Eufrosnia and I were in disagreement. Such return does not allow for any (name removed by moderator)ut from the outside. The community must look at the first generation religious without interpretation from the outside. No matter what any external historian says or believes, the influence must come completely from within the community. We look at those early men or women to see how they understood the founder.
3. If the community has a rule, which most do not, the religious must make sure that they are in compliance with the rule and that the constitutions of the community comply with the rule. The constitutions can never trump the rule. If the community does not have a rule, then the community is free to write its constitutions based on what it learns about the founder and the first generation members.

There are many things to look at. One has to look at the mind of the founder, the understanding of the early members, the mind of the Church when she approved the community. We must look at what was accidental and what was essential to the community. Whatever was accidental can change. Whatever was essential must be preserved or restored.

You look at things such as prayer, apostolic labor, governance, structure, target population (if there was one), and the first constitution. You must also look at the living tradition of the community. This is the part of the life of the community that has not been written down, but nonetheless it constitutes an important part of the community’s personality. It’s the oral tradition of the community and community customs. The founder’s understanding of the Gospel and the Church is essential. You have to return to that. You must look at the Church and Gospel through his or her eyes. You must learn to think with the founder and feel what he or she feels. He must be seen as a living person.

This may mean giving up many things that you have been doing for a long time. For example, let’s say that your community was founded to educate poor children and now you find yourself in middle class schools, you will have to close them or hand them over to someone else and move along to poorer schools.

A good example is the Franciscans of the Renewal, Franciscans of Life, Franciscan Missionaries of the Eternal Word. The early Franciscans were not founded to do parish work. We were not even founded as a priestly community. Today, our respective communities does not allow our priests to serve in parishes no matter how great the need. This was done during the last 150 years or so. It almost destroyed Franciscan life. The order ended up making all kinds of adaptations in order to meet the needs of the parish.

There are many communities that were founded for the purpose of living anonymously among the lay faithful. Over the centuries they lost their anonymity. They adopted a religious habit or they stood out by congregating in large religious houses. These men and women are trying to return to the anonymity inspired by the Holy Spirit.

 

[quiet52]

It will have none on men. We’re not part of the LCWR. We have our own conference of major superiors. It will have none on nuns. They do not belong to the LCWR. The LCWR is only for sisters.

We also have to remember that the reform is of the LCWR, not of the congregations. In the congregations, life will continue as usual. The LCWR does not rule the congregations. The leadership of different congregations belongs to the LCWR. However, the LCWR is a fraternal organization, not a legislative organization. It has no authority over the sisters.

The problem with the LCWR is that it does not provide for the sisters the guidance that they need to function according to the teachings of the Church. Many of the education programs and services that it provides are very political, feminist and at times in conflict with Church teaching. Basically, the reform of the LCWR is to protect those communities of sisters to take advantage of what the Conference has to offer. Those religious communities that do not get their education and guidance from the LCWR are not affected by this revision, as is the case for those communities who subscribe to the LCWR, but are selective in what they use and what they don’t use from the LCWR, remembering that the LCWR has no jurisdiction to dictate to sisters.

I appreciate this information.
It makes me feel less hopeful, however, about seeing reform among the communities of sisters. I see such crazy notions stated by various sisters I’ve met in my diocese. I do not know their level of involvement in the LCWR, but they (the sisters) have done much damage to their fellow Catholics, because most Catholics ascribe a certain degree of authority behind whatever sisters and nuns might teach or say. I do wish the individual communities would be better monitored, and held accountable for their heterodoxy.

 

[JReducation]

I appreciate this information.
It makes me feel less hopeful, however, about seeing reform among the communities of sisters. I see such crazy notions stated by various sisters I’ve met in my diocese. I do not know their level of involvement in the LCWR, but they (the sisters) have done much damage to their fellow Catholics, because most Catholics ascribe a certain degree of authority behind whatever sisters and nuns might teach or say. I do wish the individual communities would be better monitored, and held accountable for their heterodoxy.

Let’s separate here. I doubt very much that nuns have anything to do with you or your fellow Catholics. Most Catholics will never see a nun in their lifetime.

Speaking about sisters, there is not much that the Church can do about exempt religious sisters. The Church approves their constitutions. As long as there is nothing contrary to the faith in those constitutions, there is nothing for the Church not to approve. What individuals say and don’t say, do or don’t do, comes under the jurisdiction of the superior, not the Vatican. The Vatican is not particularly interested in getting involved in the day to day activities of sisters.

First of all, there are simply to many individual sisters in the world. Secondly, most sisters are very good women who try their best. The Vatican would have to weed out who’s who. That’s not an easy task.

Another major problem here is that there are cultures at play here. American sisters are often very influenced by American culture. These women were not born in bubbles. They are the product of their families, their communities and the nation. It’s very hard to fight all of this and win over night. It’s a long process that the Church takes on one step at a time.

If truth be told, the communities of sisters that seem to be having the greatest difficulties with orthodoxy are from the English speaking world. This is an interesting phenomenon that’s material for a doctoral dissertation. My guess is that it has something to do with culture, but I’m not an expert in social sciences.