Women religious not complying with Vatican study

  • Thread starter Thread starter a2jimenez
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Another view of the matter: Pounding the Table.
From the above article:
The New Orleans Times-Picayune reported in an August 11 article that LCWR president Sister J. Lora Dambroski, OSF said: “This will be an opportunity to be who we are and to speak **our **truth, not to back away from that.”
And here you have it - forget about the 2,000 year Deposit of Faith which is the truth handed to the Apostles by Christ Himself and to be preserved by numerous Church Councils and declarations. If it doesn’t comply with “their” truth, then it just ain’t so.
 
That whole speech can be found here. The bold font is mine, for added emphasis. I think it’s clear what their concern is, they have seen evidence of a systemic problem, so now they are engaging in a visitation to get a clearer picture of it.
In other words, the people in the curia behind the questionnaire and the visitation are actively hostile to the present structure and organization of the U.S. nuns, and are seeking information so that they can effectively destroy what is there and replace it with something more suited to their own conceptions.

So why is everyone having such a hard time understanding why the U.S. nuns are resisting?
 
According to a bishop in charge of this inquiry, three fourths of the orders are complying with this study. The article of the opening post vaguely cites unidentified sources, and it is published by the chief news organ of liberal Catholic dissenters. So it has a vested interest in the failure of this study to produce information on dissent.
Apparently, some of the posters here are unaware of the widespread dissent among some nuns in the West. However, I agree, it is best to assume that people are innocent until shown guilty, and I would be happy to be shown that most orders are loyal to their faith. Hopefully, this study will show the truth in the matter, whatever it will shown to be.
Thank you for this post. Do you have a link to the bishop’s comments regarding compliance? I hope this is true and the original article posted is wrong. I suspect this is the case because they only offer anonymous sources…including the canon lawyers.
 
I don’t get it these gals knew what they where getting into. No one forced them to be Nuns (I hope and assume) why complain when the Vatican demands that you do your job and you do it right?
I think that Pope Leo XIII knew that issues like these would arise. Look at his writings against the heresy of Americanism. 😦
AMERICANISM IS A HERESY!? Evil grin Filed for future reference…
 
AMERICANISM IS A HERESY!? Evil grin Filed for future reference…
In a nut shell, it was a condemnation against Cafeteria Catholicism…though they obviously didn’t call it that back in the day. There was concern that American ideals would/were leading to a dilution of magisterial authority and liberty regarding Church doctrines.

Obviously, there was nothing to worry about. :rolleyes:
 
In other words, the people in the curia behind the questionnaire and the visitation are actively hostile to the present structure and organization of the U.S. nuns, and are seeking information so that they can effectively destroy what is there and replace it with something more suited to their own conceptions.

So why is everyone having such a hard time understanding why the U.S. nuns are resisting?
No:
The great lesson I learned from that experience was this: The religious who secularized consecrated life were not doing so for the sake of the faith of the people of God. It was not the good of God’s people that they were seeking. Rather than God’s will, what they were seeking was their own.
Religious life, being a gift from the Holy Spirit to the individual religious and the Church, depends especially on fidelity to its origins, fidelity to the founder, fidelity to the particular charism. Fidelity to that charism is essential, for God blesses fidelity while he “opposes the proud.” The complete rupture of some with the past, then, goes against the nature of a religious congregation, and essentially it provokes God’s rejection.
That is the issue.
 
ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=96997

6-August-2009 – Catholic News Agency Share |

Vatican Visitation of Women Religious Looks at Fidelity, Charism
Hamden, Conn., Aug 6, 2009 (CNA).- The Apostolic Visitator leading the visitation to institutes of women religious in the United States has sent the effort’s working document to the heads of U.S. orders. The document details the aims of the visitation and encourages the orders to reflect on their fidelity to their original charisms and their conformity with the Second Vatican Council.

Mother M. Clare Millea, the sister in charge of conducting the Vatican visitation, sent the working document, known as an Instrumentum Laboris, to the hundreds of religious superiors around the U.S. on July 28, along with a letter of explanation. With the issuance of the working document, the first phase of the visitation has come to a close.

The Instrumentum Laboris contains an introduction to the nature and purpose of the visitation, the four phases of the process, and references to the principal Vatican documents.

The document also presents “reflection topics” for all members of religious orders to consider in order to prepare for the visitation. Topics include the religious identity of the respondent’s order, its governance and financial administration, and its spiritual and common life.

Questions are also presented concerning vocation promotion, admission and formation policies.

The reflections ask respondents about their concerns for the future of their religious order and how sisters in their order understand and express the “vows and virtues” of poverty, chastity and obedience. They inquire about whether daily Mass and frequent confession are a “priority” for sisters and how an order expresses the Eucharist as the source of their spiritual and communal life.

Liturgical norms are also one topic of inquiry, as is the practice of the Liturgy of the Hours, the manner of an order’s dress, and the order’s provisions for care of aging and ill sisters.

“Is your institute moving toward a new form of religious life? If so, how is this new form specifically related to the Church’s understanding of religious life?” one reflection asks.

Such questions recall concerns voiced earlier this year by Cardinal William Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, concerning the “tenor and content” of addresses at the annual assemblies of the 1,500-member Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR).

In the keynote address of LCWR’s 2007 assembly, Sinsinawa Dominican Sister Laurie Brink spoke with apparent approval about religious congregations “moving beyond the Church, even beyond Jesus.” Saying some congregations have “grown beyond the bounds of institutional religion,” she described them as “post-Christian” in most respects.

The LCWR is undergoing a separate inquiry being led by Bishop Leonard Blair of Toledo, Ohio.

The Instrumentum Laboris reflections also inquire about the process for responding to sisters who dissent publicly or privately from “the authoritative teaching of the Church.”

They ask respondents whether their order’s formation program offers the foundations of Catholic faith and doctrine through the study of Vatican II documents, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and post-conciliar documents.

“Are there reasons to be concerned about vocations or formation in your institute?” another reflection asks.

Mother M. Clare Millea’s letter to religious superiors reported that the questionnaire for phase two of the visitation is being prepared and will be sent to major superiors of religious orders early this fall.

She concluded by thanking the leaders of religious orders for their cooperation in the visitation, describing it as an endeavor “to strengthen, enhance and support the growth of our religious institutes in service of the Church.” The website for the visitation contains numerous positive responses about how the various religious superiors appreciated their initial visits with Mother Millea.
 
In a nut shell, it was a condemnation against Cafeteria Catholicism…though they obviously didn’t call it that back in the day. There was concern that American ideals would/were leading to a dilution of magisterial authority and liberty regarding Church doctrines.

Obviously, there was nothing to worry about. :rolleyes:
Oh no nothing at all… I mean I went through modern RCIA and look how well I turned out!

At least I am not now, nor will ever be, nor want to be a Protestant… No watered down Christianity for me thanks.
 
If that is violence, what is an examination of conscience - terrorism? :rolleyes:
:rotfl:
I missed this zinger. (To some of us posters, anyway, yes, haha, an examen is pure terror itself.)
Maybe many of them would be better off as secular workers in whatever cause they support, then they wouldn’t be burdened by having to answer questions to the authority that gave them a constitution? Surely the state or the IRS would never ask them any personal questions. :rolleyes:
Yes, some of us have mentioned this on similar threads. I agree with you: I don’t see the point in staying in a lifestyle that you fundamentally oppose, as a lifestyle. OTOH, nothing can separate them, to paraphrase Paul, from the love of Christ, no matter what lifestyle they believe will better suit them. They would perhaps be more in touch with God to be in a lifestyle that would make them more joyful, since God is joy as well as love.
 
In other words, the people in the curia behind the questionnaire and the visitation are actively hostile to the present structure and organization of the U.S. nuns, and are seeking information so that they can effectively destroy what is there and replace it with something more suited to their own conceptions.

So why is everyone having such a hard time understanding why the U.S. nuns are resisting?
What do you mean exactly? Are you saying resistance to the visitation is a good thing, or just that it’s something you would expect?

If it’s the former, then why?

If it’s the latter, I agree… people who have chosen not to accept the authority of their superiors in the past probably won’t do so now.
 
What do you mean exactly? Are you saying resistance to the visitation is a good thing, or just that it’s something you would expect?

If it’s the former, then why?

If it’s the latter, I agree… people who have chosen not to accept the authority of their superiors in the past probably won’t do so now.
The latter, but with the proviso that both sides made decisions that got them to this point of conflict instead of cooperation.

Perhaps a parallel will help explain. On the TV show Star Trek: The Next Generation, there is a group of aliens called the Borg, who go around saying, “Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.” Now, if the Vatican curia had been advising the Borg, they would be sending out a questionnaire to maximize the efficiency of the assimilation. Part A would inventory body parts - number of eyes, number of ears, and so on - so that cybernetic supplies could be ordered ahead of time. Parts B and C would cover planetary raw materials and technology.

The Vatican curia is trying to assimilate the U.S. nuns, to transform them into the curia’s vision of what they should be without any regard for their individuality or what they have accomplished so far. The U.S. nuns are resisting just as the other species on Star Trek resist the Borg. I expect the result will be the same in the end.
 
The latter, but with the proviso that both sides made decisions that got them to this point of conflict instead of cooperation.

Perhaps a parallel will help explain. On the TV show Star Trek: The Next Generation, there is a group of aliens called the Borg, who go around saying, “Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.” Now, if the Vatican curia had been advising the Borg, they would be sending out a questionnaire to maximize the efficiency of the assimilation. Part A would inventory body parts - number of eyes, number of ears, and so on - so that cybernetic supplies could be ordered ahead of time. Parts B and C would cover planetary raw materials and technology.

**The Vatican curia is trying to assimilate the U.S. nuns, to transform them into the curia’s vision of what they should be without any regard for their individuality or what they have accomplished so far. ** The U.S. nuns are resisting just as the other species on Star Trek resist the Borg. I expect the result will be the same in the end.
That is a charge without any basis. It may be what the dissident nuns think the Vatican is trying to do, but it is not the stated intent of the Vatican.

And, your Borg analogy is offensive. There is great diversity among the religious orders. The Vatican just expects them to be orthodox when it comes to Church teaching. Is that asking too much? Should the Catholic Church not expect Catholics to follow the teaching of the Magisterium?
 
Not surprisingly, I agree with Post #54, especially in the sense that the suspicions by the women religious are not called for on the investigations’s face. I sincerely believe that the Orders who are being faithful and constructive, in teaching, mission, and lifestyle, have nothing to fear. For years prior (back in the '80’s and '90’s) I heard and read about sisters regretting, wishing, that Vatican officials did in fact know about their needs and their works. At the time, they felt ignored, whether that perception was correct or not. You can’t have it both ways: to get more practical support, let alone financial, from the Vatican, you need to provide information, and to be willing to receive guidance as well. Building a seige mentality around your Order will not work. Not to mention, it makes for unhappiness to always be at war.
 
WOW!! This is one POPULAR thread!
Not bad to be my first post…

All, this has been a very interesting and instructing conversation. I think the Visitation is a great thing (although very difficult for Rome). One thing that struck me in my experience in the USA since I arrived 10 years ago (I was born and lived in Latin America before) was my contact with some Religious that behave more like a social worker and less as a Religious person…

One question I have is regarding the following quote:
Religious, unlike bishops, priests and deacons, who make up the clergy, are not officially part of the church’s hierarchical structure
Why Religious are not part of the church’s hierarchy? Is that is not the case, how can Rome has any influence/authority over them?
 
And we all need to remember that these women need our prayers at this time. Whether they chose isolation/disconnectedness, or whether in many cases it was something that evolved as a result of misguided journeys and being encouraged by others, many of them undoubtedly served the church well, at least at some point and perhaps now as well. We should pray that this process becomes a grace opportunity for those who have grown apart, to reaffirm their Catholic identity and be reabsorbed into the unified people of God.
 
It is sad but not surprising that many of these orders are not complying with the visitation. It shows that this should have been done long ago before the cancer metastasized. These orders must obey canonically lawful instructions from Rome or they can be supressed.

Many of these orders are aging, out of touch, and declining in membership. (The true extent of their lack of vocations may one thing they want to hide.) Orders that are faithful to the Church and complying with the visitation probably do not face such a vocations crisis.

Three of my great aunts were sisters and one a provincial mother superior in one of the older orders. The old-time nuns were smart, tough, and holy women and they did tremendous work. Well Mother C (my great aunt) would be spinning in her grave to hear such a thing–not complying with visitation from Rome, indeed! I sincerely hope her order is not among those, otherwise she may return in angelic form one of these evenings and give the current sisters and mother superior a visitation of a different kind that will make anything coming from Rome look like child’s play. The moneychangers in the temple would be getting off lightly by comparison. 😛

jb
 
A person would have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to know there is something seriously wrong in some orders. If those who think of this as “violence” on the part of the nun who is actually conducting the survey, it can only mean they think of it as “violating” their right to be whatever they want to be.

And that’s their right. It’s a shame, but they do have a right to be protestants or new agers or whatever they want. But they should not represent that they are Catholic religious orders if they don’t act like Catholic religious orders. Not the least of the reasons they should not be allowed to do that is that some of the “people in the pews” might donate money to them thinking they are something that they’re not.

By and large, they own their own assets. Some have converted themselves to secular institutes, and, in time, I imagine a lot of them will do that as their numbers continue to dwindle and as they depart more and more from the real purposes of religious orders. That’s a shame, because lots of people donated lots of money to build the hospitals, orphanages, convents, etc, etc, etc that they may sell to support themselves and finance what are essentially political activities. Some orders have done that. Some have even “squeezed out” those members that 'don’t fit the program", throwing them on their own devices or the charity of others, while the leaders become “executives” of “foundations” based on the sale of those assets. I have met women who had that happen to them; who got thrown out of “progressive” orders because they were “not willing to change with the times”. Virtually all of those orders are “not for profit corporations”, meaning that the assets, upon dissolution, cannot be distributed to shareholders. They are, upon dissolution, obliged to distribute the assets to organizations having purposes the same or similar to those under which they were organized. But that’s a pretty loose legal requirement anymore, and they could give it to just about anything now, including “private foundations” of which the leaders are the “executives”. But it’s still fundamentally dishonest

The “franchise value” (put coldly) of being a Catholic religious order is not insignificant. People donate to them. People include them in their wills, and so on. But if they aren’t really acting as truly Catholic religious orders, it is just plain dishonest of them to receive money and assets under the pretense that they are. Very likely donors would prefer to donate to a real religious order, of which there definitely are some who could use the support.

It is equally dishonest to put on retreats or instruction sessions or anything of the kind, purporting to be Catholic if, in fact, what they’re teaching or instructing is not. Maybe they could say they’re “New Age” or “Dissident Catholic” whatever they really are, and they would at least not be misrepresenting anything.

I see nothing wrong in the Church wanting to make sure some of these orders are what they say they are. If they aren’t, they can be what they want to be, but the Church doesn’t have to recognize them as Catholic religious orders anymore.

This is not about bishops or anybody else “getting their money”. The bishops can’t, because those are independent organizations, not subject to the bishops’ control.
 
A person would have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to know there is something seriously wrong in some orders. If those who think of this as “violence” on the part of the nun who is actually conducting the survey, it can only mean they think of it as “violating” their right to be whatever they want to be.

And that’s their right. It’s a shame, but they do have a right to be protestants or new agers or whatever they want. But they should not represent that they are Catholic religious orders if they don’t act like Catholic religious orders. Not the least of the reasons they should not be allowed to do that is that some of the “people in the pews” might donate money to them thinking they are something that they’re not.

By and large, they own their own assets. Some have converted themselves to secular institutes, and, in time, I imagine a lot of them will do that as their numbers continue to dwindle and as they depart more and more from the real purposes of religious orders. That’s a shame, because lots of people donated lots of money to build the hospitals, orphanages, convents, etc, etc, etc that they may sell to support themselves and finance what are essentially political activities. Some orders have done that. Some have even “squeezed out” those members that 'don’t fit the program", throwing them on their own devices or the charity of others, while the leaders become “executives” of “foundations” based on the sale of those assets. I have met women who had that happen to them; who got thrown out of “progressive” orders because they were “not willing to change with the times”. Virtually all of those orders are “not for profit corporations”, meaning that the assets, upon dissolution, cannot be distributed to shareholders. They are, upon dissolution, obliged to distribute the assets to organizations having purposes the same or similar to those under which they were organized. But that’s a pretty loose legal requirement anymore, and they could give it to just about anything now, including “private foundations” of which the leaders are the “executives”. But it’s still fundamentally dishonest

The “franchise value” (put coldly) of being a Catholic religious order is not insignificant. People donate to them. People include them in their wills, and so on. But if they aren’t really acting as truly Catholic religious orders, it is just plain dishonest of them to receive money and assets under the pretense that they are. Very likely donors would prefer to donate to a real religious order, of which there definitely are some who could use the support.

It is equally dishonest to put on retreats or instruction sessions or anything of the kind, purporting to be Catholic if, in fact, what they’re teaching or instructing is not. Maybe they could say they’re “New Age” or “Dissident Catholic” whatever they really are, and they would at least not be misrepresenting anything.

I see nothing wrong in the Church wanting to make sure some of these orders are what they say they are. If they aren’t, they can be what they want to be, but the Church doesn’t have to recognize them as Catholic religious orders anymore.

This is not about bishops or anybody else “getting their money”. The bishops can’t, because those are independent organizations, not subject to the bishops’ control.
Ridgerunner…

You have many good points. Be careful, however, regarding the highlighted portion of your quotation; canonically, it is simply not that easy to “throw someone out”. For professed religious, the Church, via canon law, has protections in place to guard against such a thing. Now, if the member were not professed, dismissal would be quite easy, but not for professed members of a religious institute. Also, feasibly, life could be made very difficult for one who goes “against the grain”…s/he could be made miserable enough that s/he may ask to leave, but dismissal is much more serious and much more difficult.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top