Archive for LCWR

« Older Entries

Signs of the Time: The ‘Francis Effect?’

Posted in Pope Francis with tags , , , , , , , on May 16, 2013 by Daniel P. Horan, OFM

pope_francis.jpg.size_.xxlarge.promo_In a CNS article titled, “Archbishop says people returning to confession because of pope,” we read of the anecdotal evidence for some changes in the Italian pastoral landscape marked, in part, by a rise in sacramental confession and an increase in the attendance of visitors at public papal audiences. Archbishop Rino Fisichella, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting New Evangelization, “said during an early May visit to southern Italy and in conversations with priests from northern Italy where he grew up, he repeatedly heard reports that ‘a lot of people have been going to confession and many have said that while they hadn’t gone in a long time, they felt touched by the words of Pope Francis.’”

I’m not entirely sure, from a social-science perspective, how much weight to give such a claim. However, I am positively disposed to the gesture; namely, that Pope Francis’s public presence, well-known simplicity in lifestyle, casual and approachable demeanor, humility in liturgical celebrations, and accessible and heart-felt preaching has garnered a lot of understandable attention that might very well contribute to broader shifts in public opinion about the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church and its role in the world today.

While Archbishop Fisichella does not prefer the term “Francis Effect,” I’m less put off by the phrase. When I hear that term, I first think of St. Francis of Assisi and call to mind the world-changing effect he had in his own time that has so rippled through history to reach our own day. I think of how this one man from the Medieval Umbrian town of Assisi could draw so many people to him and his memory that he would, 800-years later, remain the most popular saint (after Mary) in the church. I think of how there is really something to the name that Pope Francis adopted after his election as bishop of Rome and, in large and small ways, lives out in the same spirit.

The CNS article reports the secretary of the council’s surmising about what is happening:

“People want to be present, listen to his voice and see him, touch him, because he makes a connection (with people) that is very moving,” the archbishop said, adding that the pope’s popularity reflects the “importance of the faith, the importance of being Christian, and the importance of the pope at this moment in the history of the church.”

There is a danger, of course, that this is only a superficial interest that people have — something more akin to the pontificate of John Paul II, the so-called “rock-star pope.” Yet, while JPII was a world traveler and charismatic figure, and his energy seemed to arise from his personality rather than actions, Pope Francis’s appeal seems less focused on himself (although this is no doubt a factor here) and more on the striking, at-times iconoclasm that he has unleashed on the peripheral aggrandizing dimensions of the pontifical office. His eschewing of ostentatious formalities and vesture, his casual preaching tone and presence (especially from the ambo and not ex cathedra), his willingness to create a new international advisory committee — these things are not insignificant signals of some change, of some kind of “Francis Effect.”

Granted, it is still far too early to begin forecasting long-term “effects” of Pope Francis. However, it is my hope that these signs — mixed as they are with more ambiguous and complicated negotiations with contentious inherited items like the LCWR investigation — might signal a truly powerful shift in time. I still believe that, for example, the LCWR investigation was wrong-headed, something confirmed by the public-relations melee from within the curia in recent weeks, but I’m not sure I entirely understand Pope Francis’s current relationship to it and, in the meantime, I’m hoping for the best. This also goes for the unfolding political drama in Puerto Rico, where my confrere Archbishop Roberto Gonzalez, OFM, the archbishop of San Juan, has been caught in the middle of some as-of-yet still unclear political battle with one of the Vatican dicasteries and local political nationalistic movements. It remains to be seen how these sorts of matters play out and what leadership role — either directly or through episcopal appointments — Pope Francis plays in them.

Nevertheless, I’m hopeful and continue to sit back and see what happens. If the “Francis Effect” does, in reality, lead to greater participation in the sacraments — not just sacramental confession, which is one of the most misunderstood of the seven — then it is a good effect indeed. If the “Francis Effect” does mean real change in antiquated structures of partisan cronyism in curial offices, then I think it is a good effect indeed. If the “Francis Effect” does draw women and men closer to the Gospel of Jesus Christ to live lives in the footprints of the Lord, then it is a good effect indeed.

We will have to wait and see.

Photo: File

1 Comment »

Women Religious and the Call to Service

Posted in LCWR, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , on August 27, 2012 by Daniel P. Horan, OFM

Kevin McCardle, a professor at UCLA in the School of Management of all places, has a short and very clever reflection in the online edition of America magazine this week. His piece is titled, “In Praise of Radical Feminists: American Women Religious and the Call to Service.” The title is intended to be somewhat ironic, as reading the whole essay reveals, in that this charge of “radical feminism” leveled by the CDF at the LCWR in the now-famous “Doctrinal Assessment” has garnered much attention without significant reflection. McCardles thoughtful essay takes these two terms — radical and feminist — and looks at (a) what they actually mean and (b) how the mission statements of apostolic communities of women religious are, in fact, both radical and feminist in the truest and most genuine sense. Something, it should be noted, that is quite different from the disparaging colloquial usage popular among conservative pundits and, now it would seem, among certain Roman Catholic critiques of women religious.

McCardle wrote:

One point of contention in the Doctrinal Assessment, and one for which the L.C.W.R. receives a reprimand, is the prevalence of “radical feminist” themes in some programs sponsored by the L.C.W.R. An alternative view, however, is that it is exactly their radical feminist nature for which American Catholic women religious should be praised.

A radical is someone who maintains strong principles and acts on them. What makes Catholic women religious so radical? Nothing more than the fact that they gave up their former lives and followed Christ.

He then presents snippets from the moving mission statements of several congregations of women religious, noting that, “the radical nature of the call in both the D.M.J and O.S.F. mission statements and their clarity that it is a religious call, not one of personal fulfillment. It is a call to community, prayer and action. It is not a call to power and glory, but to service in the name of Christ and his church.”

McCardle explains how he understands the term “feminism,” stating: “A feminist advocates rights for women equal to those for men. Feminism also provides a proactive approach to women’s place in society and church,” and goes on to explain:

By their very charism, professed Catholic women religious are both radical and feminist: radical in their response to Christ’s call; feminist in their carving out a role for themselves in the Catholic Church. For the L.CW.R. to deny the radical feminist nature of its existence, or worse yet, as the Doctrinal Assessment seems to demand, to renounce the radical feminist nature of its existence would be, I think, a dishonor to the hundreds of thousands of Catholic women religious who have served the U.S. church. It would also be a disservice to the Roman Catholic Church, its laity and its magisterium. For wherever the American Catholic Church presents an organized response to Christ’s call in Matthew 25: 35-40, there you will find member congregations of L.C.W.R. at the forefront. These are the exact roles that the Doctrinal Assessment “effusively” praises.

I agree with McCardle on the point that our sisters in religious life should be praised for their commitment to “radical” Christian living and a proactive “feminist” outlook that works for equality among both sexes of the human family, which equally reflect the imago Dei of our creation. I hope that the irony isn’t lost on those responsible for the misuse of these terms and can appreciate the heroic lives and work of our sisters in Christ.

Photo: File/Reuters

Leave A Comment »

US Bishops, Nuns Agree: Romney, Ryan Budget ‘Fails Moral Test’

Posted in LCWR, Social Justice with tags , , , , , , , , , on August 11, 2012 by Daniel P. Horan, OFM

The day after the LCWR completes its annual meeting the GOP presumptive nominee for president of the United States, Mitt Romney, announced that he has selected Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan to be his VP running mate. What is interesting about this announcement is that one of the few things about which the United States Bishops have explicitly agreed with the United States Women Religious in terms of politics and faith is the immoral status of the so-called “Ryan Budget.”

On April 17 the US Conference of Catholic Bishops released a statement about the Ryan budget after the professed Roman Catholic legislator claimed that his budget was “inspired by his Catholic faith.” According to a Religion News Service article:

A week after House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan claimed his Catholic faith inspired the Republicans’ cost-cutting budget plan, the nation’s Catholic bishops reiterated their demand that the federal budget protect the poor, and said the GOP measure “fails to meet these moral criteria.”

Similarly, Bishop Stephen Blaire of California expressed additional and direct concern over the economic policies proposed by the young congressman and now VP nominee, as the RNS story continues:

Tuesday’s statement from the bishops came the same day as Bishop Stephen E. Blaire of Stockton, Calif., called a proposed cut in benefits for children of immigrants “unjust and wrong.” Blaire, chairman of the bishops’ Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development, also decried any cuts in food stamps while preserving federal subsidies for industrial farming enterprises.

“Congress faces a difficult task to balance needs and resources and allocate burdens and sacrifices,” Blaire wrote to the House Agriculture Committee. “Just solutions, however, must require shared sacrifice by all, including raising adequate revenues, eliminating unnecessary military and other spending, and fairly addressing the long-term costs of health insurance and retirement programs.”

During a time so marked by the public disagreement between the Women Religious and the Bishops in the United States following the CDF’s “Doctrinal Assessment” of the LCWR, it is striking to note the unified front on this particular moral issue: both the bishops and nuns have been and continue to be adamantly opposed to the Ryan budget and economic policies.

This unjust economic policy and proposed budget served as the impetus for the now well-known “Nuns on the Bus” campaign launched this Spring by several representatives of American Women Religious communities and sponsored by NETWORK, the Catholic Social-Justice Lobby. In a CNN report, Sister Simone Cambell, executive director of NETWORK, explained:

“It is one thing to have political differences, but to try to hide a budget that will devastate people and claim that it is supported by your faith. It is unacceptable. He is wrong and he needs to be told so.”

This joint resolve to fight for the principles of Catholic Moral Teaching stands as a major obstacle for the GOP. Can Catholics in good conscience vote for a presidential ticket that represents such an immoral and unjust position?

There is, as always, lots of talk by some about the Democratic party’s platform as being “pro-choice” and the moral questions related to voting for candidates with such views. As the Bishops make clear in their voting-guide document “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,” Roman Catholics are not to be one-issue voters, but people who take into account a wide array of moral issues and vote according to their well-formed consciences.

Additionally, the Canon and Civil Lawyer and former Law-School Dean Nicholas Cafardi recently raised some important questions about what it means to even talk about a “pro-life” candidate and whether the GOP presumptive nominee qualifies: “Which Presidential Candidate is Truly Pro-Life?“

The immorality of the Paul Ryan Budget and his economic policies that stand in stark contrast to Catholic Moral teaching — as condemned by both the US Bishops and American Nuns, as well as others — is one of these factors that must also inform one’s decision this Fall.

Photo: AP

1 Comment »

PEW Study: Catholics More Satisfied with Leadership of Religious Sisters than of American Bishops

Posted in LCWR, Uncategorized with tags , , , , on August 7, 2012 by Daniel P. Horan, OFM

In a very interesting report recently released by the PEW Forum on Religion & Public Life, which covers a variety of issues ecclesiastical and political in nature concerning Roman Catholic views in the United States, shows that 83% of those polled are “Satisfied with leadership of ‘U.S. Nuns, Sisters,’” while only 70% are “Satisfied with leadership of ‘American Bishops.’” By percentage points, those polled are more satisfied — in descending order — with “Your Parish Priest,” “Your [Local] Bishop,” and “The Pope,” over the collective category of “American Bishops.”

The PEW researchers explain in their summary report:

he percentage of Catholics who say they are satisfied with the leadership of American bishops is significantly higher than it was a decade ago, at the height of the church’s child sex abuse scandal (70% today, 51% in 2002).

While Catholics are generally satisfied with the leadership of their local and national clergy, they express the highest satisfaction with leadership of U.S. nuns and local parish priests. About half say they are very satisfied with the leadership that nuns and priests provide (50% U.S. nuns, 49% their own parish priests). By comparison, 36% of Catholics say they are very satisfied with the leadership of their bishop, 34% with the pope’s leadership and 24% with the leadership of American bishops.

Interestingly, and perhaps alarmingly to those American Bishops involved in the recent LCWR “doctrinal assessment” and its wake, those who self-identify as “more observant” (a category largely informed by frequency of Mass attendance) and “White” are not less-satisfied with the “U.S. Nuns, Sisters,” but share the more general level of satisfaction with their work and leadership within the Church. This population, however, is in fact more satisfied with the leadership of “The Pope,” “Your [Local] Bishop,” “Your Parish Priest,” than the broader population. And that population is (only) six-percentage-points more satisfied with the “American Bishops” than the broader pool, but still ranks the “American Bishops” the lowest in terms of satisfaction with leadership — eight-perecentage-points behind the “U.S. Nuns, Sisters” and an impressive thirteen-perecentage-points behind “Your Parish Priest.”

White Catholics who attend Mass frequently are more satisfied with the leadership provided by the pope, bishops and parish priests than are those who attend less frequently. However, there is no significant difference in views of the leadership provided by nuns: 90% of low attendance white Catholics and 84% of more frequent attenders are satisfied with the leadership of U.S. nuns and sisters.

What does this mean for the Roman Catholic Church in the United States? Perhaps not much, at least in terms of its potential to affect policy and practice on the part of the church’s leadership.

However, it does say something very significant about the broader population’s view of the American Sisters who are perceived by self-identified “less-observant” and “more-observant” Catholics alike as offering satisfactory leadership for the Church. The American Bishops, however, receive the lowest endorsement of their leadership in each category polled, including the group most likely to rank their leadership higher: “white, observant” Catholics.

I wonder what the USCCB leadership thinks of this news.

Photo: PEW Forum

2 Comments »

Capuchin Franciscan Responds to Bishop Blair, LCWR Accusations, Women’s Ordination

Posted in LCWR, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , on July 25, 2012 by Daniel P. Horan, OFM

The current online edition of The National Catholic Reporter features a public response of Fr. Michael H. Crosby, OFM Cap., to his naming by Bishop Blair of Toledo, OH (who is a guest on NPR’s Fresh Air with Terry Gross today) in a video and in written fora supporting the CDF’s “doctrinal assessment” of the LCWR. For reasons that are immediately apparent in the first few paragraphs of Crosby’s published response, Blair actively blocked the Capuchin’s attempt to respond to the critiques. Crosby offers much to consider here and provides some insightful context. The following is the full text:

In early June, Bishop Leonard Blair of Toledo, Ohio, posted a video on the Toledo diocesan website quoting me. He also wrote virtually the same comments in his June 8 Bishop’s Corner column in theCatholic Chronicle, the diocesan newspaper. The video went viral and his print comments were reported in diocesan papers throughout the country, including my own Archdiocese of Milwaukee. However, after extended reflection, given the widespread but unilateral way his references have been disseminated, I came to believe I needed to respond.

I tried going to the Catholic Chronicle with my response. However, Bishop Blair informed the editor of the Catholic Chronicle it could not be published, arguing that it was too long and “unsolicited.” Instead, I was told by the editor that I could submit a letter to the editor of 250 words. I warned her that any letter would include a link to my website so readers could access my full response. She agreed, saying this would be understandable.

A week after receiving my letter and after the newspaper consulted with the bishop, I was told the letter would not be published because of the website reference. Having tried to practice what I preach by going to the one with whom I was conflicted (see Mt. 18:15), I see no reason now why I should not have my side of the story made clear. Thus my response to Bishop Blair for the National Catholic Reporter.

The thrust of Bishop Blair’s overall comments involved his efforts to influence the recent decree by the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith regarding the Leadership Conference of Women Religious that it reform its ways.

As part of his rationale for pursuing the purging of LCWR, he questioned the theology of three Catholic speakers who had given input at previous LCWR annual assemblies: Dominican Sr. Laurie Brink, Immaculate Heart of Mary Sr. Sandra Schneiders, and me. Although he was technically wrong in saying I had given a keynote address — I actually gave a workshop that was repeated twice to a joint assembly of LCWR and its parallel group of men, the Conference of Major Superiors of Men — he quoted me as saying: “Fr. Michael H. Crosby, OFMCap, a keynote speaker at the joint LCWR-CMSM assembly in 2004, lamented the fact that ‘we still have to worship a God that the Vatican says ‘wills that women not be ordained.’ That god is literally ‘unbelievable.’ It is a false god; it cannot be worshiped. And the prophet must speak truth to that power and be willing to accept the consequence of calling for justice, stopping the violence and bringing about the reign of God.”

Often, when someone quotes another to justify why one is right and the other is wrong, the latter might be tempted to argue, “But my quote has been taken out of context.” On the contrary, not only did Bishop Blair quote me correctly, but I believe a deeper, unbiased investigation of my full remarks at that assembly actually provides even greater theological and biblical support for the quotation he took from my talk.

Before discussing this fuller context, however, I think it is important to address Bishop Blair’s selective interpretation of my remarks. Anyone reading my whole talk will realize the bishop approached it from what communicators call “confirmation bias”: He failed to mention another part of my talk where I actually supported a key element of his concern and that of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith regarding the LCWR. This refers to my fraternal challenge to the assembly participants that they become more visibly active in opposing abortion, one of the four reasons the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith offered as justification for its clampdown on LCWR.

Read more »

3 Comments »

President of LCWR on NPR’s ‘Fresh Air’

Posted in LCWR, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , on July 19, 2012 by Daniel P. Horan, OFM

It really doesn’t get any better than this: one of my sisters in religious life and the Franciscan Order, Sr. Pat Farrell, OSF, the current President of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) interviewed on one of my favorite NPR programs, Fresh Air with Terry Gross. By now I’m sure many of you have already heard the interview or seen highlights in print. I have to say that this was one of the best responses to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF)’s “doctrinal assessment” of the LCWR I’ve seen, well heard, yet. Oftentimes soft-spoken, careful about how she responds in answering Terry Gross’s challenging but insightful questions, Sr. Pat skillfully and respectfully conveys the challenges and suffering that the LCWR faces in the midst of this confusing CDF action.

I think it’s extremely important to emphasize the care and respect used by Sr. Pat in responding to questions about which there is surely more emotion and pain latently present than can be immediately seen. Terry Gross notes this partway through the interview and observes that Sr. Pat appears to be in pain discussing some of the questions, mostly because of the faithful struggle she and other women religious are engaged in to maintain communion with the church and still be rational, critically engaged, and loving human beings, a task that seems impossible to balance at times given the current ecclesiastical and cultural contexts.

I’ve read a few critical comments about her interview, but these have come exclusively from online commentators and self-identified “conservative Catholic” blogs. The vast majority of reputable news outlets, Catholic and secular, have praised Sr. Pat’s pose and response on Fresh Air. I join this laudatory group in expressing my admiration and support of Sr. Pat’s efforts to respond to the CDF and the LCWR’s critics. As more information is made public about the LCWR and about the CDF’s report (as well as who was initially behind the “doctrinal assessment,” two US bishops for instance), it is becoming abundantly clear that this might have been an egregious mistake and that at least many, if not all, of the criticisms are grounded in proof-texts and contextless materials that ostensibly serve to support a presupposed judgement rather than a genuinely objective assessment. Perhaps this is not entirely the case, but I have yet to see evidence to the contrary (for an interesting take on the psychology behind the assessment, see Dr. Kathy Galleher’s op-ed piece, “Psychologist: Bishops’ Lashing Out at Sisters is a Distraction“). The LCWR’s response to each of the CDF’s concerns so far seems very reasonably grounded and understandable.

The fundamental question that the sisters are asking now is, “how is this ‘doctrinal assessment’ a genuine call to dialogue?” The adversarial tone and the distorting presentation of quotes and other materials seems to suggest otherwise. I hope a real dialogue can emerge, but it will require that those in the CDF also be willing to admit their errors inasmuch as they expect the sisters to do likewise on certain terms, if necessary.

To read excerpts from the interview or listen to the whole program (39mins) streaming online, go to Fresh Air with Terry Gross and hear for yourself.

UPDATE: Here is an insightful and personal reflection by a US Religious Sister on the CDF’s “doctrinal assessment” of the LCWR over at Commonweal Magazine.

Photo: CNS

4 Comments »

On Women Religious: How I Continue to Agree and Disagree with Ross Douthat

Posted in LCWR, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , on July 16, 2012 by Daniel P. Horan, OFM

I have a love/hate relationship with Ross Douthat.

Ok, love and hate are too strong to accurately reflect the ways I feel amid the ebb and flow of my agreement and disagreement cycle with this New York Times columnist. There is much to appreciate about Douthat’s context and perspective. For one, he and I are roughly the same age (he’s a few years older than me, but we would otherwise be considered contemporaries). He is a skilled writer, something for which I have tremendous respect. He is an unapologetic Roman Catholic, something that comes across often in his Times column — and that is something to which I can also relate, if I wasn’t so committed to the church then I wouldn’t have committed my life to serve the people of God in a Roman Catholic Religious Order nor be ordained a Roman Catholic priest.

Yet, there are things about Douthat’s particular take on current ecclesiastical and social situations that do not sit well with me. Some might be quick to label both of us as representative of different camps. Douthat, I imagine, would be categorized by some as “conservative” (whatever that means), while the same givers of names might want to categorize me as “liberal” (whatever that means). As much as it will inevitably upset all those quick to demarcate us and fit all people into their social or ecclesial taxonomy, I think he and I share more in common than what we don’t.

For example, I think his general thesis in the book Bad Religion: How We Became a Nation of Heretics (2012), is for the most part correct. It is neither “too much” nor “too little” religion in the public square that is problematic, but so-called “bad religion,” or the heterodox expression of Christianity that many people for many different reasons advocate. The biggest problem is that most so-called “Christianities” (and it is plural) are simply not reflective of what the tradition actually professes, and instead is a fabrication created in the image and likeness of its adherent and not the Gospel.

But in this Sunday’s column, “Can Liberal Christianity Be Saved?” Douthat makes some points with which I have to disagree. Without getting into the complexities of the Episcopal Church of the Anglican Communion, which Douthat spends most of his column discussing, I want to simply look at what he has to say about the Roman Catholic Church, especially concerning the women religious. Douthat writes:

Liberal commentators, meanwhile, consistently hail these forms of Christianity as a model for the future without reckoning with their decline. Few of the outraged critiques of the Vatican’s investigation of progressive nuns mentioned the fact that Rome had intervened because otherwise the orders in question were likely to disappear in a generation. Fewer still noted the consequences of this eclipse: Because progressive Catholicism has failed to inspire a new generation of sisters, Catholic hospitals across the country are passing into the hands of more bottom-line-focused administrators, with inevitable consequences for how they serve the poor.

But if liberals need to come to terms with these failures, religious conservatives should not be smug about them. The defining idea of liberal Christianity — that faith should spur social reform as well as personal conversion — has been an immensely positive force in our national life. No one should wish for its extinction, or for a world where Christianity becomes the exclusive property of the political right.

There are presuppositions held that necessarily shape Douthat’s perception and conclusions. One unnamed presupposition is that the reason communities of women religious aren’t attracting “a new generation of sisters” has to do with the vast majority of these committed and selfless women’s appropriation of so-called “progressive Catholicism.”

As one religious sister reminded me so eloquently not too long ago, the sisters who are frequently labeled “progressive” because they don’t wear the old habits and the like are actually the more “loyal to the magisterium” by virtue of their obedience to the call of both the Second Vatican Council and Pope Paul VI. Over the last half-century women and men religious were called to return to their origins and foundations to be more true to their charism. What they discovered was that they were all usually founded (a) to do evangelical work and charitable service such as education, healthcare ministries, and the like; and (b) their habits were often the simple outfits of the working class or poor of their day. This last point is certainly true with my community, for example. Francis of Assisi would only have worn a tunic and hood of the cheapest cloth, just as the poor workers of his time would have, and tied a belt with a rope instead of expensive leather.

It is not “progressive Catholicism” (whatever that means) that is the culprit, if that is the correct word, for the decline in religious women and men in the United States. It is, instead, a number of very complex and subtle social, ecclesiastical and cultural factors that come together to create the conditions we see today.

Take for example the empowerment of women in our North American context in the last century. As one older sister said to me a few years ago, what young woman who wanted to be in a position of authority or professional competence would become a nun today? The point, odd as it may sound, is that this was at one point a major factor. In the 1940s, for example, if a young, intelligent, creative woman had something to contribute to the world and may not want to be a wife or homemaker, religious life afforded her an opportunity that society was by and large not yet willing to offer. Even in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, women religious were effectively CEOs and significant public figures that were running hospitals, schools, universities and other ministries.

However, in the intervening years, the social-ecclesial contexts have reversed. The opportunities are manifold for women in the workplace (albeit not yet where they should be in terms of gender equality and the like), whereas the motivation to apply those skills and energies to the Church has decreased.

Women who respond to the call to religious life today are not seeking the same things that some of their older sisters in community might have in some senses. Therefore, from a purely sociological vantage point, there is less of a drive to pursue that way of life, even if a young woman did feel called by the Holy Spirit to a life of community, prayer and ministry.

But I know many young woman (and men, for the matter) who do feel the call, the intuition, the drive to live in religious life and minister in the Church — what it is they are looking for, however, is not offered to them. There are concerns about the priorities of those who have a more public voice and face representing the Church and legitimate questions about how those priorities align with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. There is significant pain centering on issues of ministerial equality and the role that gender and sexual orientation factor into who can and cannot serve the People of God. There are reasons to be skeptical of the use of power and authority, something that affects every human structure, even the church.

I, for one, do not think that there will be a sudden boom in women religious, nor will I suddenly find myself accompanied by a boom of male religious or diocesan priests, anytime soon. And this is not because of the failure or success of “progressive Catholicism” as Douthat posits. I’m not entirely sure what all the reasons are, but I do know that the more exclusive a community becomes, the less it resembles the Church of Jesus Christ who welcomed all to the table, especially the sinner.

Douthat should stick to the original thesis of Bad Religion instead of the partisan ecclesiastical politics that eerily reflect his dreaded “too much” or “too little religion in the public square” binary. It’s not a matter of “progressive” or “conservative” Catholicism, but rather what it means to live according to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The women religions I know, a bit older perhaps and a bit fewer in number than previous generations, are focused on their baptismal vocation to live the Gospel. Perhaps if the rest of us followed their example a little more closely, we wouldn’t be so concerned or fearful of a change in their numbers — we’d be taking care of others and doing what they’ve taught us to do by their lives.

Photo: CNS

6 Comments »

Thomas Merton’s Advice to American Sisters: Then and Now

Posted in LCWR, Thomas Merton, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , on June 20, 2012 by Daniel P. Horan, OFM

In December 1967 Thomas Merton hosted a series of conferences for a number of American religious sisters, following his invitation to many superiors of women’s religious communities to come to the Abbey of Gethsemani for a conference about religious life, contemplation, prayer and ministry in light of and in response to the recently held Second Vatican Council. These conferences were informal, offering an opportunity for the sisters to ask Merton questions and a space provided for his response to their inquires. It was, as those who lived through the late 1960s know far better than I, a tumultuous time for the Church. Lots of changes were occurring, while much uncertainly paralleled questions for religious women and men about what to do, who they were and what was going to happen.

The recorded conferences, which were transcribed and edited by some of the Sisters of Loretto, a community of women religious founded not far from the Abbey of Gethsemani in KY, reveal incredible wisdom and inspired discussion. The sisters, both those from the community of Loretto as well as others such as the Franciscan Sisters of Allegany and other communities, were open and direct about their questions and concerns. Merton’s responses were relevant, timely and noticeably prophetic. Several of his comments sound as though he is speaking to the sisters today, especially in light of the discussions about the CDF’s critique of the LCWR and the  creative initiatives like the Nuns on the Bus tour. Here are a few excerpts from the conferences, Merton’s advice to American women religious then and his prophetic insight still relevant now!


——————–

Question. After our discussion yesterday I was thinking about how so much of our training taught us to “go ask the priest.” We were not making a decision or judgment on our own. We just didn’t think in those terms.

Response. Now’s the time. There are plenty of sisters smart enough to do that, who certainly have better judgment about their own situations than someone outside. Priests you consult may often have no concept of what your life is about, what your order means, what your needs are. All they can do is look in a book and dig up a canon, and they may not know too much about that, either.

Q. What about nuns who are fearful and inhibited that they cannot make independent judgements? They can really hold a community back.

R. I think they have to be encouraged to go ahead and make judgements. They need to be put in situations where they have to. The old system, of course, did not provide for this. It was fixed so that an individual never had to make judgements but would just sit in line and ask the superior, “May I have a toothbrush?” This is absurd. We built things this way and called it the Cross or obedience. This may have been all right if you were living in Austria in 1772 under an absolute emperor, and all you had to do was to keep the institution going, because it had been endowed. But we’re not doing that anymore.

Q. Whenever we ask permission, it seems the issue gets all bungled up.

R. Exactly, so don’t ask. I mean, unless you absolutely have to. The whole bent of the Church at this moment is for change. And therefore change has the benefit of the doubt. Obviously, the spirit of the Council is that we’re supposed to experiment, take risks, change and develop. This has the stamp of the Holy Spirit on it. Just as obviously, there are people on top who are scared, who want to stop it. They take second place right now. A prudential Christian decision now is in favor of courageously following what the Council clearly wants, and the Council clearly wants development. People who do not want development have to prove their point very hard before one can follow them in conscience. If everybody obeyed all the curial officials in everything in every moment, there would be no progress possible. There would be no point in having had a Council, no point in John XXIII having been Pope.

At the same time, there has to be caution and respect. We don’t act rebelliously or out of contempt, but just quietly go along with what the Council wants. Experiment is the order of the day, so make experiments. Just be careful not to do crazy things. Trouble comes when people want to make an issue of everything, when they want not just to change but also to win. Wanting to chalk up a score is bad. This is not a game of besting the Curia or the authorities. We have to be clear on that. We’re not trying to get points for our side. We just want to do what God wants. If we can once get this distinction clear, that’s all the authorities care about. Much of this other side business is face-saving. If people are obviously needling and insulting authorities, of course the latter will try to save face. But if you’re considerate and in good faith, you won’t be bothered much. People in authority have sense enough to see the difference. I go my way quietly, saying all kinds of things that are very unpopular and that many people don’t like at all. But they’re not going to fool with me, because I’m not fighting them. I’m sampling saying what I think I ought to say. I am not challenging anyone.

[From The Springs of Contemplation (1992), 38-41]

——————–

The one additional note I might add to this excerpt is that Merton is speaking in the 1960s long before what we are experiencing today. I have little doubt that if Merton were still alive, in his late 90s now, he would be in solidarity with the American sisters, just as he was then. I wonder what his reaction to the CDF document would have been in light of the fact that, as he advised, the sisters have not been on the attack or causing trouble, but simply living their lives as the Holy Spirit guides them, following the Council’s directive to return to their charismatic roots.

Photo: Merton Legacy Trust

15 Comments »

Franciscan Friars Speak Out on Behalf of LCWR

Posted in LCWR, Uncategorized with tags , , , , on June 7, 2012 by Daniel P. Horan, OFM

Franciscan Leadership Declares Solidarity With Catholic Sisters

American Provinces Release Letter to the LCWR  

NEW YORK — June 7, 2012 — As follow-up to the recent Vatican assessment of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR), the leaders of seven entities of Franciscan friars have released a letter to the Catholic sisters expressing their strong support.

Several weeks ago, the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) released its assessment of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, the support system and public voice of some 1500 leaders of women’s congregations, representing over 80% of the women religious in the United States. This assessment was highly critical of the LCWR and demanded changes in its organization and activities. Like many American Catholics, Franciscan friars across the country have been deeply concerned by this document, especially its impact on their sisters in religious life, many of whom belong to Franciscan congregations.

The provincial ministers of the seven provinces of the Order of Friars Minor in the United States, representing more than 1250 religious men, released the following statement to express their appreciation of the invaluable ministry of American religious women and to extend their support to the members of the LCWR, as they attempt to respond to the concerns expressed in the Vatican directives. 

———————————————————————————————————————

May 31, 2012

Open Letter to the United States Catholic Sisters

We, the Leadership of the Friars Minor of the United States, write today as your brothers in the vowed religious life who, like you, have great love for our Church and for the people whom we are privileged to serve.  We write at a time of heightened polarization and even animosity in our nation and Church, with deep concern that the recent Vatican Doctrinal Assessment of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) may inadvertently fuel the current climate of division and confusion.  We write, too, as a public sign of our solidarity with you as you endure this very difficult moment.  We are privileged to share with you the journey of religious life.  Like you, we strive in all that we do to build up the People of God.

As religious brothers in the Franciscan tradition, we are rooted in a stance of gratitude that flows from awareness of the myriad ways that God is disclosed and made manifest in the world.  For us, there can be no dispute that God has been and continues to be revealed through the faithful (and often unsung) witness of religious women in the United States.  Thus we note with appreciation that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) “acknowledges with gratitude the great contributions of women Religious to the Church of the United States as seen particularly in the many schools, hospitals, and institutions of support for the poor which have been founded and staffed by Religious over the years.”  We certainly know how much our service has been enriched by the many gifts you bring to these ministries.

However, your gift to the Church is not only one of service, but also one of courageous discernment.  The late 20th century and the beginning of this century have been times of great social, political and cultural upheaval and change.  Such contextual changes require us, as faithful members of the Church, to pose questions that at first may appear to be controversial or even unfaithful, but in fact are asked precisely so that we might live authentically the charisms we have received, even as we respond to the “signs of the times.”  This is the charge that we as religious have received through the “Decree on the Renewal of Religious Life” from the Second Vatican Council and subsequent statements of the Church on religious life.  We believe that your willingness to reflect on many of the questions faced by contemporary society is an expression of your determination to be faithful to the Gospel, the Church, the invitation from Vatican II and your own religious charisms.  We remain thankful for and edified by your courage to engage in such reflection despite the ever-present risk of misunderstanding.

Moreover, we are concerned that the tone and direction set forth in the Doctrinal Assessment of LCWR are excessive, given the evidence raised.  The efforts of LCWR to facilitate honest and faithful dialogue on critical issues of our times must not result in a level of ecclesial oversight that could, in effect, quash all further discernment.  Further, questioning your adherence to Church teaching by your “remaining silent” on certain ethical issues seems to us a charge that could be leveled against many groups in the Church, and fails to appreciate both the larger cultural context and the particular parameters of expertise within which we all operate.  Finally, when there appears to be honest disagreement on the application of moral principles to public policy, it is not equivalent to questioning the authority of the Church’s magisterium.  Although the Catholic moral tradition speaks of agreement regarding moral principles, it also – from the Middle Ages through today – speaks of appropriate disagreement regarding specific application of these principles.  Unfortunately, the public communications media in the U.S. may not recognize this distinction.  Rather than excessive oversight of LCWR, perhaps a better service to the people of God might be a renewed effort to articulate the nuances of our complex moral tradition.   This can be a teaching moment rather than a moment of regulation — an opportunity to bring our faith to bear on the complexity of public policy particularly in the midst of our quadrennial elections.

Finally, we realize and appreciate, as we are sure do you, the proper and right role of the bishops as it is set out in Mutuae Relationes to provide leadership and guidance to religious institutions.[i]  However, the same document clearly states:

Since it is of utmost importance that the council of major superiors collaborate diligently and in a spirit of trust with episcopal conferences, ‘it is desirable that questions having reference to both bishops and religious should be dealt with by mixed commissions consisting of bishops and major religious superiors, men or women. …Such a mixed commission should be structured in such a way that even if the right of ultimate decision making is to be always left to councils or conferences, according to the respective competencies, it can, as an organism of mutual counsel, liaison, communication, study and reflection, achieve its purpose.  (#63)

We trust that CDF was attempting to follow their counsel from Mutuae Relationes; however, we fear that in today’s public media world their action easily could be misunderstood.  We hope that our bishops will take particular care to see that the way they take action is as important as the actions themselves in serving the People of God.  Otherwise, their efforts will surely be misunderstood and polarizing.

Lastly, we appreciate the approach that you at LCWR have taken to enter into a time of discernment, rather than immediately making public statements that could be construed as “opposing the bishops” after the release of the Doctrinal Assessment.  The rancor and incivility of public conversation in the United States at this time make the possibility of productive dialogue more difficult to achieve.  We pray that the future conversation between LCWR and CDF might provide an example to the larger world of respectful, civil dialog.  Such dialog will require a degree of mutuality, trust and honesty that is absent from much of our world.  We trust that you will continue your efforts to live out this principle, and we trust and pray that our bishops will do the same.

Please be assured of our on-going support, prayers, respect, and gratitude for your living example of the following of Christ in our times.

Fraternally,

Leadership of Franciscan (O.F.M.) Provinces of the United States

Assumption BVM Province
Franklin, WI, U.S.A.

Holy Name Province
New York, NY, U.S.A.

Immaculate Conception Province
New York, NY, U.S.A.

Our Lady of Guadalupe Province
Albuquerque, NM, U.S.A.

Sacred Heart Province
St. Louis, MO, U.S.A.

Saint Barbara Province
Oakland, CA, U.S.A.

Saint John the Baptist Province
Cincinnati, OH, U.S.A.

UPDATED: A corrected version of the statement was sent out by the communications office of Holy Name Province, New York, NY, on the afternoon of 7 June 2012. The above text reflects the most current edition of the text. A PDF version of the statement is available Here: LCWR_ statement_6-7-12.

[i] Sacred Congregation for Religious and for Secular Institutes, Directives for the Mutual Relations Between Bishops and Religious in the Church, Rome, May 14, 1978

Photo: Stock

17 Comments »

LCWR Releases Brief Public Statement

Posted in LCWR, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , on June 1, 2012 by Daniel P. Horan, OFM

Following a meeting of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) national board, the LCWR has released a brief public statement about its plans to assess and respond to the CDF’s critical report. While not revealing too much at this point, the statement does clearly make the point that there are serious problems with the CDF’s actions, most notably concerning the lack of transparency, disproportionate responses and unsubstantiated accusations. Below is the full text of the statement.

The national board of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) held a special meeting in Washington, DC from May 29-31 to review, and plan a response to, the report issued to LCWR by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

The board members raised concerns about both the content of the doctrinal assessment and the process by which it was prepared.  Board members concluded that the assessment was based on unsubstantiated accusations and the result of a flawed process that lacked transparency. Moreover, the sanctions imposed were disproportionate to the concerns raised and could compromise their ability to fulfill their mission. The report has furthermore caused scandal and pain throughout the church community, and created greater polarization.

The board determined that the conference will take the following steps:

  • On June 12 the LCWR president and executive director will return to Rome to meet with CDF prefect Cardinal William Levada and the apostolic delegate Archbishop Peter Sartain to raise and discuss the board’s concerns.
  • Following the discussions in Rome, the conference will gather its members both in regional meetings and in its August assembly to determine its response to the CDF report.

The board recognizes this matter has deeply touched Catholics and non-Catholics throughout the world as evidenced by the thousands of messages of support as well as the dozens of prayer vigils held in numerous parts of the country. It believes that the matters of faith and justice that capture the hearts of Catholic sisters are clearly shared by many people around the world. As the church and society face tumultuous times, the board believes it is imperative that these matters be addressed by the entire church community in an atmosphere of openness, honesty, and integrity.

Contact: Sister Annmarie Sanders, IHM – LCWR Director of Communications – 301-588-4955 (office) - 301-672-3043 (cell) -asanders@lcwr.org

June 1, 2012

Photo: LCWR

Leave A Comment »

« Older Entries
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 390 other followers

%d bloggers like this: