Nuns reject Vatican takeover but seek dialogue on differences
Tags
Related Posts
About the author
American nuns facing a Vatican takeover of their leadership organization on Friday (Aug. 10) rejected Rome’s plans to recast the group in a more conservative mold, but declined – for now – to respond with an ultimatum that could have created an unprecedented schism between the sisters and the hierarchy.
Instead, the nuns said they wanted to pursue a negotiated solution to the showdown that has galvanized American Catholics in recent months and prompted an outpouring of support for the sisters that left the Vatican with a black eye.
The statement from the Leadership Conference of Women Religious came at the end of the LCWR’s annual assembly and was the first formal response to the Vatican from the entire organization, which represents most of the 56,000 nuns in the U.S.
The Vatican announced in April that it was assigning a team of bishops to take control of the LCWR in order to make the organization – and by extension, most U.S. nuns – hew more closely and publicly to orthodox teachings on sexuality and theology.
Sister Pat Farrell, the outgoing president of the LCWR, on Friday read the official response that expressed the organization’s “deep disappointment” with Rome’s verdict. But the statement also said the nuns wanted to keep talking with the hierarchy in hopes of “creating more possibilities for the laity and, particularly for women, to have a voice in the church.”
“Dialogue on doctrine is not going to be our starting point,” Farrell told reporters.
Farrell added, however, that the sisters will reconsider their options if the LCWR “is forced to compromise the integrity of its mission.” That indicated that if the Vatican does not relent on at least some of its plans to revamp the organization, the sisters could make good on the threat to disband the LCWR and reorganize it as an independent body beyond the reach of the Vatican.
The sisters’ pointed but measured response seemed to reflect the approach that Farrell outlined in a powerful address on Friday morning to the 900 sisters gathered here. Her talk detailed the nuns’ public “struggle to balance our life on the periphery with fidelity to the center.”
Farrell spoke of how the sisters have historically been committed to serving the poor and marginalized as well as to pushing boundaries within the church. That sometimes led to suppression by the hierarchy, she said, but also to sainthood for many nuns, and to far reaching changes that have benefited Catholics as a whole. [More]
SOURCE
Leave a Comment
Photo Archive
-
May 22, 2013 1:37
Tornadoes exact deadly toll; region needs ‘a lot of prayers right now’
-
May 22, 2013 1:32
State Dept. report says countries have repressed religious freedom with laws
-
May 22, 2013 1:23
2 lawsuits filed against Maine Catholic church
-
May 21, 2013 1:32
Church Whistle-Blowers Join Forces on Abuse
-
May 20, 2013 5:17
Maine Catholic church closing its doors
-
May 20, 2013 5:14
Muslim leaders in US facing challenges inside and outside the faith
-
May 17, 2013 5:43
Archbishop clarifies remarks about Cuomo
-
May 17, 2013 5:40
Fr. Gary Meier goes public with clergy experience
-
May 17, 2013 5:37
Predator priests paid to pray for unsuspecting families
-
May 16, 2013 1:56
Cleanup of Bridgeport, Conn., diocese begins in earnest
39 Comments
Heritic or Feminazi or not, I propose we allow time to heal wounds. I think it is good that the LCWR nuns are using a measured response. Consider that they have much to offer, if time allows them to offer more appropriately. And, as a mitigating factor, they’re not entirely at fault.
Yes, to the great degree they have been socialist and disobedient, they are the ones in the wrong. But perhaps the bishop is also right to use a measured approach and applaud their slow consideration. Via slow reflection, perhaps the LCWR nuns can accept the realization of the error and pride they engaged in.
Yes, socialism (including its feminazi streak), that they unilaterally chose to champion, is wholly opposed to Catholicism. And, now that socialists via the Obama-Sebelius mandates, are directly and coercively dictating morality to religions, perhaps the bishops will get back to clearly stating the incompatibility of socialism with Catholicism.
The bishops would not break new ground to teach thus; they would merely remind of truths unfortunately obfuscated during the last few decades. We can charitibly consider that the LCWR nuns went astray due, in part, to decades of almost complete lack of strident & public instruction from the bishops on the inherent evils within socialism. Some of us are more apt than others, to seek to push boundaries when we’re not pointedly told it’s wrong.
Yet it is nothing new, that socialism and Catholicism are wholly and inherently incompatible. Catholicism has noted this opposition since the initial study of the works of Karl Marx. Though there are few clear teachings from the last few decades, Pope John Paul 2nd stomped the attempted socialism-Catholicism blend called “Liberation Theology”. It was when visiting Mexico in 1979 that the pope decisively terminated all attempts to use Catholicism to promote socialism; he wasted no time, as the pronouncement was practically as soon as he’d been installed as pope. But he wasn’t the first to be clear about socialism’s inherent evils. Four decades earlier, Pope Pius 11th (1922-1939) stated, “No one can be at the same time a sincere Catholic and a true Socialist.” And Pius 11th wasn’t the first, either. Pope Leo 13th (in “Rerum Novarum”, 1891) said, “Socialism does not help the poor. Rather, it reduces everyone to the same lowest common denominator of poverty and misery, while at the same time drying up the sources of capital.” As wise as Margaret Thatcher was (“Socialists always run out of other people’s money”), she clearly was but leading the secular world in catching up to Catholic realization. Popes had studied and been clear on socialism since just shortly after Karl Marx invented it. Popes have never reversed the initial determination. It’s time America’s bishops clearly teach this truth. It’s time America’s nuns heard this truth clearly, and subsequently appropriately reform their behaviors to acceptible works of charity both spiritual and temporal.
The LCWR nuns’ record indicates they have an intense urge to serve others. Measured & deliberate consideration is perhaps worth trying.
As the LCWR nuns carefully consider thier response, they would do well to remember that each of them voluntarily took vows that included obedience to spiritual direction, and note carefully that the bishops are finally being clear that the LCWR nuns’ spiritual direction needs to be far more religious and helpful, like they were called to be, rather than secular and socialistic like they’ve been.
I don’t know, Paul — the building is on fire, and many Catholics are being misled by these heretics. I say put the fire out right now. God will raise up faithful women to take their place.
So the LCWR leadership decided to reject the Vaticans plan to turn the LCWR into a more conservative group but decided to continue the dialog? ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!! What part of obedience to the apostolic successors of Jesus Christ don’t these women understand? Imagine if the apostles said to Our Lord, “no, we will not go forth to build your Church but let’s continue the dialog about how we can compromise”. Same principle here. These women are not the nuns who built the schools and hospitals and cultivated the souls of a nation. They are arrogant, feminist agitators and the time has come for them to leave the Church.
“Arrogant, feminist agitators (whose) time has come for them to leave the Church” — right on target, Andrew.
Thanks Jim! What we’re seeing is the work of Satan. Somewhere back in time, a few foolish sisters took interest in the anti-Catholic feminist propaganda that people such as Betty Freidan and Gloria Steinem were preaching. In fact, the feminist NOW group published a document in support of the ERA back in 79 or 80 I think that specifically called for the unveiling of nuns and the opening up of the priesthood to women. In my Diocese, nuns began to lose their veils by the end of the 80s and, a few nuns, in conjunction with a few priests who should never have been ordained, we’re allowed to interview seminary candidates and reject them when they didn’t favor women priests in their questionnaires. Then in the 90s we had a culture that began to promote New Age spirituality. The feminist nuns progressed to promote this heresy in their convents and retreat centers. One convent i know of actually removed the stations of the cross from their chapel and turned the chapel into a meditation center! And then here in these sorry times there’s our president whose first executive order was for taxpayer funds to fund overseas abortions. Rather than stand up to this evil, the feminist nuns advocated for his anti-life healthcare plan and are today, protesting against pro-life Paul Ryan. You have rightfully called these women for what they are: heretics. The longer they’re allowed to call themselves Catholics the more damage they are going to do to the Church. Time for these heretics to go!
Wow, Andrew – please read all of this lengthy post to the end. I wish you had your own show on either EWTN or Fox News — what you are saying very few people can see, and of the few who can see it, most are afraid to speak out for fear of offending others. I do have a small public platform, and I do say publicly some (perhaps many, but not all) of the things I say here. The things I say here I am convinced are true, and I also believe they need to be said. So, I really like it when I find a brother like you who will fight right alongside me, fighting the good fight, on the side of good, but it is indeed a battle against evil, as you have rightly recognized, and there is a price to be paid for fighting for the good and true. Nevertheless, I could not respect myself if I stopped saying the things I have been saying, not only here, but publicly. So, again, it’s nice to find a fellow combatant who gets it, who knows the truth, and is committed to speaking the truth to save as many as he can – even if that is only one other person. I will tell you that I have talked to some men (several) considering the priesthood who have been rebuked by their religious superiors for being too pious, etc. – so, there is a problem in some, perhaps many seminaries, not just with these heretic sisters. One other point – in a reply to me yesterday (I believe), David rebuked me for calling these fake sisters heretics, as he essentially said that represents uncivil discourse, and that I am offending people. My response was that, indeed, I want people to be upset – they need to understand that the building is on fire, and this is no time to be engaging people in polite conversation at the expense of them not hearing the truth. I do agree that, in face-to-face conversations, or in e-mail exchanges with siblings, the approach needs to be softer, otherwise you will get rejected out-of-hand. But, on this blog, I don’t know anyone personally, and I just don’t think anyone will hear you if you speak too softly or politely. So, I’m just picking your brain, seeing what you think about all of this – I look forward to an honest response, not necessarily one that you think I want to hear.
Hi Jim. Heretic is a loaded term… In its common usage it is divisive. I heard that Fr James Martin published a prayer this week which speaks of moving beyond those that too frequently use the term, and that of excommunication. I do not agree with the views of all women religious, or that of the hierarchy, or of you, Jim, but my personal experience of most of the women religious I have met has been one of awe and thanksgiving for their contribution to the Church. I just wish for you and others, on all sides, to be slow to use divisive language. No more mention of crack, mental illness, children having to be put to bed, aspersions as to the sexual inclinations of women religious, and other comments not in keeping with our human dignity. Tony has been much more reasonable in his approach on this blog. There have been comments by others which I have found to be unfortunate, but often in response to your comments. Just an observation.
Well, David, I hear you, but of course do not agree with you. Tony’s comments are not in any way reasonable, as they simply are wrong, and support women who are taking heretical positions. This is a grave sin of omission, to not warn others of those who would lead them from the truth. You know, when the Blessed Mother showed the Fatima visionaries Hell, they were just 9, 8, and 7 years old at the time — that wasn’t very nice, was it? It was very very upsetting to them, so much so that Jacinta composed the prayer we now say between decades of the Rosary (“O my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of Hell; lead all souls to Heaven, especially those in most need of your mercy.”) And, what if I would call these fake sisters “dogs?” — would that be worse? Not very Christian, would it be? Except that the founder of Christianity, Jesus Christ, referred to non-Jews as “dogs” in Matthew 15, verses 22-28: “And behold, a Canaanite woman of that district came and called out, ‘Have pity on me, Lord, Son of David! My daughter is tormented by a demon.’ But he did not say a word in answer to her. His disciples came and asked him, ‘Send her away, for she keeps calling out after us.’ He said in reply, ‘I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.’ But the woman came and did him homage, saying, ‘Lord, help me.’ He said in reply, ‘It is not right to take the food of the children and throw it to the dogs.’ She said, ‘Please, Lord, for even the dogs eat the scraps that fall from the table of their masters.’ Then Jesus said to her in reply, ‘O woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish.’ And her daughter was healed from that hour. So, the Man Who is love incarnate calls a non-Jew a dog. Don’t ignore half the new testament, David — get your head into the Bible. So, calling women who prance around saying “aaaaaaahhhhhhhh ooooooooommmmmmmmmmm” and talking about “conscious evolution” is mild — their keynote speaker advocates this pagan garbage. Go Google Barbara Marx Hubbard and see for yourself. How these “sisters” could invite her to be their keynote speaker says it all. So, I will continue to call a spade a spade, in order to warn others — these “sisters” are out-and-out horribe heretics. Case closed.
If we are going to label people heritics, what shall we say of Paul Ryan who dissents from the Social teachings of the Church, to such an extent that the USCCB found his budget lacking?
Let’s not call people names, it is childish, immature and unbecomming for a disciple.
In Matthew 15:22-28, Jesus called a non-Jew a “dog” and wouldn’t help her until she persisted. He called the Pharisees “vipers” (Matthew 23:33). The Blessed Mother showed three children ages 9, 8 and 7 a vision of Hell which greatly upset them. And, I’m not supposed to call someone doing the work of the devil a heretic? Sorry — I am providing a great service to all who read my posts, even if the person (such as yourself) does not like what he reads. The truth often is ugly, but it is necessary to state the truth, as this potentially can save someone from an ETERNITY of Hell.
And BTW, David, I intend to divide — the further away from these heretics anyone reading my posts can get, the better — I want to be as far away from Satan as I can get. The heretics are not Satan himself, but they are opening the door to leaving the true Church, the ONLY gate to eternal life. They are to be rebuked strongly, in no uncertain terms. See Luke 17:3 and Ezekial 33:7-9 for Scriptural support of this position.
Also, David, I think what you are trying to get at when you raise the issue of “common usage” of the word heretic is the connotation of the word — not its denotation (strict definition), but rather the associations attached to the word — and I agree that the word “heretic” has very bad associations. However, this is precisely why I am using it — because people need to wake from their stupor and see how bad these sisters are. Do you believe the heretics of old were ugly and unappealing? If they had been, they would not have ever been a force that needed to be rebuked. Heretics always look good, just like these sisters do — these modern heretics look good because they provide services to the poor, etc. But, they are wolves in sheep’s clothing. As Jesus told us, we should not fear those that can kill the body, but rather those that can kill the soul. These heretics, by leading Catholics away from the true Church, are killing the soul of their adherents. I care deeply about the eternal salvation of everyone — therefore, these sisters are, from that perspective, horrific. I will continue to vigorously oppose them.
I enthusiastically support the Sisters and embrace their vision.
Farrel and her band of heretics actually took a hard line to the Vatican — they are refusing to comply with the Vatican’s orders. So, sisters, SORRY TO SEE YOU GO — BUT HASTA LA VISTA, BABY! And, the author of this article is SO BIASED — saying the Vatican got a “black eye” from these heretics, and claiming the heretics have so much support among Catholics. I know of no faithful Catholic that supports them — but that is a tautology — by definition, if you support heretics, you are not a faithful Catholic.
Let’s try a little
“kindness” try re-reading the second reading from Saint Paul’s letter to the Ephesians
(4:30-5:2) and a little less judgment(check out Matthew 7:1-”‘Stop judging, that you may not be judged. For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you.”
Mike D — I’ll read the Scripture you’ve suggested after you read Ezekiel 33:7-9, and Luke 17:3 — and tell me how that relates to these heretical fake sisters.
And Mike D, the prohibition against judging applies to judging people’s hearts; the Scripture is clear that we should judge people’s behavior. To not do so is irresponsible and sinful. I am not judging the hearts of these heretics; just their behavior.
One who believes that he is speaking the “Truth” has no fear of the day of judgement.
Two comments: 1) Looking at this flap between the Vatican and the LCRW reminds me of the beginnings of the Protestant movement. Yes, the Roman Church at that time responded badly in some respects, but the Protestants nevertheless hauled off to do their own thing, falling into all sorts of heresies along their own way. 2) Jim (below) is right about Barbara Marx Hubbard: there is nothing Christian about her in any way whatsoever — she appears to be teaching a sort of New Age pantheistic gnosticism. What in the world possessed the nuns of the LCRW to invite her to speak to them? This situation in itself shows how far afield the nuns have strayed. If they are indeed buying into the sorts of anti-Christian, neo-pagan nonsense espoused by the likes of Hubbard, then they have indeed abandoned the Christian Faith.
Thanks for your measured post, Richard. With regard to — “if they are buying into the sorts of anti-Christian, neo-pagan nonsense espoused by the likes of Hubbard” — IF? You don’t invite someone to give the KEYNOTE address unless your respect and admire them. I rest my case.
Church dogma has changed throughout history reflecting the power and the political needs of top management of the Church. What is important is the voice for compassion, equality and social justice. The current Theologians and hierarchy would takes us back to a time when the church was a political force for intolerance and not a force for the poor.
MJF becareful Jim doesn’t get you
Joe — be careful MJF’s disobedient, willful heresies don’t capture you — but based on your other posts, I’m afraid you’re already heading to where he is. GOD HELP YOU.
He always does help me
Let us all pray that the cause for Pope John XXIII sainthood is advanced before Vatican II gets stuffed in a dark closet. I admire the nuns restraint in making this a media issue and calling on the Holy Spirit instead. They are the leaders I will follow.
I agree John XXIII was truly a wonderful inspiration on the best the Church has to offer.
The Vatican will never “negotiate” on what the Vatican believes is absolute truth. If in their consciences, the sisters’ believe otherwise, they must make a choice and stop trying to “get blood out of a turnip.”
The Sisters response was really a response of grace and dignity. There willingness to dialogue shows their inclusiveness and willingness to share in building the City of God.
Thank you Sisters for your commitment and leadership.
Well said Tony. God bless the sisters and their ministries.
What we see here in my openion is a stand-off between Rome and the LCWR. They are telling Rome, let’s talk but we are not taking steps backwards. We have come to far. As they both talk and have open dialogue, time will tell if they can come to some understanding. We pray that they can. These Bishops have to walk a fine line in that if they come down to hard, the nuns will walk away. Time will tell. To be continued.
Joseph Francis — the problem is not that the bishops and the LCWR need to come to some understanding — the problem is that the LCWR wants to define its own church dogam. That never will be acceptable in the Church — it simply can’t be. Either the LCWR repents and comes back to the Church, or they have excluded themselves from the Church — i.e., excommunicated themselves.
The sisters are not challenging or redefining Church dogma. They have been criticized for not giving enough emphasis to certain teachings and for looking honestly at the issues of the modern world. They appear to be leading Christ-centered, Spirit-filled lives that are an example and inspiration to the rest of us.
Not true, Leo — the hierarchy has specifically said that their beliefs do not in any way resemble Christianity. Cardinal Burke, when interviewed last week on EWTN, said that he doesn’t hear these heretical sisters mentioning Jesus very often, if ever. If you want to know about their New Age theology, just Google Barbara Marx Hubbard, who delivered their keynote address last week in St. Louis. Someone like Hubbard has no place whatsoever to be at a Christian assembly, and certainly not an assembly of Catholic “sisters.”
Very well said Tony and Jim Vatican II happened we are a pilgrim Church in the Modern World The Church is much more than the old hirarchy that wants to go backwards. Young people now have Doctorates in Theologhy both Lay and religous, we are not in the dark ages. Theologians have been arguing for years and evolving Theological thinking from Peter and Paul and jews and christians. Why is this any different
It’s different, Joe, because the “evolution” of the thinking of these heretics is false — just Google their keynote speaker last week, Barbara Marx Hubbard, and you will have all the evidence anyone needs that these sisters are no longer Christian, let alone faithful Catholics.
False is in the eyes of the beholder. I don’t know what is true or false until the expert Theologians hash it out ( which I am not ) Birth control was very contoversial in Paul VI reign befor Humanae Vita.
Joe — sorry you have no anchor in your life. Mine is the inerrant Magisterial teachings of Jesus Christ’s Church. Could you imagine Jesus setting up a Church that can’t speak to help the faithful on the path to Heaven “until the expert theologians hash it out?” Thank God that is not the real state of affairs.
And Joe, please Google Barbara Marx Hubbard. Even you may be shocked at her non-Christian, New Age beliefs.
Joe — birth control NEVER was controversial, according to the Magisterium. NEVER has the Church taught that it is licit. So, Humanae Vitae simply reiterated what has been taught since the beginning of the Church.