Wily Wills
May 17, 2012, 9:06 pm
Posted by Robert P. Imbelli
Garry Wills, so adroit at parsing Lincoln’s “Emancipation Proclamation,” so subtle in his analysis of Verdi’s Shakespeare operas, loses all nuance when he tackles intra-Catholic issues. Then, like the Verdi of the early potboilers, it’s all villains and heroes.
So in the June 7th New York Review of Books their regular bishop-basher is at it again. The full article is available only to subscribers, but they give you enough material to get the drift. However, passing strange is the photo that serves to dress up the diatribe. I wonder whether the Dominican Sisters of Mary will appreciate being the poster girls for Wills’ harangue. Check their website.
I like what I read so far… While I admit that Wills can easily go over the top, this issue has tapped into all kinds of passions — some of which even have to do with the nuns!
One anecdote — I had a letter very supportive of the religious in the paper last week. I usually get some positve and negative response on my letters, but this one has had about a ten to one positive response thus far in print. And, more notably, an older woman called me and, in a heavy accent, asked if I was the one who had written this letter, I said yes, and she went on a five minute monologue about being in Poland after WWII and how it was the nuns who kept her family alive sharing food while “the bishop and priests, we would see them eat well.” She thanked me for writing.
Now I know that that unfair steroetype exists of the well fed clergy, but it was the most unusal call re: a letter I’ve written that I’ve ever received,, and her appreciation was so heart-felt…
MAYBE the bishops are not total bogeymen, but I think the feelings of nearly all are that they really blew it here…
I’ll let folks know how how our parish “Vigil of Solidarity” goes Tuesday night… I think it will be well attended and hopefully prayerful.. and passionate!
I read the whole article yesterday, and was disappointed in it because I thought that Wills might be in a position to enlighten the readership of the NYRB on the subject of the bishops vs. the nuns, and he missed his opportunity to say something useful. All he did was vent.
That NYRB could have used some enlightenment was shown by their utterly clueless choice of illustration. The novice in the photo in full habit looks as if she belongs to one of the ultra-traditional groups with whom the Bishops would likely be pleased. Too bad they couldn’t have found a picture of some of those Adrian Dominicans Wills praises so warmly.
Have any bishops come out publicly in support of the sisters in recent weeks?
Good point on the photo, Susan, and I’ll have to go to the library for the whole article. Howwever, knowing some of Wills writing recently (and I ususally like him very much for reasons Robert Imbelli noted), I can imagine that this could descend into a screed.
Yet, as the groundswell of support points out, there’s a “Network” moment here that says “We’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take it anymore!” That much of this rage has been triggered by true appreciation of and/or nostalgia about women religious is purely opportune, but it makes it no less real and relevant. The process the LCWR will go through and how the bishops react to that will continue the drama, but who knows in what key?
Either way, conservatives and liberals have found some temporary overlaps in this common ground, even though it may quickly pass and the differences betwen teh leadership groups may be more pronounced. But I’ll bet most young women won’t and this will be another sign of the male domination that will continue loud or quiet alienation.
For those interested in a critique of Wills article, see “Garry Wills’s Confusion on the Sacrament of Marriage” by Matthew Schmitz, First Thoughts Blog, 5/17/12
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2012/05/17/garry-willss-confusion-on-the-sacrament-of-marriage/#comments
Schmitz links to an informative article by Brendan Watson. See also the comments to Schmitz’ post which includes a partial defense of Wills’ article by David Nickol and Watson’s response.
Garry Wills says, “The Vatican has issued a harsh statement claiming that American nuns do not follow their bishops’ thinking.”
It’s hyperbole to characterize the Vatican’s critique of the LCWR as “harsh.”
All of the criticisms in the CDF’s critique of the LCWR are small potatoes.
Michael Kelly,
That’s a different article from the prolific Wills.
David Pasinski,
I can’t imagine that the Dominican sisters of Mary are rejoicing at being used, whether by Wills or an editor, to dress up views they would disavow.
Well, the Dominican Sister of Mary Immaculate, Mother of the Eucharist are not completely innocent. When the news broke about LCWR, their foundress, who declared herself superior for life, took it upon herself to explain the CDF decision to investigate LCWR. We cannot know her motivation for ingratiating herself to CDF, but it may have to do with the fact that she is still awaiting final approval of her order from Rome. It would be interesting to know if she were among those women religious the CDF report said complained about LCWR. I think it was inappropriate for her to comment on the matter. bit.ly/IQaEiM
Robert Imbelli
I agree that that that photo was inapprpriate. That was the point Susan was making, I thought, with which I concurred that this congregation– at least in this photo– appears to be one that would be more supportive of the Vatican intervention. But that may be a quick judgement based only on the traditional nature of the habit. I know nothing about them. A photo that demonstrated some other activity by another congregation in more regular garb would have been a better illustration of the congregations represented and now “under review”, I suppose, though I haven’t checked to see who represents whom and use of a habit/veil.
“Well, the Dominican Sister of Mary Immaculate, Mother of the Eucharist are not completely innocent.”
Who then can be saved?
So the use of the photo was condign punishment?
Without putting too fine a point on it, it seems to me that Rome is more concerned with nuns who eschew the habit and live separate from the convent, than with those who wear the habit and live in community. In that respect then, the photo is dissonant; is not in line with the ideas in Will’s article.
The more traditional orders are growing and the ranks of the orders that more or less left tradition behind in the 1970’s are dwindling, and the Vatican (via CDF) wants to understand why.
Naturally, the more traditional (growing) orders have less of a problem with the CDF and its efforts than the less traditional (now shrinking) orders do.
Always love that word — “condign” — but my friends would think me pedantic using it in a sentence… Maybe I need more literate friends…
At any rate, its curious to think how they got that photo and whatever editorial choices were involved, but I agre that it was not apprpriate to teh story unless used witha contrasting one perhaps.
“Always love that word — “condign” — but my friends would think me pedantic using it in a sentence… Maybe I need more literate friends…”
David,
I presume that’s why you hang out at dotCom :-)
:-)
I thought Susan’s comment was most germane and underscored that the issue(Wills or not) is not “small potatoes.”
I don’t think it matters much whether the sisters pictured would like the essay or not. But I gather that the picture is meant to represent the American nuns Wills is defending – those criticized by the CDF – in which case it’s a blunder on the part of the NYRB, because that order is not part of the LCWR.
Lisa Fullam commented on this phenomenon a while back – the use of photos of sisters in “traditional” habits to represent the membership of the LCWR, who mostly do not dress that way. The problem, of course, is that it’s difficult to find a picture of actual LCWR sisters that looks like a group of nuns, as people still imagine them, rather than just a group of women. (And by “problem” I mean editorial problem. I don’t think the nondescript appearance of contemporary women religious is a threat to the faith, but I know there are many who do.)
Mollie,
I think the “blunder” verges on exploitation.
You say: “I don’t think the nondescript appearance of contemporary women religious is a threat to the faith.”
I assure you I don’t either. “The faith” is made of sterner stuff. But there are other reasons for regretting “nondescript appearance.”
Poor editing or intentional obfuscation? Whatever, it was journalistically poor and inaccurate to run this photo with that story.
But I would welcome comments not so much on Wills rhetoric but his essential charge– at least as far as I’ve read — about the manner and method of this process. I wonder, Robert Imbelli, if you think it merited or if your analysis would be closer to Thomas Reese’s about the hierarchy’s continuing loss of status and role in provoking and now implementing the results of this investigation– instigated by…?
But there are other reasons for regretting “nondescript appearance.”
Fr. Imbelli, no doubt. I am waiting for the CDF to tell me what they are.
Exploitation? That presumes the person who chose the art knows that many women religious don’t wear a habit–and ill will. I find that hard to believe.
The problem with the nuns current garb is that it isn’t *distinctive*. They dress like everybody else. When they were given permission in the 60s to eliminate the habits the nuns at C. U. argued back and forth about what to do. Most at that time thought they should retain something distinctive, for instance, distinctive head gear or black and white dresses with a conspicuous Christian pin or something like that.
One of my young nun acquaintances, a pretty and very naive one, decided on lay clothes and went out to explore the world. At a cafe she struck up a conversation with a man who took a shine to her. She was horrified when he invited her to a motel. Then she realized the advantage of the old uniform. She also said that the old habit was an invitation to people to come and talk to nuns about personal, moral problems, which, of course, she was glad to do. I imagine the same thing still happens to priests who wear the Roman collar.
Exploitation? That presumes the person who chose the art knows that many women religious don’t wear a habit–and ill will. I find that hard to believe.
Agree. Many (most) people, including Catholics, are unaware of or uninterested in the stories that get a lot of attention here and on similar web sites.
—–
But there are other reasons for regretting “nondescript appearance.”
Such as?
Perhaps this would have been a better picture for NYRB to use:
http://www.getreligion.org/wp-content/photos/2012/04/nuns-for-choice.jpg
Sr. Margaret Quinn, whom I believe was a Sinsinawa Dominican when she was escorting women into abortion clinics in Chicago.
(Who, not whom. Bet you didn’t have nuns as teachers.)
“I don’t think the nondescript appearance of contemporary women religious is a threat to the faith, but I know there are many who do.”
I think it is none of my business what they choose to wear, just as it is none of their business what I wear.
Sr. Margaret Quinn, whom I believe was a Sinsinawa Dominican when she was escorting women into abortion clinics in Chicago.
————-
Were the women victims of sexual exploitation by priests?
http://www.adultsabusedbyclergy.org/problemwithoutborders.html
From an article about Patrick Wall:
“If they’re going to explore sexually, they’re going to explore with a little girl,” said Wall, a California-based expert on Catholic clergy abuse who now works with victims.
Wall’s perspective on the degree of female abuse is unique. He was a Benedictine monk for 12 years, working as a “fixer” dispatched to tidy up messy sexual problems of priests and laymen at troubled parishes and schools. He said when a girl required surgery after rape, the code was that she needed a “hernia” operation.
In a bizarre twinning, he counselled accused priests and heard confessions from traumatized victims. He also worked on cases where priests impregnated girls then procured abortions for them.
“That is so prevalent, it happens all the time,” he said of the abortion runs, which in part accounts for his belief that teenaged girls are the silent majority of priest-related sexual abuse.
By age 33, Wall deduced most, if not all, of the 195 parishes and hundreds of religious orders in the U.S. employed “fixers” like him to wipe down crime scenes that involved children. He quit religious life in disgust and scoffs at the Vatican’s pledge to better protect boys and girls from its surpliced predators.
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/800312–church-scandal-s-next-wave-abused-girls?bn=1
I agree that Wills’ article is a bit of a screed — but then it’s very short. Is that all the space the NYRB gave him? It would have been interesting to have Wills’ views in a longer piece.
Screed or no, does that make his piece inaccurate (except, of course, that he left out the Girl Scouts)? As long as we’re comparing him to Verdi, isn’t there something Verdian about a plot in which an institution that concentrates on sins of the flesh ultimately finds itself brought down by its own participation in those very sins? (Granted, that sounds more like Puccini’s Scarpia than Verdi perhaps). And having been brought to its knees financially and demographically by the sins of its leaders, resolutely averts its eyes, tries to ignore the problems, and instead seeks to direct the attention of the audience to other targets?
In this piece, Wills may be guilty of seeing only heroes (or heroines, perhaps) and villains. If that’s true, perhaps the real cause of regret is that he’s descending to the simplistic level of those with whom he disagrees.
“perhaps the real cause of regret is that he’s descending to the simplistic level of those with whom he disagrees.”
Nicholas, I submit that those at this level are legion. As countless Verdi heroines would say: “ahimè!”
@Irene, I don’t know of ANY bishops who have spoken publicly in support of the sisters in recent weeks. Likewise, not a SINGLE bishop has distanced himself from the silly investigation of the Girl Scouts, an act on behalf of the whole USCCB. No bishop spoke in favor of the Obama administration’s change of course on contraception.
I think it is only reasonable to infer that, in fact, no matter what they might say in private, all the bishops in fact agree with all these steps. I’ve heard bishops speak differently in private, but they must have been lying.
The only charitable alternative I can come up with–if this is charitable–is to infer that the moderate bishops think that the apparent unity of the USCCB, regardless of how radical its actions and statements may be, is more important than standing in solidarity with unimportant people like women and girls. That’s the best I can come up with.
So, screed though Wills’ piece may sound like (I only read the free part, so can’t speak to the whole article,) I’m glad so many regular folks are standing up for the sisters. Bishops won’t.
” — who declared herself superior for life — ”
Is she Korean?
“The problem with the nuns current garb is that it isn’t *distinctive*. They dress like everybody else. ”
From what I have read (and I am willing to be severly chastened, but not with a ruler across the knuckles) many if not most uncloistered sisters/nuns dressed contemporaneous with women of their time.
BTW, above I meant to ask if she is North Korean.
Darn, I need to proof myself better. “many if not most uncloistered sisters/nuns dressed contemporaneous with women of their time WHEN THEIR ORDERS WERE FOUNDED.”
I may have introduced the word “screed” on this blog, but that does not diminish my fundamental rational and emotional agreement with Wills and my deepening (something I wouldn’t have believed possible!) disilluionment with any hierarchical leadership in America. I know they’ve supported some important controversial legislation with immigrants and penal reform, but every time I say, “This goes over the top!”, they top themselves. The Girl Scout thing is just another. And, as has been noted, I have not heard one bishop even even defend them– let alone the women religious.
The long winter continues….how many will seek warmer climes…?
I went to the public library, read all the paragraphs, saw the erroneous photo, and thought the article was correct. Now, I find the article and comments available at this link
http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2012/apr/24/bullying-nuns/
—-
The erroneous photo has been replaced with a photo of Adrian associates.
I still agree with the article.
—-
Apparently, we still don’t know which people instigated this reproof and inimical receivership. Some bishops have praised the Sisters recently. None have scolded their fellow bishops for their tactics. Could it partly be that the USCCB has a recurrent problem, namely that some bishops complain about something (religion textbooks, music, architecture, Girl Scouts, Doctors without Borders), and as a result the complainers are appointed as a committee to work on the topic?
Joe McMahon
“The erroneous photo has been replaced with a photo of Adrian associates.”
Once again: testimony to the influence of dotCom!