A sister responds to the visitation
The cover story in our latest issue is a response from an (anonymous) American sister to the Vatican’s visitation and “doctrinal assessment” of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious. It probably won’t surprise you that she’s not entirely pleased.
I want to offer my own view, as an ordinary member of a congregation that belongs to the LCWR, of what is happening to American sisters.
Let me begin by saying that I want to believe in the good will of the institutional church. An essential part of my commitment to Christ is a belief in the holiness of the church; that is what I professed when I took my vows. For me, religious life outside the structure of the institutional church is hardly imaginable. I love the church. I love its vision of God, its Scriptures and sacraments, its heritage, its tradition of faithful change, its saints and thinkers. I believe in its mission and future.
Yet my reaction to the visitation, and especially to the prospect of “doctrinal assessment,” contains more than a little skepticism. While I’m glad for a chance to “let Rome know the truth” about our lives and our devotion to Christ, I can’t help suspecting that those behind these initiatives are not primarily interested in the quality of my spiritual life. To put it bluntly, I feel that American women religious are being bullied. The fact that the visitation is apparently being paid for by anonymous donors, and that the leaders of our communities will not be permitted to see the investigative reports that issue from it, does not engender trust. And indeed, the dynamics of the visitation and investigation so far have been experienced by women religious as secretive, unfriendly, and one-sided.
Please read the whole thing. (And then you might want to check out another response in the current issue of America — that’s next on my own reading list.)
The distrust running through the Commonweal piece is disheartening. It’s a shame the anonymous author was not able to muster a more charitable assessment of Rome’s motives.
Btw, as I write this comment, the advertisement directly above the “Leave a Reply” box promotes “VOTF National Conference / Making Our Voices Heard”, featuring Sr. Joan Chittister, O.S.B. The ad features a head shot of Sr. Joan, sans habit and looking every inch (from the shoulders up, anyway) the liberated nun, complete with bookshelf in the background to lend the academic touch. I doubt that event will win new friendship from Rome for American women religious. Looking over here all the way from Italy, it’s difficult to see a frail woman in her ’80′s working in a soup kitchen or among the Alaskan natives, but it’s all too easy to see an ad on the Internet featuring a public appearance by Sr. Joan. From Rome’s perspective, it seems plausible that Sr. Joan is the face – literally – of American women religious. It’s the kind of impression that, repeated often enough over time, may lead someone back in Rome to conclude that a visitation may be in order.
…Jim, surely you’re not saying that the existence of sisters who are academics and don’t wear habits justifies investigation from Rome?
Jim: You’re not doing yourself any favors by complaining about Sr. X’s lack of charity while claiming Joan Chittister’s head shot makes her look “every inch the liberated nun.”
I didn’t make myself clear if I came across as complaining. It’s entirely possible that she’s more than justified in her pessimism. That pessimism is worth commenting on, though.
Mollie – no, the existence of sisters who are academics and don’t wear habits doesn’t, of itself, justify investigation from Rome. But when that academic sister is probably the most well-known of all American sisters, and her reputation is that of relentless critic of the church, cultivated at many public appearances and many writings over many years – it paints a picture.
Whatever the origination, merits or ultimate outcome of the visitation, it can’t be thought -can it? – that it dropped out of a clear blue sky for no reason and with no provocation.
Jim – have you read any of the articles or the book by Ken Briggs on American sisters and how they have been treated by the bishops?
Did you see the suggestions on how this “investigation” could have been approached in terms of a partnership? Read the post below that has some excellent comments including a link to a priceless picture of the “good” Vincentian Cardinal who is leading this “investigation” but calling it by some other euphemism.
Here is a link to a suggested survey that might have helped: http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/sister-surveys-what-might-have-been
Like many current and recent initiatives from Rome, this one has the same stamp – not well thought out; ignores the on-going history and personnel who helped direct some of the Vatican II initiatives and their impact on religious communities, the church, etc. Instead, we get an almost knee jerk reaction over the last 5 years by folks who seem more than willing to either ignore the last 45 years or dismiss the last 45 years as an error filled blimp in the continuity of the magisterium. There seems to be “fear” factor motivating these moves and of course a denial when asked or called on these moves e.g. reform of the reform.
What is just amazing is the lack of understanding in terms of their own loss of credibility; focusing on issues that have little to do with the major gospel imperatives facing today’s world, peoples, and the church.
If one reads any history(ies) of the sisterhood in the US, one finds out quite quickly that the relationships between the various communities and the local as well as international hierarchy have been a history of conflict, misunderstanding, ebbing and flowing, and a macrocosm of that ongoing tensions within the church even (nay, especially) today. There is constant tension between individual freedom and investigation, and magisterial hierarchy. Hierarchy wants to ensure orthodoxy and control, and various religious subsets within the church want to follow the charisms of their founders as they are adapted to fit changing times.
Women’s (and men’s) religious communities are founded, grow, proper and eventually wane even to the point of disappearing. This seems to be a reasonably natural lifespan for particular groups, based on the scope of their charism, the depth of their ability to live it out and the willingness of the membership to continue to live within the natural tension between authority and freedom.
The current situation, as with so many that have arisen in the history of church sturm und drang, simply bears out the wisdom of soon-to-be St. John Henry Newman:
“Half the controversies in the world are verbal ones; and could they be brought to a plain issue, they would be brought to a prompt termination. Parties engaged in them would then perceive either that in substance they agreed together, or that their difference was one of first principles. We need not dispute, we need not prove, we need but define. At all events, let us, if we can, do this first of all and then see who are left for us to dispute; what is left for us to prove.”
Unfortunately, the way in which so many “investigations” by the male hierarchy are implemented seems to bear out this:
“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is contempt prior to investigation,” Herbert Spencer.
Please see these links to the USCCB statement for the LCWR and Bishop Sean O’Malley….are things beginning to change:
http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2009/09-194.shtml
http://www.usccb.org/cl/LCWR%20091001.pdf
BTW – the exhibition on the history of the sisters is currently in Dallas at Fair Park – the state fair is going on there. It is excellent and it is difficult to view this exhibition and understand what Rohde is trying to do.
-I was deeply touched by the reality of the person speaking these thoughts – how sad that it had to be anonymous – an indictment of the leadership of our Church.
–I was shocked(despite a kind of apologia) by Jim Pauwels com,ent initially – i wondere dwhat kind of person he was and did he basically stand for the institution/status quo/defending teh powers that be?
Another sadness.
I can se why so many can walk away (despite belief in Christ, spirituality and ,yes, even sacraments) from the institution.
Seems to me we’ve seen a number of pieces by nuns named .The anger towards their hierachy and theri confidence in their fidelity to Our lord rings true – the critics who shout lines about obedience ( a topic we’ve been over) sound hollow and defensive of a Church that can’t practice its own values internally
What’s more sad is the anger reaches out beyond on other mattesr including gays, sex abuse by clerdgy and more its management, and the whole role of women. People listen not for directives butwhat rings honest.
In the midst of all the bitter polarization over the past few years, both within the Church and outside – a leader seems to be defining himself – and one that keeps drawing me in each time I hear/read his comments. Pray for Cardinal Sean, his voice of moderation finds comfort and hope for me.
A simple answer to the question: “Why Is Rome Investigating U.S. Nuns?” is this: because they CAN, folks.
Sisters have learned the sad way that to speak up is to court disaster: Theresa Kane and Jeannine Grammick come to mind instantly. A lot more names would undoubtedly pop up if I devoted another 45 to 60 seconds to the enquiry. But thebn I’d be even more depressed by this rampant exercise in authoritarianism than I already am.
Jimmy Mac:
You only need one name, that of Mary MacKillop.
–overwhelmingly sufficent to make your point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_MacKillop
How often has Jim Pauwels thoughtfully sought out the via media on this blog? And yet one clear disagreement with the left is enough to unleash a storm of opprobrium.
The article by Sr. Ilia in America is riveting. She started out as a traditional nun and then changed when she saw problems with it. She gives a thorough explanation of the development of religious sisters since Vatican II. Well worth the read.
Jim P. –
Let’s assume you’re a businessman, and the District Attorney says he’s initiating an investigation of your business, but gives no particulars as to why. He says that an anonymous donor, not his office will pay for it. When the investigation is complete, you will not be given a copy of the investigators’ report. Later he asks you to pay for the investigation yourself.
What would you think of such a D.A.?
Ann, is your metaphor apt? I would think that this visitation is more like an audit of a branch of a business by the central office. Standard operating procedure.
Kathy
In your proposed illustration is the audit standard operating procedure in the sense that it is a routine which requires no special justification and implies no special concern about the branch office in question? If so, your illustration is not apt.
How often has Jim Pauwels thoughtfully sought out the via media on this blog? And yet one clear disagreement with the left is enough to unleash a storm of opprobrium.
Let’s dial that down: One unclear reference to the clothing and professional status of Sr. Joan Chittister provokes confusion about what point Jim is trying to make. There, that’s much more accurate. Now let’s please focus on responding to the article and the issues it raises…
The business metaphor would seem out of place in an ecclesial sphere, unless one wants to bring up the taint of immoral and unjust practices by executives, and the historically callous treatment of employees, retirees, and consumers.
I’m not sure Jim is advocating for the via media in this instance. While I’m sure some Catholics rejoice in this persecution, for them, this might indeed be the middle way between sneering jokes in a substrate of indifference and outright excommunication. In actuality, a middle way would be a mutual exploration by women religious leaders and members of the hierarchy who are intelligent and informed. I sure don’t see any willingness to do this from the men involved.
If the point is to support fruitfulness in religious life, it doesn’t appear the conditions set by Cardinal Rode are designed to do that at all. Given the saintly witness of women religious through the centuries, it would seem that the Vatican’s business-as-usual approach leaves much to be desired–but not a large dollop of trust. A harassment in search of a cause. in other words.
The analysis I’ve read in the print media seems to indicate the Congregation and its Visitors are a bit in over their heads on this one. It has all the makings of yet another public relations disaster for the Vatican.
I liked the analysis on the complementary approaches of communio and consilium. Maybe the cardinal and his congregation need a metanoia to conversatio from incommunicado.
What seems to be missing from this Commonweal piece, and from most of the other responses I’ve read by US women religious to the visitation, is any sense of introspection or reflection: that perhaps their houses, taken as a whole, aren’t completely in order; that they, like the rest of us, may be called to conversion; and that this visitation, despite its imperfections, could be taken in that positive light – as a chance to reflect and renew. One can note that without denigrating women religious; and while celebrating their many accomplishments; and while agreeing that the process for the visitation could be more collaborative.
Sister X recaps the reasons given for the visitation: “Cardinal Rodé told LCWR officers that “concerns” had been expressed on issues ranging from living arrangements to the lack of new vocations to the public positions some women religious take on topics such as women’s ordination, homosexuality, and abortion.”
I believe the Cardinal. Probably, those really are the Vatican’s concerns. Why should those things concern them? Well, they didn’t invent them out of thin air: there have been multiple and well-publicized instances of women religious deviating from the ideal on all of those areas, and more besides. Are those well-publicized instances indicative of the actual state of life of women religious, or are they isolated deviations from the norm? I could guess an answer to that question, but not being one who lives the life of women religious every day, it would just be a guess – I don’t really know. And neither does Rome. Hence the visitation. It’s not to harass or punish or exert patriarchal authority. It’s to see what is really going on here. Perhaps it’s part investigation, part audit, part dialogue. The point of the exercise is to see what’s going on.
What does Rome want of women religious? One answer – not the only possible answer, but one – is provided by the santoral calendar today. It’s the feast of Blessed Marie-Rose Durocher, a woman of the New World who struggled to live her vocation, not the least because of difficult, insensitive and meddling men. Not everything in her life can or should be emulated, of course, But her life provides one touchstone for women religious today. It’s one model by which women religious can reflect on their own lives and vocations.
Mollie – thanks. I am always amused by ultramontane folks who state that the church is not a democracy (when the issue is politics) and is not a business (when the issues touch in that area). Yet, how easily do they reach for a metaphor from those areas if it meets their need.
My points – “audit” is a euphemism for this investigation.
- I personally go through roughly 20 audits a year for state insurance, federal compliance, etc. These are annual with clear goals, metrics, measuring standards, systems outlined beforehand, with clear, transparent reports, etc.
- the church is starting to have to meet audit requirements e.g. abuse training (even if it is a self report to a church appointed board) and financial reports (again, varies by dioceses and whether they use outside independent auditors)
- in behavioral health, we use what is called a “systems approach” – what that means is the you do not solely focus on a singular patient, employee, department. If there are issues/problems, you can usually find that the system has been set up improperly, management is not addressing the system, and the focus is on improving the system; not blaming individuals. It means that management takes responsibility for improvements, etc.
- There is an excellent article today in NCR about the tension between a hierarchical approach and a partnership (system approach) using the terms “engagement” and “confrontation”. This article aptly applies to this “audit” (to use the euphemism). Link: http://ncronline.org/news/politics/signals-rome-engagement-and-confrontation
would suggest that Rome and even the USCCB is sending mixed messages between the extremes
- Ann – you are good at surfacing clear cut legal distinctions. Would suggest that any cursory review of JPII’s Code of Canon Law (can access via Aquinas Institute in STL) and the sections for “due process”; rights of catholics; rights of religious institutes would surface many discrepanices in terms of this “audit”
- am also bewildered by the fact that 95% of the US sisters belong to LCWR which now has its own “audit”….yet, the auditors come from the 5% that refuse to partner with LCWR. What does that say?
- finally, what is the purpose of an audit when 80% of the sisters are over the age of 65 – audits point to the future. Investigations point to the past.
Jim, I think most of us are willing to discuss your concerns and your last post gives a bit more traction.
Personally, I don’t get the sense that because the women didn’t bear their souls in the America or commonweal pieces, that introspection and reflection isn’t part of the substrate here. A reading of CCC 2478 would seem to presume we take them at their word. The women religious I know are generally healthy spiritually, and I have no reason to suspect this is a deviation from a norm.
Given the aura of suspicion, I’d say the kind of public vulnerability you say is missing would be the object of ridicule, or at minimum a curious scrutiny. If you, as a member of the via media, are analyzing the background of a Joan Chittister headshot, I can only imagine what a published group introspection would inspire from the wingnut Right. That’s the main reason why you won’t likely see anything deep and substantive in print.
I have no reason not to believe the cardinal either, nor that some in the Vatican are concerned. In a conversatio, such suspicions and concerns would themseloves be subject to discernment and scrutiny.
As I understand the rumors from Rome, the report on the visitation has the working title, Should Nuns Have Perms?
Surely we could all put our houses in order, but the point is the selectivity of this “visitation>’
Maybe we need a visitation of deacons, the curia, Cardinal Rohde or commonweal bloggers.
There is broad anger and mistrust about what has happened from the top down – trying to put it ina best light or with a better face is another way of just trying to support an awful status quo.
For what it’s worth: the Instrumentum Laboris is available for anyone to read. It contains an explanation of the process, and the survey questions themselves. It’s a brief document – it can be read through in just a few minutes.
http://www.apostolicvisitation.org/en/news/resources/InstrumentumLaboris.pdf
Sister X’s concerns about the survey process are well noted. At the same time, in my opinion, looking at the document as an outsider, I can’t help but think that she could have interpreted it more positively, or at the very least, neutrally.
For example: there is nothing in the process that states that results, after they have been compiled and delivered, won’t be shared with the various orders or their superiors; it simply states that the results of the survey will be kept confidential until they are delivered. There are good reasons why such sensitive data should be kept confidential – primarily, we should assume, so that the sisters responding to the survey will feel comfortable talking freely and candidly with Visitors.
The process also states, as Sister X noted, that diocesan bishops will also be surveyed. I’m aware that there are specific instances of tension and conflict between orders and local bishops. Nevertheless, bishops have an obligation to oversee the church activities in their diocese, and indeed in the church throughout the world. At some level, there needs to be collaboration between bishop and order; and as a practical matter, many active religious sisters will find themselves working for the bishop as a result of their ministry, in schools, hospitals, social service agencies, and so on. The Visitation could be an opportunity for sisters, and bishops, to reflect on their relationship, and see what can be done to improve it.
I will make a prediction: this Visitation will identify some problem areas and opportunities for improvement. It will also accumulate much evidence of good work being done by religious sisters in the US. The sisters probably won’t get an A+, but neither will they get an F. That seems about right to me.
Hi, Todd, and everyone who has been trying to engage me in conversation – I’ll try to respond directly to your comments later today or tomorrow.
“There is broad anger and mistrust about what has happened from the top down – trying to put it in a best light or with a better face is another way of just trying to support an awful status quo.”
Indeed. I don’t know, and most commentators here don’t either, I’m sure, how Sister X interpreted this document. The essay in question had a particular focus, and I don’t fault her focus anymore than I fault Panis Angelicus for mentioning “bread” three times and “Body of Christ” none. The essay has a context within this particular situation.
That said, it seems clear that Vatican II’s hermeneutic of reform and renewal has not been taken to heart fully by all parts of the Body. Women religious have generally been more faithful to letter and spirit of the council than, say, bishops as a whole. Poll bishops of any number and ask if they, for example, could articulate the points of Christus Dominus. That would be illustrative, at the very least.
As for trouble areas in the Church, a competent hierarchy would surely be addressing issues more damaging to the Body and its morale than one religious sister speaking of some sort of “post-Christian” witness. Lots of Catholics seem all too ready to point the finger elsewhere and suggest, “They’re all screwed up!” when a mature discernment would begin with the self and move elsewhere with a sound religious dialogue.
The best thing to come of all this would be the same thing that should happen to the new RM translation: blow it up and start from scratch with whatever communion can be salvaged from the mess. That you know this won’t happen speaks more to the calcification and close-mindedness of the hierarchy, who are ordained and appointed, after all, to be servants in the mode of Christ. What we get instead are milquetoasts masquerading as masters giving us a more muddied mess.
BTW, I just noticed the cross around Sister Joan’s neck. I mean, wassup with that??!!
Sorry, David, we’ve been told not to analyze headshots anymore, so I can’t encourage you further – otherwise, I’d suggest you get your magnifying glass out and check out some of the titles on that bookshelf.
“Women religious have generally been more faithful to letter and spirit of the council than, say, bishops as a whole. ”
Wow! I’d need to see a lot of evidence to accept that claim. Maybe the Visitation will uncover it.
“Personally, I don’t get the sense that because the women didn’t bear their souls in the America or commonweal pieces, that introspection and reflection isn’t part of the substrate here. ”
Fair enough. If it were happening, maybe it would at least rate a mention – without any soul-bearing – but who knows?
“Given the aura of suspicion, I’d say the kind of public vulnerability you say is missing would be the object of ridicule, or at minimum a curious scrutiny. If you, as a member of the via media, are analyzing the background of a Joan Chittister headshot, I can only imagine what a published group introspection would inspire from the wingnut Right. That’s the main reason why you won’t likely see anything deep and substantive in print.”
Btw, I should disclaim any ownership stake in the via media (although I appreciate the kind words with which it was attributed to me). The via I generally travel is the via muddle-thru-ia.
You may be right about sisters being reluctant to show vulnerability. Yet they do risk attacks form the wing-nut right every time one of their members engages in a public act of dissent. I believe this is probably the most important reason they are now saddled with this visitation.
“Did you see the suggestions on how this “investigation” could have been approached in terms of a partnership?”
Yes. And actually, looking through the Instrumentum Laboris, while it isn’t a partnership by any means, there are areas of mutual collaboration and cooperation – areas that, for whatever reason, Sister X didn’t mention in her article.
Ultimately, though, a partnership just isn’t reality.
Ann’s analogy is right on target.
And I think we are dealing with a prosecutor who is far too sure he knows what any investigation might reveal to be trusted. Last September Cardinal Rode delivered a speech at a Conference at Stonehill College in which he made clear what is wrong with sisters in apostolic work choosing to modify the way they live to better serve their mission. He had it all down pat before anyone ever saw the “Instrumentum Laboris.” The title of his talk was “Reforming Religious Life with the Right Hermeneutic.” (Accent on “right.”)
http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/2008/09/rode-at-stonehill.html
On the same program, Sr. Sara Butler offered a long and painfully detailed account of what went wrong with apostolic religious life in the U. S. and what might be done about it. She also seems to have known beforehand just what the Visitation was supposedly designed to reveal.
http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/2008/09/butler-at-stonehill.html
Cardinal O’Malley was present on this occasion. It is good to see that he was not so dazzled by the wisdom put forward by the speakers then as to fail to speak up for the sisters, now. Bill DeHaas above linked to the supportive letter on behalf of the sisters written by O’ Malley as Chair of the USCCB Committee on Clergy, Consecrated Life and Vocations. Do read it.
The letter was a good start, as the Bishops have been shamefully quiet on this matter. One of the three action points in the USCCB Mission Statement is to “act collaboratively and consistently on vital issues confronting the Church and society.” It would be heartening to see them commit to seeing that the sisters are dealt with justly. Justice for these admirable women is a vital issue for the U.S. church, and a cause for which it would be only reasonable to expect strong support.from our Bishops.
“You may be right about sisters being reluctant to show vulnerability. Yet they do risk attacks form the wing-nut right every time one of their members engages in a public act of dissent. I believe this is probably the most important reason they are now saddled with this visitation.”
Jim – in total agreement with your statement and you have probably provided one strong reason for this “audit.”
Here is a quote from a recent article in Canada by Ted Schmidt: ” …. know of no diocese which has sponsored any type of serious renewal which has taken into consideration the explosion of lay theological literacy, which has understood that the voice of women and the place of women flagged by Pope John XXlll in 1963 was an authentic “sign of the times”, new wisdom inbreaking in history. Other “signs” such as the voice of the earth and deeper understandings of human sexuality also needed to be integrated within a church which had described itself as “semper reformanda”, (always in a process of renewal).
“Women will not tolerate being instruments but demand rights befitting a human person both in domestic and public life.” Pope John wrote in 1963 .In 1971 at the synod of Bishops, the episcopacy acknowledged the obvious about its own credibility on this key issue: “While the Church is bound to give witness to justice , she recognizes that everyone who ventures to speak to people about justice must first be just in their eyes.”The failure to seriously address this neuralgic issue has been central to Catholic alienation.
Privately many of these bishops are deeply embarrassed by the misogyny of the present church but in my judgment they are caught between loyalty to Roman benefactors and a truth so obvious as to be beyond discusssion. Any bishop who deviates from the Roman line here will be dismissed in some way. And so the silence, the circling of the wagons and the fear of consulting the laity.
This abnormal fear of listening to lay experience has resulted in what one theologian calls “creeping infallibilism,” reserving teaching simply to the Petrine office because one fears the result of deep listening.”,…….Ted Schmidt
My input:
At a family reunion this summer, spent over an hour speaking with my second cousin, the retired bishop of Amarillo, Texas. He basically felt that the US church stopped implementing and growing when its attempt to write a position paper on the role of women in the church met both Roman resistance and revealed deep differences within the NCCB such that they could no longer agree on a common approach.
Just to add some other side lines:
- Pope just recognized Mother Angelica and EWTN …..not sure how that jives with this “audit”…I, for one, would not interpret her efforts as meeting the signs of the times so much as hindering Vatican II
- believe the Pope will canonize Sister Jurgan at St. Peter’s soon…..interesting life of a female community founder who was fraudently demoted from her position for years; whose reputation was attacked for years by the psychotic machinations of a cleric, bishop, etc…..now being noted because of her calm and peaceful response to this outrage??? (interesting interpretation) does this mean that public anger at wrongs is not allowed?
- we do have an honest to goodness “investigation” going on – into the LC/RC fiasco. Now that truly is not an audit but it is happening at the same time. Appearances at times can be hurtful as can unintended comparisons.
I think this discussion could benefit from the input of a person who has lived and worked in Rome, and is familiar with Vatican-speak. I have a few friends who have lived, worked, and taught in Rome and they rarely take what comes out of the Vatican at face value. It seems that the Vatican never says directly what it is up to in matters such as these, and what it does say does not communicate what it is really up to. Perhaps David Gibson or someone else, who is familiar with Vatican-speak, would like to weigh in here and translate for us the Vatican’s stated purpose in the visitation of congregations of women religious in the US.
Jim P. I don’t want to jump all over you, but just for the record a couple of observations seem in order after your comments on Sr. Joan Chittister’s picture. First of all, nuns are in general better educated and read more books than either priests or bishops. Having books in the background of her picture is appropriate, I don’t know why not. Second, her face is just the sort of face that many people recognize in a positive way as the face of women religious whom they know as exemplars of faith, hope and charity. Everybody I know can pick out a nun without a habit.
There is a story I heard in the past year (from a good source) about a parade in which there was a commemoration of the founding of the Sisters of Charity, and everybody wore historic dress, so a nun appeared in Mother Seton’s habit. A young child was standing with a sister he knew and turned to her, “Who is that?” he said. The sister answered, “She’s a nun.” The child said “No she’s not. Where’s her pin?”
Bill deH –
What does the “STL” in “Aquimas institute in STL” stand for?
Yes, the issue here does seem to be a matter of due process. The Curia seems to have no understanding that due process is required by justice, especially in a Christian institution. The sisters plight reminds me of ST. Paul when dealing with formless accusations made by the Jewish leaders — he had to appeal to the Romans, the pagans with a respect for law and justice, to get even the hope of a fair hearing. (kind of like the children abused in the sex scandal.)
When will the Curia face the fact that the great majority of American Catholics have reason not to expect justice from it?
Hi, Rita, having read your comment, I don’t feel jumped-all-over, and so I thank you for your forebearance :-)
I can certainly understand that folks would take my comments about Sister Joan Chittister as criticizing how she looks, but honestly, I don’t believe I did. I commented that she doesn’t have a habit, and that she has books in the background – which really does befit an academic (which I believe she is). Really, she looks just fine :-). When I said she’s “every inch a modern nun” or whatever I wrote, it’s because she looks just like virtually all of the other religious sisters I’ve encountered in the last 20 years.
I don’t know how Rome feels about religous women being educated. I’d think that anyone who thinks about it for more than a few seconds would have to acknowledge that educated women religious are a tremendous blessing for the church (and American society as a whole), particularly when you consider the scope and complexity of some of their modern apostolates, like some of the gigantic health care delivery organizations they run – not to mention their contributions as academics, and all of the other blessings that flow from education. At the same time, I’d think that Rome isn’t pleased with religious women who continually advocate for (to pick an issue) the ordination of women, and probably wonders whether, if being immersed in the university environment empowers that kind of activism, it’s really an unmixed blessing.
Religious habits (meaning the headdress) speak to a whole complex of characteristics, like institutional loyalty and discipline, that I suspect Rome values, admires in contemporaries like Mother Angelica, suspects has dwindled precipitously among American women religious since the Council, and would like to find a way to rekindle.
Sorry, Ann. It stands for St. Louis.
Would agree that some Vatican input might be helpful….one of Jim’s points is that folks such as Teresa Kane, etc. probably broke the unspoken rule of “Romanita”.
In terms of habits again, find it interesting that some of the bishops in Rome currently at the Synod on Africa cite issues with women religious communities in which the superior takes on the air and authority of a “European” or male in their relationship and decisions regarding their own communities. This is creating friction and division especially among younger women who come out of different cultures and backgrounds. So, we already know that womens’ communities in Africa have been subjected to sexual abuse by clerics/bishops and now this new issue. But, Rome investigates the US women?
“… to the public positions some women religious take on topics such as women’s ordination, homosexuality, and abortion.”
Women’s ordination again. Amazing that the strongest argument against women is that Jesus had only men as apostles. And Jews to boot. So there certainly were no Poles, Germans, Irish nor Italians to name a few. I guess a lot of ordinations are invalid.
It seems to me that the issue is not the same ole male domination theory. Otherwise, the seminary visitation would not have been held prior to this one.
Actually the issue, istm, is a more interesting one, and that is whether all are called to be teachers. According to St. Paul there are many gifts, and there cannot be envy among them.
The questions at hand are whether the charitable arm of the Church, instead of tending to its own proper work, has also tried to be the teaching arm of the Church, and whether that has gone well.
Overly simplistic….define “teaching” – it includes listening, engaging, motivating, calling forth, etc. You tend to see it as a hierarchical role.
Vatican II included teaching in many roles – lay, theology teachers, bishops, pastors, etc.
You teach by example whether you be male or female; you teach as a teacher; as a ethics hospital director, a pastoral associate (male or female).
You have twice mentioned the seminary study – what does that have to do with this “audit” (to use your euphemism). If they are equivalent, then why isn’t Rode limiting himself to just looking at how womens’ religious communities recruit, train, and vow their members?
You have confused apples and oranges.
This was one of the relatively few negative general findings of the seminary visitation:
“Quite often, the visitation discovered one or more faculty members who, although not speaking openly against Church teaching, let the students understand — through hints, off-the-cuff remarks, etc. — their disapproval of some articles of magisterial teaching.”
Sister X is getting herself unnecessarily into a twist.
Nothing will happen. Absolutely nothing! The visitation is window dressing – designed to scare the pants off everyone!
Best advice – head down girls. Sooner or later they will smoke off! good riddance at that.
Wait wait wait — I thought the whole problem with Catholicism in this country stemmed from not having enough nuns in teaching orders to staff Catholic elementary schools! Teaching and charity are separate arms now?
“Actually the issue, istm, is a more interesting one, and that is whether all are called to be teachers. According to St. Paul there are many gifts, and there cannot be envy among them.
“The questions at hand are whether the charitable arm of the Church, instead of tending to its own proper work, has also tried to be the teaching arm of the Church, and whether that has gone well.”
I do think there is something to this. The way I’d formulate it is: Rome (I suspect) would like non-contemplative women religious out in the world, being signs of God’s kingdom, and leading and supporting the laity in their great work of announcing and building up that kingdom. They would do this as Bill D. suggests – by teaching, listening, directing, counseling, encouraging, etc.
When religious spend an inordinate amount of their time and energy on internal church matters, are they building up the kingdom? Or, when their interaction with the laity involves undercutting what the church teaches, is that helping to fulfill the church’s mission? (Not rhetorical questions).
According to St. Paul there are many gifts, and there cannot be envy among them.
It may be true than not everyone is able to teach, but this should not be confused with what Paul was referring to in 1 Cor 12. He speaks of spiritual gifts, charisms, given at baptism for the good of the community, not natural or talents or abilities. The charisms are given by the Spirit to manifest the Spirit for the common good.
That should be “not natural talents or abilities.”
Isn’t the visitation an “internal church matter” on which these religious will “spend an inordinate amount of their time and energy”? I think that is a principal objection to it. Time and energy will be expended during and following the visitation, unless the sisters get an A+. Probably more after, since establishing stronger bonds with the bishops will almost certainly be a recommendation. (that is, spend more time and energy on internal church matters rather than concentrate on ministerial charisms)
If this process looks at who teaches in the Church, that would be a welcome development imo. Do members of the Order of Preachers, popularly known as Dominicans, have a role in the Church’s teaching? How about St E. Ann Seton’s order? Could the Church of Benedict XVI divide the teaching of truth from the ministry of charity like that? Affirming the religious of this country in their dedication to these roles has to be one of the accomplishments of these visitations.
Sorry, Mollie, you’re right, that was confusing.
Teaching kids is one of the spiritual works of mercy. Historically it’s one of the kindest, most class-leveling activities of the Church. Maybe health care is historically #1, or feeding the poor. Either way it’s one of the things we’re great at.
Historically, though, these charitable activities have been distinct from big-T Teaching, which in the Catholic T/tradition has been a philosophical-theological process of deduction from principles.
Unlike Kathy, I see more than a few negative comments in the report on the seminary visitation. It is the negativity of that report that generates some of the anxiety associated with these investigations. (there are two aren’t there? a general visitation of non-contemplative sisters, and a doctrinal investigation of the LCWR? or am I as confused as I often am?)
If magisterial teaching is not being received by many of the those dedicated to Christian perfection, that needs to be known by the hierarchy. For example, if there are a significant number of sisters who believe that their call to perfection includes a call to ordination, how does the magisterium reconcile that with their teaching? I am not talking about idle conversation around a dinner table, but the heartfelt conviction of someone committed to Christ and the Church discerned under the guidance of spiritual directors. Not a lapsed Catholic idly speculating, but a person dedicated to perfection in Christian charity who is experienced with discernment finding Christ’s voice calling in her heart.
I hope a significant part of any consideration of the relations between magisterium and sisters will focus on the hierarchy and their openness to the voice of God discerned in Christian hearts. My fear is that it will not be.
“Quite often, the visitation discovered one or more faculty members who, although not speaking openly against Church teaching, let the students understand — through hints, off-the-cuff remarks, etc. — their disapproval of some articles of magisterial teaching.”
What a statement and, guess, by osmosis we can see that this might be a result of this “audit”. Am always surprised by the need of authority out of fear, need to control, who knows what sinks to the level of Catholic McCarthyism. Who decided what faculty disapproved of magisterial teaching; what is the role of dissent; what is the role of religious and teaching freedom – hints and off the cuff remarks. Geez, talking about due process; acting on rumor, suggestions, second and third hand reports. Sounds more like an investigative body that had the power to go outside of due process; potentially ruin someone’s career and good name based on what? Wonder if that same concern is not shared by some of the sisters.
Thought that Vatican II had basically negated the earlier fear driven isms called “Americanism” and “Modernism” ……that’s right, we are still caught in a time warp.
“When religious spend an inordinate amount of their time and energy on internal church matters, are they building up the kingdom?”
That question is a valid one for anyone: bishop, priest, or lay person. Sometimes it can be a smokescreen for the sentiment, “You’re pestering me too much about my governance. What do you think this is: the judge and the widow?”
In all seriousness, any person involved with the Church should be discerning this. Some people, even non-ordained people, have the spiritual gift of administration, and as such, we are wiser to allow them to utilize that gift.
Also in seriousness, one might well ask the question of cardinals and their interference in the governance of orders of religious. Is this a good use of their time? If they have a message, shouldn’t they invite themselves to gatherings of religious and give it?
“(W)hen their interaction with the laity involves undercutting what the church teaches, is that helping to fulfill the church’s mission?”
Poll the poor, ignorant laity and ask which is the greater scandal to what the Church teaches: bishops harboring clergy sex predators or what women religious are discussing with pewfolk? The history of religious life, especially that of women, is full of the negative witness of the hierarchy. Women like Mary McKillop or Mother Guerin saw a need, and organized other women to respond to it. They spent a lot of time and energy battling red hat politicos and other clerics who, seemingly, had no other response to fulfilling the Church’s mission than sheer envy.
Sister X’s essay contains one passage that should not be allowed to go unchallenged :
“As Sandra Schneiders wrote in the National Catholic Reporter, two theological visions of church and religious life exist within the documents of Vatican II. The council’s statement on the renewal of religious life can be read through the lens of Lumen gentium (church as institution, fortress, and witness to a godless world) or through Gaudium et spes (church as people of God, a pilgrim church uniting believers in the ministry of relieving suffering and promoting the kingdom of God).”
I was not able to find Sr. Sandra’s essay on the NCR website to verify whether this accurately summarizes her views. But in any case, this counterposing of Lumen gentium and Gaudium et spes is not true to the Second Vatican Council. The same bishops voted for the two documents and in all my reading of the history of the Council, I have never found any indication that in the second of these texts they were departing from the ecclesiology of the first one. The very terms in which the two texts are described misrepresent them. Almost every commentary on Lumen gentium that I have read contrasts the conciliar text to a mainly institutional approach to the Church; it emphasizes the Church as a communion and a community, as the People of God, and explores positively the relationship between the Church and people outside the Church in whom it has no hesitation that God is also present and active. In fact, the theme of the Church as a pilgrim Church is far stronger in Lumen gentium than it is in Gaudium et spes, which, by the way, has next to nothing to say about the religious life, which, however, is the subject of an entire chapter in the other conciliar text.
“Historically, though, these charitable activities have been distinct from big-T Teaching, which in the Catholic T/tradition has been a philosophical-theological process of deduction from principles.”
I dislike disagreeing with Kathy this much, particularly in a discussion like this where she gives a valuable perspective. But this statement is just plain false.
Big-T teaching is born out of the inspired preaching in the Church. It is formed in the pulpit, where pastors expounded on the faith for the good of the congregation, and finds its most powerful expression in the same settings today.
It is true that Scholastics used a philosophical deduction from principles as an aid to preaching, just as they have used rhetoric, historical criticism, and other disciplines. (That is why Theology was thought of as the Queen of the Schools, because all other disciplines served her.) It is even true that Scholastic theology was the norm in the Church from the time of Leo XIII.
That does not mean though that the academic and philosophic techniques are the source or are even characteristic of Big-T Teaching. Our Tradition comes more from pastors, inspired by love and concern for their ministry, providing for the people in the pews. And that very close to the ‘charitable’ activities of the teaching institutes that ran schools for Catholic children in the US.
Jim, I don’t think deduction is a uniquely modern-era phenomenon in Big-T teaching. Chrysostom, Augustine, Origen, Basil, any Gregory, Athanasius–all of them are full of careful reasoning from principles. Many of their writings are preaching, either in the pulpit or on paper. In other words, this is old-school pastoral theology. The difference between them and our current pastoral theology is first of all this practice of deduction, and secondly, what is meant by experience. Augustine’s Confessions are not only his personal narrative, but his personal narrative brightly lit up with theological sensibility. This can also be said of the monastic theological strain, if considered separately from the schools.
I don’t think deduction has to be super sophisticated, though, and it certainly doesn’t have to be thickened with the deadening slog of scholastic jargon. I remember a beautiful older parishioner in a parish I once worked at who, when I remarked at her generous service, said, “If I don’t help, I won’t go to heaven!” Which is a perfectly logical deduction from Matthew 25.
Thanks for your kind words, by the way.
A question of logic. There seems to be a presumption underlying the visitation of US apostolic sisters that the decline in religious vocations is tied somehow to contemporary sisters’ dress, opinions on controverted issues of moral theology, etc., and that if “they” would behave as they’re supposed to, women would flood back to religious life.
But…there are numerous “good” religious congregations. Even if one takes their higher admissions numbers as indicating a resurgence of interest in “traditional” forms of religous life, those numbers are still far, far below those of earlier decades. If it were true that older forms of religious life are the siren song that would bring the women back–where are they? Nothing is stopping the tradional orders from welcoming thousands more–they’d rapidly adjust to the new crowds, much as communities did after WWII when vocations increased. This is a false argument.
The real intent of the visitation, I suspect, is less about vocations than about the opinions held by some sisters. As Sister X says, outspoken nuns are threatened by threatening their whole communities. isn’t that why she felt she needed to speak from behind a pseudonym? I’m reminded of the pseudonymous priest who wrote in support of gay priests in America some years ago. Was ordered not to write in his own name for fear of reprisals against his brothers. How sad.
Unfortunately, this issue gives a new and negative connotation to the second Joyful mystery. The Vatican seems a bit tone deaf in calling such investigations visitations. At least we can pray the Rosary, especially that mystery, and hope it all goes well and results in more understanding and reconciliation.
It seems liberal v. conservative, but is it as much about about contempletive v. active orders? Don’t we need both? The gifts of the Holy Spirit are many and varied. We are introverts and extroverts and other shades of personalities — and different and varied political perspectives.
Apparently the Benedictines aren’t being visited, yet they teach and run health care facilities. Whats’s going on?
Re the Benedictines: And, oh yes, they don’t wear habits, at least not the ones I know. I think it is optional, as some of the older ones do. And there seems no division between habit or no habit. They are all Benedictines, including younger ones without habits caring for older ones with habits.
Jim Lein – thank you for your valuable contributions. Hope to see you contributing more to these discussions.
“Bishop Blair was also a member of a bishops’ committee that was scheduled to meet at the University of Notre Dame last year, but moved the meeting off campus to protest a performance of The Vagina Monologues.”
If Sister X and her companions and every order of sisters did not protest the performance of a most salacious, pornographic play at what should be a Catholic universisty dedicated to “Our lady” they have brought a ‘visitation’ on themselves. The Bishops should be applauded for their action, not represented as being anti-women or anti-religious for boycotting the presentation of a play that is degrading of all women.
Another questionable charge leveled by Sister X “their subsidized housing evaporated decades ago, as pastors found alternative uses for convents.” misrepresents who owns and operates convents as most are property of the religious order, not the diocese and not the local pastors. Convents associated with parish school were usually closed or converted to other uses when there were no longer teaching nuns available. In New York religious orders have either closed or consolidated convents and many pastors in our diocese have willingly allowed nuns to solicit funds after Sunday Mass to rehabilitate convents to make them suitable for more or an older population of residents.
Do women religious have rights?
Before God and the State, Yes.
Before the Vatican, No!
Who is right and just?
To change the direction from the ridiculous and unsubstansiated claims of Mosman. Here is an excellent article about the current exhibition traveling the USA about the history of sisters in the USA.
From the Dallas Diocesan paper: The Texas Catholic, written by the editor: http://www.texascatholic.com/default.asp?nodeid=833
Do women religious have rights?
Back in the 1950s, when I was studying Canon Law, we were taught that religious (male or female) are considered minors by the law. “The only right you have as a religious,” said our professor, “is to decide where you want to be buried.” Of course the Code of Canon Law has been changed since then; I do not know what the current status of religious is under the law. Anyone have an update?
Mr.DeHaas,
Please advise which if the two statements you found ridiculous, which unsubstantiated and why since both were acurate. I refer you to the full text of the Vagina Momologues and after you have read it please confirm that you truly believe them suitable for religious, priests, Bishops and a supposedly Catholic University to hear, air and champion. Personally I don’i recall Catholic teaching on morality, Chastity, purity in thoughts words and deeds having been replaced by acceptance of obscenity and depravity. Perhaps you could cite the source for this change.
This is not the place to debate The Vagina Monologues.
Ms. Mollie Wilson O’Reilly,
Of course it isn’t! But obviously you missed Sister X’s use of the Bishop’s objection to the play at Notre Dame. ““Bishop Blair was also a member of a bishops’ committee that was scheduled to meet at the University of Notre Dame last year, but moved the meeting off campus to protest a performance of The Vagina Monologues.” as some deluded proof that the Bishop’s were anti-feminine. I am not debating the play but providing Mr.DeHass with the reference so he can discuss it with his mother, wife and daughter since he feels it appropriate for nuns and female college students at a Catholic University dedicated to Our Lady.