Every day for years I’ve prayed the liturgy of the hours and attended daily Mass. I say a rosary each day, join my parish for a novena, participate in exposition and benediction, play the organ, and still have favorite Latin hymns. I’ve taught the documents of Vatican II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and encyclicals of John Paul II and Benedict XVI. I’ve never worn full-length religious garb but do wear the modified habit of my congregation. I cooperated graciously with the apostolic visitation, as did all of the sisters in my community.
I was also a member of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) for several years, very recently. (I write anonymously because I work in a leadership position in my diocese, and wouldn’t want to put my bishop—or my community—in a difficult position.) Like many others, I am deeply distressed by the document produced by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) and the effect it is having on women religious around the country. And I must concur with the national board of the LCWR in its sense that accusations made against it are “unsubstantiated” and the “sanctions…disproportionate.”
Overall, the document I’ve read and reread does not square with my experience of the LCWR. True, there are some members I’d consider “out there” ecclesiologically and politically. They are, however, also deeply committed to the following of Christ and idealistic about the past, present, and future of religious life. Also true is the fact that a number of women religious, including their leaders, have not had the advantage of an extensive theological education. I’m reminded of the fact that in the mid-1970s Mother Kathryn Sullivan, RSCJ, a Scripture scholar who spent at least half her year in Rome at the Biblicum, reminded us that Catholic women had long been barred from doing doctoral work in Scripture and theology at Catholic institutions. Her doctorate, therefore, had been earned at the University of Pennsylvania.
Advertisement
In the years since, any number of sisters have earned masters degrees in biblical studies, pastoral ministry, and theology. Some few have also attained doctorates—PhD or DMin—in theological and ministerial specialties. Not all have been officers or board members of the LCWR. So perhaps there have been actions or statements of the LCWR leadership that have not been fine-tuned or given a good theological review.
However, a number of statements in the CDF document strike me as patently inaccurate, misleading, and unfair. I cannot attest to whether the LCWR featured or supported New Ways Ministry before the Vatican forced the resignation of Br. Robert Nugent and Sr. Jeannine Gramick from its leadership. I do know that when Sr. Jeannine had been counseled to be silent on issues pertaining to the church and homosexuals, she petitioned to be given a forum at one of the LCWR national assemblies—against the wishes not only of Rome but of her congregational leadership. After considerable discussion among the entire body of LCWR membership present, she was not given that platform. After that assembly, I did what one speaker had recommended we do individually: express to bishops we met our concern for compassionate care and outreach to gay and lesbian people on the part of the church. As I recall, no one argued in favor of marriage rights. I have not been privy to every meeting or every discussion or every draft of statements in the years since that assembly, but I bear an indelible memory of a painful and sometimes heated discussion that came to what seemed to me a very balanced and nuanced conclusion.
What’s more, many of us have signed vigorously prolife statements; participated in rosary rallies, forty-days-for-life observances, the annual marches in January; and have been scrupulously faithful to magisterial guidelines, including those set forth in John Paul II’s Evangelium vitae, in our health care facilities, in our teaching, and in decisions we have made as those bearing power of attorney for members facing extremely difficult end-of-life situations. I’m offended at being characterized by association as being insufficiently prolife.
What I have valued deeply in the LCWR is that its members have called attention to policies and practices that offend our Catholic life ethic or our Catholic social teaching in ways that have sometimes gone unnoticed. For example, the LCWR, along with the International Union of Superiors General, highlighted the problem of human trafficking long before others took notice. At LCWR meetings I learned what multinational corporations were doing to illiterate peasants and squatters, what was happening at detention centers in the aftermath of 9/11, and how immigration laws and crackdowns on undocumented people were affecting families. LCWR has served as a consciousness-raiser for those of us who are not on the mailing list of every justice group and aren’t among sisters who have participated in organized protests. Because of LCWR, my congregational leadership signed on to the Earth Charter and a number of other causes that otherwise would not have crossed our minds.
The liturgical controversy in the CDF document seems to be twofold. One issue is the content of public prayer and the celebration of Eucharistic liturgies. I’ve probably attended more regional than national gatherings, but I am one of those liturgically sensitive people. The opening and closing prayers at LCWR meetings have always been devotional, reverent, and creative. The Masses always seemed well within rubrical guidelines. There were locations for smaller daily liturgies as well as the large whole-convention liturgy. These daily liturgies were sometimes held at hotels, sometimes at nearby parishes, and were celebrated by priests of the dioceses where we met, or priests from the men’s group for major superiors.
The other liturgical issue—and one about which considerable ado is made in the CDF document—is the question of the ordination of women. References to actions taken and statements made harking back to 1977-79 highlight this discussion. When Sr. Teresa Kane, RSM, stood up in the basilica in Washington, D.C., and appealed to Pope John Paul II for the full equality of women in roles of ministry in the church, I thought her action was imprudent and ill-advised. Years later, she received a standing ovation at an LCWR meeting, and I joined the applause--not for what she said to the pope, but because I’d bumped into her several times in a small chapel in Pittsburgh and saw her faithfulness to prayer.
I had also learned of the heroism of her sisters who were advocating for poor women amid tremendous threat from the Shining Path in Peru. At the time, Sr. Kane was struggling with cancer, yet still strong in her sense of serving the voiceless. Admiration for a person does not imply endorsement of everything she has said or done.
The CDF document charges that LCWR never officially repudiated those early actions or statements regarding the ordination of women. With the presidency changing every year and membership shifting with every election held by the membership orders and congregations, that means that the makeup of the assembly changes from year to year. It seems strange to expect new membership to undertake a review of what past members have done and issue commendations or condemnations.
Strangely, the CDF document repeatedly refers to what “some members” are or are not doing. For example, the CDF objects that “some members” put greater emphasis on professional formation than doctrinal formation for those in initial formation and in offerings for the ongoing formation of their professed members. It is difficult to put that generalization in context. LCWR has no authority over the formation policies of member orders and congregations. Neither does LCWR have authority over any member group’s governance, communal living, prayer life, spirituality, mission, or ministry. For those matters, congregations are accountable either to their local bishops (if diocesan communities) or to the Vatican (if pontifical).
Finally, it’s helpful for any ecclesial group to have a bishop as a chaplain or liaison. But it seems strange for the Vatican to give Archbishop J. Peter Sartain, who is not a professed religious, authority over an organization whose members are religious. Having a Redemptorist in Rome overseeing the conclusion of the apostolic visitation is one thing. Having someone in charge who has not experienced consecrated life in community seems quite another.
As all of us try to digest the practical effects of the CDF’s action, I find myself simply hoping for clear water and a cabin in the woods in which to take shelter. Forty years ago I could have pursued the independent professional life I had already undertaken, married or not married the man of the hour, kept my car, bought a house, charted my career path, moved far from home, befriended many people, espoused many causes, and continued attending Mass at the Puerto Rican and Irish parish around the corner. While scores of my peers were leaving formation programs and being dispensed from their vows, I came to religious life and stayed. I wonder now why that choice has become so suspect.
Meanwhile, the convent supper I ate immediately before writing this article was prepared for us by a mother whose three children we watched and fed a few weeks ago while she was at a police station reporting that she’d been raped while alone at her job. She brought so much food that we resolved to share it with our neighbor and the three boys who wish their father was home for dinner rather than deployed in Afghanistan. Somehow these day-to-day realities seem worthy of my energy and perseverance.
At bottom, my life as “Sister” is about serving with Christ, in Christ, and to some extent as Christ for the sake of the people on my street, in my town, and within reach. My life as “Sister” is about translating the good news into a knock on a door, a meal for children, a listening ear, a word of comfort. I know that walking with people through their messy and complex lives is good reason not to head for the hills or to expend too much energy being vexed by a turn of events which will, in the long roll of history, likely be interpreted as one of many distractions of the early twenty-first-century church. When it comes to the impulse to flee and become a hermit, I have to admit that it isn’t what Jesus would do. And, as far as that clear water is concerned, I’ll just have to heed the lesson learned by the Samaritan woman—who, by the way, led others too.
Related: Cross Examination, by Sister X
Thanks Sister Y for this beautiful reflection on religious life live with courage and faithfulness and the LCWR. I have read and re-read the CDF statement on LCWR and it seems to affirm exactly what you have written. It has high praise for all that women religious have done and all that they are-as you have indicated. Anything I have ever read from recent papal statements and from the Congregation for Religious etc has shown the high regard in which consecrated life in its many forms is held by our bishops and the Holy See.
The CDF statement takes a much narrower focus-just the LCWR as an organ of collaboration among consecrated women whose constitution is established by the Holy See. Therefore the Holy See has the obligation and right to supervise and intervene if necessary if it believes that the LCWR is not being true to its mandate. A congregation of women religious has the same obligation with regard to any hospital or school board they may have established for one of their ministries. Such interventions do not reflect on the whole school or hospital if the board is not doing its job. Same with LCWR and consecrated women.
I think you have hit on exactly the key issue. Few of the women in leadership may have the theological formation to engage critically with some of the issues raised in some of the LCWR conference papers, systems training manual and the theolgical issues raised by inviting someone like Barbara Marx Hubbard as a key note speaker. An interview I read online given by the current LCWR leader about committment to life issues showed signs of equivocation about the rights of the unborn and displayed a lack of familiariy with Catholic Social Doctrine in which life issues concern rights of the unborn along with access to adequate food, human rights protection, end to the death penalty. It seemed as if the Sr were not aware of much of this since she seemed to present an either or approach-either rights of the unborn or social justice. (This may not have been her intention but the way it was presented suggested this).
The CDF seems only to be concerned that the LCWR has the tools to adequately assist in the full flourishing of consecrtae life. That does mean a solid theological foundation in the teaching of the Church and clear and unambigious affirmation that religious life is lived in, for and with the Church. My hope is that openess to the intervention will assist the LCWR to not only assist current sisters but because of the intervention oversee a flourishing of women of generous spirit who will choose consecrated life.
Thanks Sr Y for this reflection.
I am encouraged by Sister Y's refelections on the situation with the LCWR and the CDF. If her observations are correct, any problems seem to be misunderstandings and lack of clear communication, rather than issues that would separate the LCWR and member organizations from the true teachings of the Church. If so, we may be looking at this situation as "much ado about nothing" a few years from now. I am, however, concerned about the repeated references to the good work of the sisters; this has never been a concern or an issue; the Vatican and the CDC continue to support and praise the sisters for their often heroic dedication to alleviating social issues. This gives rise to an accusation of "changing the issue," or creating a "staw man," which seems to have some legitimacy. Focusing on the problems raised by the CDC with the organization; discerning their legitimacy and seriousness, as Sister Y tries to do in the first part of her piece, is the way to approach resolving this situation.
With all due respect, isn’t it a bit disingenuous to suggest that a lack of theological training is the problem? One of the many blessings about all of Christianity is that in obedience, and only in holy obedience, we get the gift and fruits of the Holy Spirit, the ultimate “teacher” for any level of intelligence or knowledge. As obedient Catholics, we also receive not only the Holy Spirit, but the sanctifying grace of the sacraments, especially the extraordinary graces of confession and of course, the Eucharist, a part of Divinity Himself.
In this day and age, it’s almost insulting to even suggest that one need be a theologian to get it right. For heaven’s sake the Catechism of the Catholic Faith is free on line, for the entire world, along with extensive papal documents from encyclicals to Pope Benedict’s latest homily.
But the real problem sadly, especially after reading the comments, is that for most, not only some sisters but also the laity, the sense of authority has been lost. Consequently, without papal authority, despite what we want to label it, it simply can’t be Catholicism, only another form of “Protestantism in denial. “
It’s bad enough that many of the comments contain examples of poor or total lack of catechesis, consequently, a rebellion against what one “thinks” the Church teaches as to what and why the Church teaches as it does. I sometimes wonder how many Catholics are even aware that the dogmatic teachings of the Catholic Church are nothing more, and nothing less, than the immutable teachings (based on Divine Revelation), of Jesus Christ. If for example, the Church ever did allow “female priests”, it would no longer be the Catholic Church, as it’s the job of the Catholic Church to uphold, in fullness, all of the teachings of Jesus Christ.
That brings me back to any sister or nun who believes that the Magesterium, despite the most recent popes being some of the holiest in papal history, has it wrong. Truly it’s painful to watch, not only any sister who dissents on church teachings, but those who also “cheer them on” in their disobedience. Unlike the misguided laity, nuns and sisters are the spouses of Jesus Christ. In authentic love, we are obedient out of love of faith and Christ. How is possible to no longer have that spousal love that demands holy obedience? Sacred scripture (and of course the life of Jesus Christ), couldn’t be more clear that obedience is better than any sacrifice.
Perhaps that is why God sent us, in our lifetimes, Blessed Mother Theresa; to remind us all what obedience and holiness looks like.
sacrificehttp://www.geocities.ws/lauho08/mother_teresa_on_obedience_and_surrender.html
Holy obedience is everything. Not only does it allow in the Holy Spirit, it is the only thing that frees us, from ourselves and our restless hearts. I can assure any sister who struggles with the Vatican requests, which is merely upholding the teachings of Christ, that she is the one “missing the mark.” The goal of the Vatican is and only ever will be, the salvation of souls. As I commented to Sister “X”, success isn’t about the things of this world, as it is only “holiness” to which we are called, and only holiness that will save us.
Consequently, if the CDF Document brings in even one of the sisters who is “out there”, how could it not be worth it?
Patricia makes good points, and I don't question her sincerity and beliefs. However, I do question how far obedience reaches into one's religious conscience without violatiing the vow of obedience that all sisters make.
One could say that all Catholics should be obedient to all Church teachings, inclusive of clergy and religious theologians. Unfortunately, we know that is not the case, especially regarding sexual ethics. If all members of God's Church would have abided by a strick definition of "obedience", especially in past centuries, I question what type of world we would be living in. Would not ursery, slavery, freedom of religion, the torture of heretics, the ends of marriage....etc, be with us today?
In the past, bishops, priests and theologians taught us that sex was only for procreation, sex during menstruation was a mortal sin, sex during pregnancy was forbidden and sex had only one licit position (Noonan). In the past, clergy, theologians and the laity have challanged and disagreed with some Church teachings for good and just reasons. This has helped the Church and I would not classify this as violating a vow of obedience. This does not mean that religious women, should be able to disagree with a Church teaching without good and just reasons and without their informed consciences. They should give respect to the Church and follow the process proscribed for any type of disagreement. In my opinion, the question is: Can the LCWR invite someone to talk about an issue from a different point of view, without violating their vow of obedience?
As Patricia said, there may well be a misunderstanding between the LCWR and the CDF. I certainly pray this is the case. However, there is a wide consenses, in my opinion, that certain subjects should and must be discussed especially if they are based on scholarship, new knowledge and respect. Many of these subjects, unfortunately, are a closed book according to the CDF. Does the LCWR have the certain degree of freedom to explore a re-thinking of an current teaching without violating their vow of obedience?....Without violating a call to holiness in service to Christ and the Gospel and our growing knowledge of Scripture, Tradition, Human Experience and Reason.
Patricia, a gaggle of old, fallible men say that THEIR interpretation of the Bible "proves" that Jesus wanted only men to be priests. Not good enough.
Sister Y’s testimonial is what every religious and lay person should aspire to. Living the Gospel message of service, compassion and love to and for the poor are ‘non-negotiables’ (if this stupid term bothers you, I like you) of Christianity. This is the Focus of Sister Y’s life, God bless her. May her example inspire all of us to be worthy of the name Catholic. I’m not convinced, though, that the American bishops and CDF are crazy. Why would they want to caput those very things defining a Christian? Why subject the American Church to a bombardment of negative media attention? Is it possible that these men are not demons and have nothing but respect for such commitment? If so, and I believe it is, then what’s the problem?
To quote from Sister Y’s testimonial, “In the years since, any number of sisters have earned masters degrees in biblical studies, pastoral ministry, and theology. Some few have also attained doctorates—PhD or DMin—in theological and ministerial specialties. Not all have been officers or board members of the LCWR. So perhaps there have been actions or statements of the LCWR leadership that have not been fine-tuned or given a good theological review.” Extracting the quoted part from the main body of Sister Y’s article leaves some confusion but in essence I think it points out that the religious of today are well educated and highly trained. They have built impressive careers in academia. They hold leadership positions with charitable foundations and hospitals. And here the problem lies.
Institutional survival usually hardens the soul. You become so enamoured with your position that all other positions are inferior and unworthy of consideration. Non conformity and radicalism become your persona. Of course this charge has always been applied to the governance of the Church. But now we have the LCWR promoting direct and public opposition to the teaching of the Church. The LCWR has no teaching or governing authority whatsoever. I think Sister Y alludes to this several times but waters it down as though it's mischievousness, not rebellion.
The American bishops and CDF have no alternative. They have to do their job and reprimand the LCWR. I really don't believe we're dealing with the genius of a Henri de Lubec, Yves Congar or Jean Danielou. These were brilliant theologians and Scriptual scholars who had the street smarts to stay outside the cross hairs of the CDF and a curia suspecious of every thought outside the Vatican fortress. They didn't escape censorship but they certainly opened the space for the Holy Spirit to do her work.
"What would Jesus do?" better than a woman does
Angela, What a sexist statment!
Patricia, a gaggle of old, fallible men say that THEIR interpretation of the Bible "proves" that Jesus wanted only men to be priests. Not good enough.
FYI to Angela, Jesus was one of those "men." There are countless examples in Scripture and Sacred Tradition as to why women can't be ordained as priests, dating all the way back to the early Church Fathers. Jesus clearly taught against it.
Two thousand years later, JPII in "Ordanatio Sacerdotalis", took the issue off the table, again stating that the Chruch didn't and never will have the power to change what Christ established.
Michael Barbari I think you might be a bit misguided between doctrines (made man laws that can change with moderntiy and culture), and dogma (teachings instituted by Christ that can never be changed). FYI, the church has never, ever, changed a dogmatic teaching in over 2000 years. You also seem to have some Old Testament issues in the mix, that were typologies of things to come with Christ in the New Testament.
Perhaps I missed your point, but I also don't understand what you mean by "violating obedience" when Christ clearly taught, by His own example, 'Obedience unto death,,"
Bruce and Patricia: my mother used to say that she was astounded to discover, long after she became an adult, that a pope had claimed to speak infallibly only once in the entire 20th century. She said that when she was growing up in St. Meinrad, Indiana, her parish priest always spoke as if every word out of HIS mouth were infallible.
I don't agree that the Bible and tradition prove that women can never, ever be priests even if Pope John Paul II, admittedly a remarkable man, said it. Simply stated: priests, bishops and popes do not have a 24/7 pipeline to God guiding their every word and action. If they had, not a single member of the clergy would ever have molested a child.
To Patricia and Bruce,
Jesus did not ordain anyone at the Last Supper. Nor did he consecrate anyone bishops.
Jesus did not TEACH against it. After all, Jesus was the only TEACHER who accepted women as disciples. No other Rabbi of his time did that. And the women were accepted---not just to be silent followers of the men---but as active evangelizers as well.
The early Church is replete with examples of women taking leadership in the Christian communities---as deacons, as presbyters, and as apostles. Please read Paul's Letter to the Romans (Chapter 16). Know also that in Paul's letter to Timothy (1 Timothy 3:8-14) where he lists the qualities for deacons---male and female.
Sorry, but John Paul II and Benedict were/are both more concerned for their Centralized power than WHAT JESUS ACTUALLY WANTED and TAUGHT. In the long history of the Church---they, sadly, were not the only ones who believed/believe that THEY ARE the CHURCH---rather than being Servants of the Servants of God. They have both failed to be true servant leaders as Jesus had taught in Sacred Scriptures.