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
Angela I'm sorry to say that your mother was probably confused with "dogma" not papal infallibality. It is true that the last "dogma" was in 1950 by Pope Pius XII declaring the Assumption of the Virgin Mary. Any time a Pope speaks "in faith or morals" it's infallable. A good example is when a saint is canonized; an infallible declaration by the Pope that said person is a saint in heaven (of which JPII is already "on the track" BTW). JPII also canonized a plethora saints, each time using "infallibality." And FWIW, it would make sense that a holy priest, in all things "faith and morals", would indeed speak infallibalily owing to the fact he would be speaking of dogmas and authorative teachings of the Magesterium. On the other hand, even if the the Pope told us who he thought was going to win the gold medal in breaststroke swimming, it would be nothing more than "papal human opinion", as it would have no connection to his gift of infallibilty.
I also hate to tell you that even Pope's can (and do) sin, as well as, as we all know, bishops, priests and nuns. Why do you think Jesus picked Peter (sinful Peter), to be the first Pope and not John, the almost perfect apostle? Because we are all fallen, and the Catholic Church was made for sinners, not the perfect. We have had some doozy popes (not recently), throughout history, but the interesting thing is, none of them (they were probably too busy sinning) ever changed or taught dogma, consequently, as Christ promised, not even the "gates of hell" would prevail against His church, which is always guided by the Holy Spirit.
Angela and Little Bear, Scripture and Tradition clearly teach that women can not be priest. Yes, a women could be a "deaconess", but never, "ordained." I dug out some of the early church fathers' teachings that may help you or anyone who has trouble understading why. It's only the tip of the ice burg, but my stronger point is to demonostate that this teaching was in place close to the days of Jesus. One quote even addressess the fact that Jesus did not send out the women disciples in "twos" to evangalize as you describle Little Bear.
Here's the link:
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/women-and-the-priesthood
As I mentioned in my earlier post, one most be in obedience and the state of grace to recieve the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Little Bear I'm afraid that you make my point that many who dissent dissent' on what they "think" the Church teaches and not what it actually does teach.
Your post is the epitome of such an example, also proving that if we as Catholics dissent on even one dogmatic teaching, the whole Catholic Faith collaspes like dominos. For example, if Jesus did not institute the priesthood at the last supper, the Eucharist could not be possible, which just so happens to be the source and summit of the Catholic Faith.
And if you truly believe that the Pope JPII and Pope Benedict, two of the holiest popes who ever lived, are "power grabbers", you couldn't possible have a clue as to what they teach or taught. In addition, JPII is halfway to sainthood, and that IS an infallible doing.
That all comes back to my original point. The problem, be it nuns or dissenting catholics, appears to be far more an "authority" problem. So, we either believe what the Church teachings, or we don't. Rest assured there are 4000 plus Protestant Demoninations that indeed believe that the pope is not the authority, which means at least 3999 of them have to be wrong.
Lastly, Little Bear, everyone baptized in Christ IS the Chruch, for better of for worse. which most certainly includes our popes.
A decade ago, there was an often seen bumper sticker that neatly summed up the mind set of ultra-con evangelicals. It read: "God said it, I believe it, that settles it."
So much for historical scholarship, linguistic analysis, or recognition of the cultural delimitation of truth claims. Catholic theologians have become quite adept at a more nuanced approach.
Yet much of the counter-argument, as in this thread, comes down to "Rome said it, I believe that I should believe it, that settles it." No need for conscience. Or much consciousness, either.
But a blinkered obedience does offer security and certainty in world that seems chaotic and frightening. It just doesn't offer much to the young who seek spiritual depth and intellectual honesty. Or anything to anyone in the rest of the world whose faith is of another order entirely.
In reply to Angela and Bear; I do not think the current Pope or any leading theologian uses the Bible to base the Church’s current position on the ordination of women. It’s more a matter of timing and preparation. The focus of Benedict’s energy is Ecumenism in the form of unification. To accept women ordinations would end his hope of unification with the Eastern Orthodox. Also, there would be repercussions here in the Western hemisphere. The Evangelical movement is even more conservative than Catholicism and is certainly less divided between liberals and conservatives. Much of the attraction and successful converting of main Christian church members is this conservatism. And then there is the history of Christian liberalism becoming a runaway train without breaks.
In the book Jesus of Nazareth, Vol. I, Joseph Ratzinger addresses the two types of Old Testament laws, apodietic and casuistic. Apodietic, as I understand him, is immutable. Casuistic is a law suitable for a certain culture and time in history but is not divine. It can be updated when and if needed. I’m a layman, not a Scriptural scholar, but I found this section of his book intriguing. I got the impression that his intent was to lay a foundation for future discussion of such laws as married priests and women ordinations.
Our Pope isn’t anti women or power hungry. He’s old, knows his limitations and must choose his battles.
Patricia,
I am not the least misguided.
I understand the difference between doctrine and dogma and never mentioned dogma. If your defintion of dogma is what is written in Scripture (New Testament), then usery was clearly written as divine law, but was refomed in the 16th century. If you are referring to Scripture and John Paul II's argument, and proclamation, that if Christ wanted to make a woman one of his disciples he would have...is not a convincing argument to exclude women from ordained, ecclesial higher office.
As "Little Bear" mentioned, this did not prevent women from being given significant roles as leaders in the early Christian Church...far from it...we know of a number of women who were gifted spirtitually and their early roles as deacons and presbyters are similar to hierarchical roles today. Yet, women religious cannot be ordained and serve Christ today as they did in the early Church.
With respect to the issue of "obedience" I was questioning how far does one have to go to be obedient....to death as you infer? When deciding on a voluntary human action, under rules and vows, does not the virtues of prudence, wisdom, justice and charity help us to formulate right action? I am not defending the LCWR, but I respect the reflection and judgment of the LCWR. It is difficult for the LCWR to defend itself, when they have no access to the evidence and analysis used by the CDF that condemn their actions. Nor can they legitimately dispute the conclusions under such circumstances. It is also difficult for any of us to support the CDF's allegations, based on the submission of mind and spirit to the hierarchy, when no one can reasonably evaluate the facts. To rationale people, the CDF acts like a kangaroo court.
@William Sublette,
Your wrote:
"I got the impression that his intent was to lay a foundation for future discussion of such laws as married priests and women ordinations."
Wow! I never heard anyone claim that Ratzinger-Benedict XVI was laying the foudation for a future discussion about the laws regulating married clergy and women ordinations. If this is true, what is he waiting for? Where is the courage that the Fathers of the Church had, or for that matter, the courage and bravery that Christ displayed in a time when such behavior would clearly lead to his death?
We live in a divided Church and in a Crisis of Truth, as JP II asserted. I see no evidence that Benedict XVI is interested in challenging or studying the issues that divide us....women ordination, reconciliation and Eucharist for the divorced and remarried, the option of marriage for clergy....as well as many sexual ethical teachings such as: In vitro fertilization and contraception under certain conditions in marriage, the definition of direct and indirect abortion (e.g, the Pheonix Case).
@ William Sublette,
Whoa! Don't blame this on the Eastern Orthodox. For them, there is no top down hierachy, only what is callecd collegiality, as was the ancient practice in the early Chuch. Thus the Roman Catholic pope is only one among equals. Albeit perhaps one accorded more respect. BTW, the head of the Coptic (Egyptian Orthodox) Church is also called pope. That's the big objection; the issue of collegiality.
There is another factor. Bishops (and priests, for that matter) aren't just imposed on the laity. People have the right to disapprove bishops. Given the respect for tradition, it isn't common, but it has happened.
The filioque, the alleged problem of close to a thousand years, isnt much of an issue doctrinally. The real problem for the Orthodox and Eastern Christians was that one part of the Church acted unilaterally.
There's no huge theological horror regarding the ordination of women! The Orthodox realize that there is no real biblical refutation. Their explanation is simply an appeal to tradition. And officially stated, "there is no demand for it" The implication is that this could change if the laity decides that this is what they want.
Patricia,
Unfortunately I have to disagree with you again on history and in heumenutics. You said:
"Angela and Little Bear, Scripture and Tradition clearly teach that women can not be priest. Yes, a women could be a "deaconess", but never, "ordained." I dug out some of the early church fathers' teachings that may help you or anyone who has trouble understading why."
It is not never enough to read the texts (Scripture) to find out what it says.....its original sociohistorical context must be first clarified, and then the text can be translated and interpreted. Patriarchy ruled the early Church and this was a social order in which women were declared the possessions of, first fathers, and later, husbands. In 1 Cor. 11.7-12; Col. 3:18...we see how the New Testament silences women in Church, and suggests the way that women should atone for their collective guilt in causing men to sin is to bear men children.
In Genesis we find two conflicting stories. A women was created to be a helper for man and his companion. In later account, the woman is blamed for the man's sin.
No one knows why Christ did not send women out two by two and there are various legitimate interpretations. There is no theological "horror" as you assert in the ordination of women. Much is to be admired of JP II, but he was not free from misunderstandings and erroneous judgments about women and human sexuality. He never understood feminism or Western women religious, and they never understood his philosophy either. That is a fact. If you want to read a factual and scholarly work, read Ted Lipien's Wojtyla's Women: How They Shaped the Life of Pope John Paul II and Changed the Catholic Church. D
Do yo honestly believe that when popes speak on faith and morals, their pronouncements are infallible? Consider the many papal bulls and teachings that were declared divine law, and were eventually reformed. We must give respect to the pope and the Roman Curia, but this does not mean to blindly accept without questions certain teachings that are in tension with our right reason, human experience and "informed" consciences. There is a process to follow if one's informed conscience disagrees with a Church teaching. We can be faithful Catholics and disagree.
Mike, the changes you want just won’t happen no matter who’s Pope. It took four years, three thousand bishops and several hundred theologians for Vatican II to define what it would take to bring the Church up to date and open Her to the modern world. And, that was the easy part. Implementation of the changes, the hard part, is another issue in itself.
About Pope Benedict, I think you should study his writings. It’s impossible not to have hidden agendas exposed in the books you write. There is nothing hidden in Benedict’s writings. Those who know him, Catholic and Protestant, agree that he is a man of truth. His book Jesus of Nazareth, Vol. I is the best book I’ve ever encountered. It’s not the Bible but it built a love of Scripture that I never had. Give it a try and be very patient. You don’t read this book, you study it.
If I sound like someone giving fatherly advice, it’s because I’m probably old enough to be your grandfather.
@William Sublette,
I am 65 years old, and I doubt you could be my grandfather!!
The reform that most Catholics, theologians and many bishops and priests want will likely not happen in my lifetime. It will take decades or even a century. This is consistent with the time needed to change a Church teaching, but hopefully, it will not take as long as it did in the past. Nevertheless, a teaching not received is a dead letter. The Church is hoping for an epiphany on the part of the laity and theologians, but the Church needs to offer an intelligible and convincing theory in support of certain teachings, e.g., the limited use of contraception in marriage for good and just reasons...and reconciliation and Eucharist for the divorced and remarried under realistic conditions.
Benedict XVI believed that either there is moral unanimity or there is no collegial action at all. The Church does not speak in one voice, nor do the bishops together, on the issue of Humanae Vitae or the reception of the Euharist for the divorced and remarried. The 1980 Synod on the Family is a case in point. JP II proclaimed that all the bishops believe that Humanae Vitae is the truth. Anyone familiar with the details of this synod know that many bishops called for reform. However, it fell of the deaf ears of JP II because he had no patience with anyone that disagreed with him and he used the papacy to bully and pressure his bishops into agreeing with him. This resulted in disagreement in silence and inaction.
As for the ordination of women, that will take much longer.
I don't believe Benedict XVI is attempting, explicitly or implicity, to lay the foundation for the ordination of women and the marriage option for priests. You are entitled to your opinion, but not my agreement. I have two of Benedict's books, The Thought of Pope Benedict XVI" and "The Essential Pope Benedict XVI". Benedict XVI is a neo-Augustinian and his interpretation of Vatican II is much different than the majority.
Michael Barberi we will just have to agree to disagree. In the entire 2000 plus years of Catholicism, there never has and never will be an "ordained" women in the church, nor will any other of the "hot button" dogmatic teachings be changed. To do so would simply make the Church Christ founded, "non catholic."
You mention Humane Vitae, and like many in modernity, seem to have an erroneous belief that if enough believe some thing to be true, especially the masses, and most certainly a relgious, well then by darn, "it must be." As GK Chesterton's famous quote goes (parapharased): "It's the job of the church to be right when the world is wrong."
Allow me to give you two exmaples. The first would be the crowds who yelled "Crucify Him, crucify him." So how did that work out? Deicide to our Creator! More than an "oops."
The next is also huge, and that is in regards to early century Arianism. Like Humane Vitae, that too had many bishops on board. Being that Aranism denies the divinity of Christ, not sure how that could happe, but that's my point. Never under estimate what culture and "moderntiy" can distort. Thanks to St. Athanasius, the one and only "lone ranger", a Paul Paul VI of his time, Christianty lives/lived on.
Here's the last line of the write up of St. Athanasius in the New Advent Aranism definition:
In the whole story there is but one single hero — the undaunted Athanasius — whose mind was equal to the problems, as his great spirit to the vicissitudes, a question on which the future of Christianity depended.
My point, yet again Michael, is an "authority problem." History teaches us that the crowds are often wrong, espeically when they are so sure they are "right with the times." Also, you would be wise to consider the advise of William S as if he could be your grandfather. It's more than obvioius, you see the last two popes, one on the way to saint hood, through a very distorted lens, when in reality, they are pure gift, at least for any of us with eternal salvation as the goal.