CARA Study Given Wrong Twist

I'm very glad that you have pointed this out. I think that some groups get a big publicity push from venues like EWTN, but when you measure the number of entrants they get against the population of American Catholics, it is infinitesimal.

I was taught by (and then worked with) a community that still lives in common, has a structured prayer life, common apostolates and a recognizable habit. They don't get any entrants either. (Or very, very few. One every few years.)

I am pretty sure that young women (and men) who do want to explore religious life are looking for a defined spirituality, common vision and purpose, common life and even a recognizable habit. Otherwise, they could just keep doing what they are doing.

But, our recent memories of 'big classes' were a blip in the historical record. I saw recently that in 1900 there were something like 9000 women religious in the entire US.

I've no axes to grind here. Just an observer, not a religious. Rather than politicizing this incessantly we should perhaps look forward and ask "What is the need in the world today - and how can Christians meet it?" That is what sparked the start of the active congregations then. They carved out something new. If that time has passed, the needs of society and the church have not abated, and new forms of response are needed.

Exactly my point, expressed months ago BEFORE CARA stats were publicized. Initial FORMATION HOUSES may be filled to the rafters...but in terms of actual, finally professed religious, the numbers continue to be disappointing in FIRST WORLD countries for both LCWR and CMSWR, irregardless of what they wear. So let the girls and boys in 3rd world countries take up the slack, cuz religious life as we know it -as is much of organized religion- is simply slipping into oblivion. And that's ok. People are finally freeing themselves of the burden. They don't need an institution to MEDIATE their relationships with the deity. And the deity certainly doesn't need religious life - male or female.

True.

The New York Times ran the true story, but the Chaz Muth version, given here in the Faith and Parish section, omitted the fact that half leave before final vows. Another ham-handed effort to conceal/suppress/distort the true number of women in religious life?

http://ncronline.org/news/faith-parish/new-vocations-us-ethnically-cultu...

Interesting that these new members of religious communities are "ethnically, culturally diverse". I wonder if the problems that cause so many to leave before final vows are similar to the issues Sr. Katarina Schuth discovered among the men in seminaries and theologates.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS257&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=k...

Ken Briggs

Thank you for making those clarifications on the CARA study.

Sister Maureen

That's just what I've thought would be found...

Very few are entering because the general deleterious effect of renewal for 40 years that threw out uniformity, specialized apostolates, visible habits, either modified or not and sisters/nuns living in bachelor pads undermined all the orders and still does. The traditional orders will beckon a new renewal while the others, mostly LCWR will die out--but there is hope and it is not with LCWR. If you look at any diocesan directory of sisters' residences, you will find perhaps 8 to 10 living in one small community and each in their own apartment. What young girl/teenager wants to join that where there is no corporate identity, mission or spirit, just a bunch of religious bachelors doing their own thing, some of them very well. Worse yet, a visible religious identity is lacking and a strong Catholic identity is eroding due to gnostic, agnostic and universalism about God/Goddess and religion. Many have become neo-pagans, not strong Catholics. Who wants to join that? NO ONE! The proof is in the pudding.

I didn't read the CARA report until I read your post but I did see some news articles on it. As someone with a background in statistics, I am perfectly willing to believe that the media might have gotten something wrong in the reporting of this. As a student of politics, I am also willing to believe that there are people out there who are willing to twist statistics to support their own pre-conceived notions.

After skimming through the report, however, I have to ask if you have read it?

The executive summary (page 15) very clearly says that: "The most successful institutes in terms of attracting and retaining new members at this time are those that follow a more traditional style of religious life in which members live together in community and participate in daily Eucharist, pray the Divine Office and engage in devotional practices together. They also wear a religious habit, work together in common apostolates and are explicit about their fidelity to the Church and the teachings of the Magisterium."

I would say that this certainly does count as evidence that "keepers of the old nun tradition are thriving."

But, regardless of what the report itself says, your argument above doesn't even make sense. If 1/3 of the LCWR groups report no new members and 1/4 of the CMSWR groups report no new members then we can probably say that CMSWR is growing faster than LCWR. Further if 2/3 of the total new recruits are CMSWR and CMSWR only makes up 5-10% of the women religious in the US, then we can certainly say that CMSWR is experiencing much stronger growth than LCWR. Afterall -- just to maintain parity -- LCWR would have to account for over 90% of new vocations! And, yes, it may be true that half of the newcommers in each organization drop out before taking final vows but simple math tells us that if you multiply both sides of an equation by the same constant (in this case 0.5) the inequality still holds.

What am I missing?

Ken -

I agree that the study is a fine one.

And that when a man or woman is called to one order as opposed to another, that calling in **not** a "slap at LCWR" (or CSMWR). In this country, we have become accustomed to viewing actions and choices and preferences as "protest" actions, choices and preferences. It is time we challenge that assumption, that kneejerk reaction, that failure to truly see and hear our fellows and their values as distinct from us and our values.

I am discerning with an LCWR community. I am doing so because I believe that is where I am called by God. I do not believe God is calling me to an LCWR community as a "slap at" CMSWR communities. I know a woman who is discerning with a CMSWR community. She is doing so because she believes she is called by God to that community. She does not believe - nor do I - that she is called to a CMSWR as a protest action (by her or God) or "slap at LCWR".

I believe it is time, in these discussions of Women Religious and their communities and vocation stories/experiences, that we acknowledge and respect the full spiritual and moral and intellectual agency of ALL Catholic women. I believe it is time that we understand and repect their choices as an expression of the free will God acknowledges and respects in each of us.

A woman who chooses a CMSWR community does, in fact, choose a CMSWR community. Others may want to manipulate her choice and represent as a choice AGAINST LCWR. That is disrespectful and dismissive of the woman and the relationship between her and God, between her and the movement of the Holy Spirit within her. Does any of us have the right to insert ourselves into that relationship, into that movement, to judge her expression of the free will that even God does not manipulate?

A woman who chooses a LCWR community does, in fact, choose a LCWR community. Others may want to manipulate her choice and represent as a choice AGAINST CMSWR. That is disrespectful and dismissive of the woman and the relationship between her and God, between her and the movement of the Holy Spirit within her. Does any of us have the right to insert ourselves into that relationship, into that movement, to judge her expression of the free will that even God does not manipulate?

This whole debate has taken on the partisanship of US two party politics, and it is ugly and inappropriate. We may be comfortable being Republicans in large part because we dislike Democrats or Democrats in large part because we dislike Republicans. But I sincerely hope that our relationships with God are not polluted with that kind of thinking. I hope that we respond to God affirmatively, with a full and joyful yes to the particular invitation God offers to each of us....................I hope that we do not allow our individual and intimate relationships with God to be defined and shaped by our arguments with and disdain of others.

Each of us has the opportunity - in these discussions and debates - to honor God and the beauty, integrity and uniqueness of our individual relationships with God. I believe that the only choice that is "with God" is a decision to speak with respect and charity about each and every person's relationship with and response *to* God as just that: a relationship with God and response to God. In this case, those relationships and responses may be expressed as discernment with and membership in LCWR or CMSWR (or neither). But that is not the same thing as a response to and against LCWR **or** CMSWR.....................and it is high time that everyone begin to acknowledge and respect that in every sentence they speak and write and pray.

Jean

One summer day back in 1945, several diocesan priests came to our home. Their purpose was to try to persuade me and my parents that I should enter studies for the diocesan priesthood, not for the missionary priesthood.

I preferred the religious missionary order (Society of the Divine Word). My parents and I were shocked (scandalized) by the competitive attitude of diocesan priests. (As it turned out, I spent 11 years with the SVD and chose not to complete studies for the priesthood.)

Is the same dynamic at work even now between conservative and "liberal" religious orders of women? If it is, it can only hurt the Church and dismay the good faith of the laity.

Sylvester L. Steffen

Hey - I sent a response this morning. If you are not going to post it, could you please send it back to me. I meant to copy it for my own journal but did not. I am discerning and am trying to keep all my writings in one place. Thanks. (it was the post about the need to respect the integrity of each person's discernment and relationship with God and to refrain for what amounts to partisan battles that exploit and interpret vocations). Thank you very much.

At last: someone is finally telling the TRUTH about vocations to the vowed religious life. Finally, the "numbers game" is backfiring on groups that insist that they have cornered the market on joy, happiness, mission and dress code. Instead of requiring second millennium young people to wear and maintain habits, and other old-nun paraphernalia, why don't the leaders of these traditional groups find new ways to be a vowed religious in 2009 and beyond. To please the Vatican, they are holding our daughters and sons hostages by teaching them that this is "what God wants" for them.

I am so glad that CARA officials are exposing the way the results have been altered to support vocations to conservative orders. What kind of ethics is this? Where is their moral integrity?

Now the Vatican has to support ALL religious orders, instead of only their fundamentalist traditional favorites. Tampering with the Will of the Holy Spirit for the Church never works over the long haul. I thought they knew that!

Thank you for shining the spotlight on an important fact regarding the use of statistics.   It's all about how information was collected,   how the information was used to generate the numbers,   and how those numbers are interpreted.   Statistics can be 'forced' to say just about anything,   so it is always handy to know exactly whose agenda is in play.   Political spin on government generated statistics is a case in point.

When all is said and done,   the conclusions derived from statistics should make reasonable sense within a designated context.   Regarding the numbers for religious communities and their growth,   so far it is your interpretation that makes the most sense within the context of our culture,   and the Church in the United States.

Percentage (2.2% vs 0.058%), also important in statistics

Now that we are talking about statistics, we might as well talk about percentages. 200 women per year join LCWR and CMSWR which together total 59,601 sisters. The LCWR represents 95% of that number; this means there are 56,621 LCWR sisters and 2,980 CMSWR sisters.

As you mentioned above two thirds of the 200 women who join per year, join the CMSWR sisters. In other words 132 sisters join the 2,980 CMSWR sisters per year. This in turn means that 66 sisters join the 56,621 LCWR sisters per year. Of those half leave before final vows, leaving 66 sisters per year to the 2,980 CMSWR sisters, and 33 sisters per year to the 56,621 LCWR sisters.

The interesting part is the percentages. Excluding deaths, which is extremely important to be taken into account as negative growth; the CMSWR has the (in truth low) growth of 2.2% per year, but the number is huge compared with the 0.058% per year growth of the LCWR.

Come on, you might dislike the CMSWR congregations, but denying that they are either growing faster or at least disappearing slower than the LCWR is dishonest.

In analyzing what "the numbers mean," one must also take into account the choices for church ministry that people have beyond the ordained priesthood and vowed religious life. I have an M.Div. and will soon have a second Masters in Pastoral Counseling from Loyola University Chicago. There are similar programs of study in Ministry at four other Catholic institutions and at seminaries affiliated with Protestant demonimations where Catholics may also choose to enroll. The overwhelming number of those Catholics in these programs ---both male and female-- are not from Religious communities and will never be ordained. Yet the work we do would have been done, in large part, by vowed religious or diocesan priests a generation ago. We all feel we HAVE a vocation, which is affirmed every day by those to whom we minister, whether it is formally recognized or not by the institutional church. Beyond those of us who have university degrees, there are thousands of lay Catholics who are graduates of paraprofessional Lay Ministry programs sponsored by local dioceses. Those communissioned as volunteer lay ministers also have a vocation and, largely on a part-time, unpaid basis, also minister to the faithful in vital ways that, again, were once the province of priest and vowed religious. Lay ministers run the gamut from afficionados of the Council of Trent to the yet-to-be Vatican III. What we all believe is that we are guided by the Holy Spirit in our ministries and that the future of the Church is tied to the sucess, or failure of lay ministry.

Thanks Armando, I think you gave the best summary of what the numbers mean. On the one hand, there is no "vocation explosion" in traditionalist communities, but they are surviving at a slow growth rate while the LCWR have a tiny growth rate. What we don't have is the attrition/death rate, but if the CMSWR group has had the proportionately higher growth rate over time, they should have a proportionately lower death rate (due to the regular influx of younger members) and so over time and unchanged circumstances will slowly catch up in total numbers to the LCWR group. The biggest message behind the numbers though is that nuns are an endangered species, with some subspecies less endangered than others but none of them off the list. About 100 hundred women per year become nuns and stay nuns. That's tiny no matter what kind of nun we're talking about.