Women religious: which group points way to the future?

It's really a demographic issue more than anything else. Compare the average age of LCWR orders with the more conservative ones. The essential difference between the two groups centers on feminism, secular feminism (LCWR) vs Christian feminism (conservative groups). Even among the laity there is this divide among women. Most of the children are being had by women who believe contraception is a mortal sin (which it is).

When I go to confession, I often see a woman with a mantilla come in with 3 little kids in tow, one in her arms & one on the way. This is the future in front of me.

A very good example of the "experiments" in religious life is actually amongst the oldest of these so-called "experiments." The Immaculate Heart Community of Los Angeles continues to attract new members each year--married and single, Catholic and non-Catholic Christians. It really is a wonderful source of life and renewal in the local Los Angeles church and maintains a very healthy relationship with the LCWR communities in the local church.

Did you break the news to John yet?

I keep on wondering if part of the problem isn't that the two "sides" either secretly or openly look down on one another. This is even more true of the rest of us on one side or another. I have read an awful lot of meanspirited gloating regarding low recruitment rates in liberal "orders", and read liberals intimating that members of the conservative orders have unresolved psychological problems which make them want to hide in a convent.

We are all broken and have different needs. We all need Jesus the Christ as our savior.

Wouldn't it be neat if each "side" could just live and let live for a while and let the Spirit sort things out as they should be. If you need "X" in your spiritual life, no need others can't have "Y" in theirs.

There is a excellent column in the latest Commonweal which includes quotes from both Augustin and Benedict which might make everyone happy. The general subject is the lack of charity in the Catholic blagosphere. (sp?)

Thanks, Tom. This is a very helpful annotation on John Allen's column. It will be very interesting to follow the religious communities who favor distinctive habits, semi-enclosure, strictly regulated community life and the like over the course of years. Since there are fewer of these kinds of communities, of course their growth will be dramatic now. Will these new religious stay? Will these institutes feel the need to reform from within at some point, recapitulating what the older institutes experienced and negotiated decades ago? Time will tell.

A nice apologia. BUT, it doesn't square with the fact that LCWR gatherings look like an AARP convention; whereas, CMSWR communities look like world youth days. A quantitative reversal of the LCWR's and CMSWR's present relative numbers is inevitable, unless LCWR communities can reverse their decline.

Why not do some investigative journalism. Go community by community in both groups and compare stats - numbers of professed, novices, postulants and trends, as self-reported in the Kenedy directories of the last decade. I'll be looking for that truth-seeking story in the pages of the Reporter. Otherwise, its just LCWR spin.

Surely the investigation of American nuns garnered information on this matter. Didn't every congregation have to supply statistics? How many new postulants entered in each year since the community began? How many became novices? How many novices made temporary vows? How many temporary professed made final vows? How many sisters died during the year? How many left the congregation?

All that should be made public. Along with lists of the names of the religious still in the order and of those buried in the convent graveyard.

"In general, younger religious, both men and women, are more likely to prize fidelity to the church and to pick a religious order on the basis of its reputation for fidelity; they're more interested in wearing the habit and in traditional modes of spiritual and liturgical expression; and they're much more positively inclined toward authority."

What is "fidelity to the church"? I see something akin to journalistic or sociological "redlining" in the application of this phrase.

How healthy is "authority" in today's Church of Rome? I'd suggest it is anything but healthy.

Thank you, Mr. Roberts, for noting what's important but often overlooked, namely, "context".

If a "millenial" wants to wear the habit, I say "Go for it!" After all, different strokes for different folks.

On the other hand, I'd be very surprised to see any real impact these young "traditionalists" might have on the wider church --- unless, of course, the Church of Rome is eventually comprised only of likeminded Catholics because everybody else has left it.

If the work of sociologists of religion James Davidson and Dean Hoge is any indication, we can expect to see a growing "expectation gap" between the "JPII priest" (attracted to exercise of authority), on the one hand, and a better educated and informed laity, old *and* young, on the other hand.

Not a healthy prognosis for the more "traditionalist" Catholic.

Glad for a bit of clarification. I did a bit of googling and found that the LCWR represents about 1,500 religious orders and the CMSWR about 150. So the lack of large numbers entering into any single LCWR community may simply be a factor of the many more communities available to choose from.

One has to understand that the article is written from the perspective of a Vatican Press Officer Spin Doctor.

It surprising to see so many "progressives" hiding their heads in the sand here. Oh well, to each his own. But pleaese dont act surprised (or mortified)when you emerge in a few years.

I think I may be speaking for many other NCR readers when I note that it's refreshing to see one of the editors of your paper--at last--issue a corrective to Mr. Allen's always highly-skewed analysis of Catholic issues.

But it strikes me as interesting that you finally do so only when there's pushback from those who resent the implicit attack on religious sisters who don't fit the traditionalist mold.

This skewing has been going on for a long time now. The kind of distortion of data you detect in this article is not new. Many folks have been commenting about this, and credibly so, in many places.

Yet you continue to give Mr. Allen an exceptionally high profile as a spokesperson for "the" Catholic position about this or that. Though you've incorporated alternative voices in recent years, in the name of diversity, those voices don't have the same quasi-official endorsement Mr. Allen enjoys, as authoritative voices.

I'd love to see some reporting by someone at your paper on Allen's ties to Chaput, and what those ties have meant and continue to mean for his reporting. Now that would be an interesting story!

Maybe the real message is that the future of Christianity is not in any form of separation but in coalescence between those who choose to dedicate their lives in religious ministry with those who choose to supplement their lives with a religious or spiritual dimension.

I have attended the Men's Conference for the Archdiocese of Newark NJ for the past two years. Each time, there were dozens of members of Fr. Benedict Groeschel's order, Congregation of Friars of the Renewal. Most of them were under 40, and I'd say many under 30. And they were looking happy. Believe me, I'm a cynic, but even I thought they seemed sincere.

They are faithful to the magisterium of church, have emphasized ministry to the poor in inner cities, and actually practice their faith, and they wear habits. Their way of life is way different from that of declining religious communities.

Maybe a declining religious community might do a side-by-side comparison between itself and one that is growing. Why are people attracted to the one that is growing community, and not the declining one? What's the difference between their respective community lives? It's not just about secondary things like habits!

I find it difficult to imagine the LCWR orders having any impact on the Church in the future when their communities will have little to no members left within the next 25 years.

One thing I find missing on both sides of the subject: NO MENTION OF MISSION. One would enter a particular religious community because of its mission and charism. The "habit" is secondary. Contemplatives don't have to have a particular religious habit to form community. What they need is a mission and a place to carry that out. The same goes for an active religious community. The mission begins with love as Jesus taught us to love. You don't need a religious habit to fulfill that mission.

John Allen sadly became the "darling of the Cardinals" and power holders at the Vatican. John was and is always too impressed by these same men. Religious LIfe as we have known it is about to disappear. Yes, there will always be Religious Communities be they traditional or progressive, they no longer draw the numbers who stay. It's a natural evolution as the Church changes. It's al good.

If something is of God, the Spirit will renew and srengthen the ministry or congregation. One clear observation of LCWR communities is its lack of youthful involvement and dedication. Why didn't the Spirit give them new members if the direction they took was directed by the Holy Spirit? Why did the Spirit bless the more conservative communities with greater vocations?

The fact remains - progressive 21st century women would NOT be attracted to a life that is bound by man conceived vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. These words to a feminist sound like male domination all over again. Unlike in the pre-Vatican II church, women today can achieve positions of leadership and service without entering the religious life. So it stands to reason that those who view these vows of poverty, chastity and obedience would be more of a conservative type and thus they are the ones who are entering the religious life not the liberal ones.

No matter how one looks at it - living a life of any consecrated religious is very counter cultural and is not something that a progressive individual would even be attracted to - at least not those who are young and are affliated with the Left - at least not in large numbers except for your few token commentators here online.

Just under 10 years, these LCWR communities will soon disappear, they will lose their voice and impact and the only conference of women religious that will have any impact upon the future of the church will be the CSMWR.

This is reality. The Vatican will never accept congregations of lay members despite what congregations may or may not do.

I know this may be hard to swallow, but the reality is this: The so-called "future Church" movement has become the "fossil Church" movement. In other words, the liberal sisters are dying while the conservative orders are flourishing. The fact of the matter is this: they are a direct response to liberal nuns. That is the reason why they will continue to flourish because they have arisen as a response to horrific type of cathoic instruction, political-liberal catholic ideaology and personal disorders or dysfunctions within liberal communities (if you know what I mean).