The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionThe apostolic visitation of women religious, 780 days later
Jan. 14, 2011
COLUMN
I write this on day 780 of the Vatican apostolic visitation of U.S. women religious.
It was on Nov. 22, 2008, that the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life formally issued a decree opening the investigation of U.S. women’s religious communities, and virtually each day since has been marked with fruitless anxiety and wasted energy.
Officially, it was the congregation’s prefect, 76-year-old Slovenian Cardinal Franc Rodé, who opened the curtain on this tragedy. It’s unlikely he acted alone. Heaviest suspicion for this falls on U.S. cardinals who reside in Rome.
From the start, this sad effort has been a child without parents, and for good reason. Once it was brought to the attention of U.S. Catholics and others in the global community, the three-year-plus effort smacked of brazen unfairness. So off the mark was the whole enterprise viewed that it opened otherwise dedicated prelates to accusations of misogyny.
First was the notion of investigating women when clergy sex abuse was the story of the decade, if not the century. Next was the idea that the investigation was hatched in private, entirely by men, without the knowledge of the U.S. women religious leadership, who had sought open dialogue annually by traveling to Rome to meet with Vatican officials.
The women were left out of the process. They were told they would not be able to even view the results of the findings or respond to them before they reached the desks of the men who would act upon them.
Within some premodern context in which male clerics have unlimited authority in all aspects of some women’s lives, such demeaning behavior might hold up canonically. However, it did not in the civic arena, where even the most regressive governments are forced to pay lip service to human rights and democracy.
In U.S. terms, it is as if a trial would end after only the prosecution had made its case. To widespread charges of unfairness, the prelates could only say: “Trust us. We know what’s best.” It wasn’t enough.
Calls for “trust” were quickly subverted after word leaked that the examination of the women’s lives would cost more than $1.1 million. Those behind it to this day have not offered any accounting of where this money has come from. Whose church is this, anyhow?
The widely revered women religious were in a bind from day one. To cooperate in an apparently unjust process seemed only to enable the perpetrators. To oppose it put them in a defensive posture. Either way, they lose.
Preview NCR's Family Life Issue
Watch this video from NCR Editor Dennis Coday for highlights from our annual Family Life special section.
Subscribe now to receive all the content from each biweekly issue.
Facing the dilemma, they pondered for months among themselves and across community lines. After exhaustive and potentially debilitating discernment, they overwhelmingly agreed to a collective response that respected each community’s integrity in working out its own response. They also came to see they had inadvertently been offered “a teachable moment,” and so their responses would be characterized, as best possible, by charity and integrity.
This ended up meaning most religious communities did not fully comply with the extensive questionnaire sent to them by Rome. Some simply refused altogether; others returned their order’s constitutions; still others only partially answered questions.
Rome singled out dozens of communities for site visits, largely conducted by women. By most accounts, these were conducted in a spirit of mutual respect and charity.
| For one account of an apostolic visit, see Loretto Sr. Mary Ann Cunningham's piece, Woman religious finds Vatican-sent Visitators warm, friendly. |
However you might see it, as simple weariness or active charitable resistance, our women religious have tried not to complain, but rather speak with their actions. The sum effect seems to be a headache for the superior general of the Apostles of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, Mother Mary Clare Millea, who was appointed by Rome to carry out the visitation.
Lacking the cooperation she had hoped for, on Dec. 3, for a second time, she wrote a letter to community heads asking them to reconsider.
“In January 2010, I invited you and other major superiors who did not respond fully to the questionnaire to prayerful reconsider. Since my report to [the Vatican congregation] can only take into account the data I have received, without additional input from you I cannot adequately portray your reality,” she wrote.
“Therefore, I once again invite you to send me the data not previously submitted on the apostolic visitation questionnaire. I ask you to include as well any congregational materials requested which you have not already sent.”
It is unlikely many women will now change their minds on collective decisions taken within their communities a year and a half ago.
Has Rome gotten the message sent by so many?
In recent months, the top two Vatican posts charged with carrying out the study have changed hands, with ideologues replaced by realists. Taken together, these appointments have the appearances of a Vatican admission that it has overreached, if not openly blundered.
In August, the Vatican appointed an American priest, Fr. Joseph Tobin, a former Redemptorist order superior, to the congregation’s No. 2 post. Now-Archbishop Tobin has already opened heartening conversations with U.S. women religious leaders.
And earlier this month, Pope Benedict XVI chose as the new Vatican overseer of religious orders a 63-year-old Brazilian archbishop, João Bráz de Aviz, who expressed disarming ignorance and a willingness to walk with the U.S. women religious. For more information on Aviz, see John Allen's story New Vatican head of religious life comes without agenda.
It’s too early to know the full content of the final act of this drama. What is clear is that all spirits involved appear tired and wishing it could come to a quick end. Short of this, some editing of the script could help, like recasting the women as authors of their own lives.
Meanwhile, the study that began two years, one month and 20 days ago has been revealing in ways never anticipated by its authors. We have been reminded to think through vital decisions, to recognize they have consequences, and, most importantly, to ask how charity fits into the equation.
Let’s pray now the new visitation authors are open to these lessons, and find ways to add redemption to the act. It’s their choice. In the Spirit, it is said, all things are possible.
[Tom Fox is NCR editor. This column first appeared as an editor's note in the Jan. 21 print issue of NCR.]
Reactions: lucid; an issue
Reactions: lucid; an issue approached/spoken of from all known angles; fair; fearless; empathetic/compassionate; honest. Thank you Tom.
Don't know if Rome got the
Don't know if Rome got the message but I no longer give any funds to the religious like I used to. I found their resistance to be very telling. What did it tell me - they have something to hide. I didn't think so before. Their resistance opened my eyes to how naive I was thinking they were who they said they were. Nice to know they have support on these pages. I'm sure no one cares what I think or do. But that's what the visitation meant to me - broken trust of the sisters, not the hierarchy.
Well gee, Anon, you certainly
Well gee, Anon, you certainly sound open minded.
Suppose you were walking down a street where you live, and a bank robbery was i process. Unknowingly, you walked past the get a way car. In the confusion, the police arrested you. The prosecutor informed you that she had "conclusive proof" that you were involved in the robbery. You protested, saying you were just out for a stroll. The prosecution tole you that the court would go lightly on you if you confessed, throw the book at you if you continued to protest your independence. If I read of your plight in the papers and saw you being interviewed on TV, I certainly wouldn't contribute to any defense fund for you, as "clearly you were guilty".
Perhaps you should go back to cultivating flowers and writing sterile theoretical tomes.
Anonymous, I find it rich
Anonymous, I find it rich that you conclude the sisters have something to hide, and so you won't contribute to them anymore.
But you sign your posting, "Anonymous."
Who's hiding here?
And you're defending an investigation that is spending over a million dollars whose source is unaccounted for. Despite repeated requests for information, church officials won't tell us who is buying this investigation, who pushed for it, who is footing the bill.
Who's hiding here?
These visits are the latest
These visits are the latest manifestation of a church that has foregone conscience and charity for legalism, secrecy, and clericalism.
This church does not value women -- either in religious orders or as lay members. If the church respected women religious and valued their contributions to the life of the church, those in charge would have the courtesy to allow the congregations to at least read what had been written about them. Reminds me of what they used to say about how to keep wives in line: keep them barefoot and pregnant.
Well, the sisters are not pregnant, but the church prefers today's religious women ignorant of input about themselves. And obedient. And subservient.
I would love to see where the money for this elaborate folly came from. How many children could the money have fed? How many homeless could have been offered housing? How many destitute in Haiti or other sites of natural disasters offered comfort, food, and hope for tomorrow? No, we gotta go count the beans.
Today's church isn't into the practice of charity. They just want to make sure the nuns say enough novenas and don't talk back to Father. I don't know whose church it is, but it's not mine.
COMPARE and CONTRAST this
COMPARE and CONTRAST this visitation process with that of the one the Vatican did on American MALE seminaries:
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+visitation%3a+report+on+the+Vatican%27...
http://www.dignityusa.org/node/771
Major difference:
In the case of the SHORT and SWEET male seminarian visitation, they did NOT find what they were looking for: heterodox teachers and seminary formations as pedophile training school for homosexuals.
In the case of the LONG DRAWN OUT women religious visitation, they are NOT finding what they are looking for: evidence to hang the nuns out to dry.
Major similarities:
Secrecy and lack of transparency.
Complete ignorance of pertinent Vatican II documents.
Priority given to litmus testing in light of papal documents.
And we still do not know exactly WHO paid for either one!!
Once it's over, there's a doctoral dissertation in American church history just waiting to be written. Of course, access to DOCUMENTATION could pose a bit of a problem....
Fiat PLUS lux! Let there be MORE light!!
I have begun studying the
I have begun studying the history of religious orders in the US, and according to what I have read, the Church has never provided any financial support to any of the sisters or to their orders, and in fact exploited them for cheap labor. Does anyone have more information about that?
The whole outcry over this
The whole outcry over this visitation is farcical. Where was the outcry when the seminaries of the United States were visited some five or six years ago? That report did not reach the seminaries until after it had been compiled and shared with Rome; just like this process. The argument about the abuse crisis being centered only on religious men is likewise ridiculous; though their numbers weren't as high, there were plenty of cases of abuse by nuns. Furthermore, let us face the facts that the numbers of women religious are declining rapidly; this alone is worth investigating. Why is it that certain orders like the Nashville Dominicans are flourishing and others are nearly extinct?
The only reason this visitation has caused such outcry in the pages of this tabloid is that it fits into the "meta-narrative" NCR has created about the Church; to whit, the Church is a patriarchal, woman-abusing institution that must be radically reformed. That this narrative is patently false and not the experience of the vast majority of Catholics is completely besides the point. NCR has dug in their heels and will not be proven wrong by the truth or any other such inconvenience.
Anonymous: Right, and who
Anonymous: Right, and who killed Kennedy?
!
What's your point? That I'm
What's your point? That I'm some kind of nut for talking about meta-narrative? Everyone has one this magazine included. It's not a conspiracy by any means; rather, it is a fair judgment of the kind of stories that this newspaper chooses to put forward on a regular basis.
The Fox in the Henhouse;
The Fox in the Henhouse; let’s see how error filled this post is:
The reaction of progressive’s has indeed been “marked with fruitless anxiety and wasted energy” as the story directly above this one makes evident. It was never a witch hunt. The vitriol was from the left was a voluminous as it was baseless.
First was the notion of investigating women when clergy sex abuse was the story of the decade, if not the century. But what about the sexual abuse of children by the sisters? The seminary visitation was first because the homosexual priests were the biggest problem. Why is so little said about this part of the abuse story?
The women were not “left out of the process”; many refuse to cooperate after repeated, and open, invitations to do so.
It was not a case of “male clerics have unlimited authority in all aspects of some women’s lives”, the visitation was run by other women religious.
If “women religious were in a bind from day one”, it was due to their own reaction –which was wildly inappropriate and unbalanced.
“Rome” (who exactly?) singled out dozens of communities for site visits, largely conducted by women. By most accounts, these were conducted in a spirit of mutual respect and charity. Yes, exactly my point…
However you might spin it, many women religious have done nothing but complain. “The sum effect seems to be a headache for the superior general of the Apostles of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, Mother Mary Clare Millea, who was appointed by Rome to carry out the visitation.” Because she was unjustly attacked by other women religious in the most vile manner.
“Has Rome gotten the message sent by so many?” Yes, and the message is that there is a dangerously reactionary element at work that sees themselves as beyond anyone’s authority. The message is that this visitation and the doctrinal assessment of the leadership council was long overdue.
A biased piece which says
A biased piece which says little that is new but largely re-hashes what was said two years ago. My observations on the piece:
(a) It somewhat confuses an Apostolic Visitation with the medieval Inquisition. I mean, one has really to rather gullible to swallow that.
(b) It assumes that the Church is capable of doing one and only thing at a time: Either deal with the clergy sex abuse matter or with the Apostolic Visitation. The two can't be dealt with together. Multi-tasking seems an alien notion. One would imagine that all other tasks of the Church need to stop until the sex abuse matter is sorted out to everyone's satisfaction.
(c) It uses language which, when broken up into constituent parts seems absolutely true, yet when taken as a whole, convey an impression so grossly exaggerated as to be an untruth. An example: I quote: "The women were left out of the process. They were told that they would not be able to even view the results of the findings or respond to them before they reached the desks of the men who would act upon them." Two points arise from this - one semantic, and one procedural.
The semantic manipulation: by carefully using the word "women" and juxtaposing it with the word "men" the impression is given that ipso facto there is a gender bias in the very notion of a Visitation. One would imagine that the Vatican has never ever 'investigated' a priestly congregation or an Order of Brothers, and that this Apostolic Visitation has been undertaken because of the sole reason that nuns are women! If the piece’s reasoning is to be consistent, then, its logical conclusion is that since nuns are by definition women, and since, for the present, Popes and Cardinals are men, the Vatican should NEVER, under any circumstance dare to examine matters related to nuns unless and until the Pope and/or the majority of cardinals are women.
Another insiduous assertion by playing on words: "Within some premodern context in which male clerics have unlimited authority in all aspects of some women's lives, such demeaning behaviour may hold up canonically." One wonders what exactly is being got at? Does it mean that it is okay for clerics to have 'unlimited authority' (whatever that means) over other males, and that such a system is reprehensible only when the genders are different? And if it is not so, and it is truly intended that one set of people should not have unlimited authority over another set, then why is the meaning manipulated by specifying the genders. One cannot fail to get the impression that rather than examining the issues relating to "unlimited authority", the piece is simply playing to the galleries.
An appeal to "democracy and human rights" is quite misplaced. Democracy is greatly to be treasured, and it is for this reason that it should not be trivialised. Democracy applies to a nation and the country, and while democratic principles, in different measure are certainly desirable in various other fields and organizations, by very definition "democracy" itself cannot exist in sub-national or supra-national organizations. Whether schools or Universities or business corporations or NGOs or trade unions or clubs - or even religious congrgations and the Vatican, democratic principles are important, but 'democracy'....? Is the NCR run as a "democracy"? Can it be run as such?
The procedural sleight of hand: in any such consultation, the Visitor's report is just that; it is not the final view of the Vatican. Before asking the Congregations to comment on issues the Pope (or the Cardinals - the "men at the desks") would naturally need to see the contents. Asking that the report be made public (which is what 'viewing' and 'responding' actually means) even before it is seen in Rome is procedurally undesirable. It is quite conceivable that the report goes beyond its brief; it is quite conceivable that the Vatican would tone down parts; ask for clarifications from the Visitor himself.... That, in fact, would be the prudent thing to do. If responses are asked for on a report that has not even been seen, it would be a half-baked move. The piece seems to put the Vatican in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" position. If indeed viewings and responses were called for from the Sisters on a report that was not even seen by the Vatican, the Vatican could well be accused of sloppiness rather than openness.
Further, the piece seems to give the impression that the Apostolic Visitor comes in some cloak-and-dagger fashion to the US, and conducts an 'investigation', while locking out the Sisters from their convents, ignoring and by-passing them completely. The facts are quite the contrary. The Visitation would, and has engaged in a consultation with the sisters of the congregations. This is also borne out by other reports, including the (grudging?) admission that most of the site visits were conducted by women, and in a sensitive manner.
And a final observation on the patent bias demonstrated (the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" attitude to the Vatican): A paragraph says: "In recent months the top two Vatican posts charged with carrying on the study have changed hands, with ideologues replaced by realists." One would almost expect the editorial to welcome this and applaud the Pope for wisdom. But no. Even when something positive (replacing ideologues with realists) is done, this cause for ridicule: "...a Vatican admission that it has overreached, if not openly blundered."
Unfortunately lacking is evidence that the report arises from love for the church; it seems more a trenchant criticism, dripping as it is with bias, devoid of genuine love. My church is certainly not beyond criticism. I criticise it myself. It is desperately in need of reform, of change. And I wish to make common cause with all the millions of Catholics who are concerned for their church and want to reform it. But this must stem from love, not rancour.
Post new comment