The Independent News Source
Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Vatican, U.S. women religious tensions go back decades
Aug. 09, 2009
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF version
LCWR former president, Mercy Sister Theresa Kane, addresses Pope John Paul II at the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, DC Oct. 7, 1979, asking pope to open all church ministries to women.
Printer-friendly versionSend to friendPDF versionThe Leadership Conference of Women Religious, the umbrella organization for the large majority of American congregations, is meeting in New Orleans this week at a critical moment in its history. Two sweeping investigations of American sisters are being pursued by the Vatican, one aimed at LCWR itself, the other at the hundreds of congregations across the land. What follows is a time-line in the strained relationship between Rome and American sisters provided by Ken Briggs, based on his book: “Double Crossed: Uncovering the Catholic Church's Betrayal of American Nuns,” (Doubleday, 2006.) It is aimed at providing context for the reporting of the meeting, which readers will find on line and in the Aug. 21 issue of NCR.
1954 – Establishment of the Sister Formation Movement by Sisters Mary Emil Penet and Ritamary Bradley. The remarkable organization promoted college education for sisters became a catalyst for developing inter-community consciousness around issues of religious life and its relationship to society.
Autumn, 1965 -- The Second Vatican Council approves a document addressed only to religious orders: Perfectae Caritatis (“Perfect Love”). It gives permission to each congregation to renew itself as it saw fit.
“Calling for ‘a conscious return to the sources of all Christian life and to the original inspiration behind a given community,” the instruction asserts that the church profited by the ‘special character and purpose’ of each community. (p. 76)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leadership Conference of Women Religious at the Crossroads
Women religious study to include 'soundness of doctrine'
What's on the minds of many women religious
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spring, 1966: Cardinal Ildebrando Antoniutti, head of the Congregation for Religious, warns sisters against interpreting the council’s mandate in ways he found dangerous. His speech was to Italian superiors months after the council decree.
“The vocation of a nun was the ‘state of perfection,’ he said, using the phrase that had been rejected as an elitist anachronism by council progressives … You must not permit yourself to be easygoing, tolerant, weak,’ the cardinal said. ‘Remember that when you fail to correct or punish, life itself will correct with merciless blows.’ Exercise ‘maternal correction,’ he advised; ‘radical feminism’ had smothered [women’s] natural instincts toward humble and retiring self-growing’.”
1967 – First Sister Survey. Conducted by Sister Marie Augusta Neal (Harvard PhD), shows overwhelming support for steps taken by congregations to renew themselves and provides a baseline for further attitude changes.
“The first Sister Survey (1966-68), which reached all 180,000 nuns in the United States, found that two thirds of the respondents (63 percent) were opposed to allowing sisters freedom to choose to wear secular clothes on some occasions and 64 percent were opposed to sisters being allowed to wear contemporary dress at all times. In 1982 (the second Survey), the ground had almost totally shifted …
1968 –Cardinal James McIntyre of Los Angeles demands that the Immaculate Heart of Mary sisters back down from the changes in dress, work and living arrangements approved by the community’s chapter – and submit to his control instead -- or be forced out of the order. In what became a national scandal, the great majority of sisters refused to give in, and left to form a community separate from hierarchical control.
1971 – The Conference of Major Superiors of Women (CMSW) proposes changing its name to Leadership Conference of Women Religious. The Vatican denies the request on grounds that the word “Leadership” implied a furthering of autonomy and independence among women’s communities. “ … by the mid-1970s, many American sisters felt that the church had subjected them to forms of injustice they couldn’t ignore.”
A seemingly trivial matter signaled that displeasure: Rome’s attempt to stop the national association of sisters from changing its name. It was an important fight over symbolism … Although Vatican II’s call for activism on behalf of social justice presumably applied to nuns no less than to the rest of the church, the (conference’s) assertiveness signaled by the name change could make it more difficult to limit sisters to issues ‘outside’ the church.
Friction over giving the upstart CMSW a more commanding title was never resolved by discussion between conference officials and Rome because Vatican officials refused to agree to talks. After the conference went ahead with the name change in 1971, its leaders regularly trekked to Rome and asked to meet with the pope and other authorities. The requests were repeatedly denied ….
‘What we found was shocking,’ Sister Margaret Brennen (head of the conference 1972-73) said. ‘The church had called us to renewal, and we took it seriously. When we began to live it out, however, we became a threat to the centrist church. In dealing with Rome, their insistence was that we weren’t obeying. I can’t count the number of times we met in Rome and tried to speak out to the Holy Father – not to complain, just to explain who we are and why we’re doing what we’re doing – but our requests were never granted’.”
1971 – The Consortium Perfectae Caritatis forms in opposition to LCWR policies. Its founding as a break-away group was encouraged by the Vatican whose policies it supports against LCWR. In 1992, the Vatican officially recognizes CPC under the name Council of Major Superiors of Women, on an equal, competitive footing with LCWR. In effect, the Vatican now had an organizational platform with which to wage its campaign against alleged LCWR radicalism. America became the only country with rival sister organizations.
1971 – A liaison group of U.S Bishops assigned to look into the LCWR recites a long list of complaints against the sisters at a joint meeting in Detroit with LCWR representatives. The bishops mostly complain about disobedience. Nothing gets resolved.
1975 – Another group in reaction to the widespread nature of sisters’ renewal, the Institute on Religious Life, emerged, also with Vatican support, further ostracizing LCWR. Cardinal John O’Connor was its chief hierarchical supporter and benefactor. The Institute, in turn, encouraged CPC to expand its efforts.
“Sister Vincent Marie Finnegan, the Consortium’s director (1995), said assistance was forthcoming. ‘We began because major superiors saw deviation from church teaching,’ she explained. ‘We felt we couldn’t reform within [the LCWR]. We had to have heavy backing from cardinals and bishops’.”
1975 – Founding of the Women’s Ordination Conference, with participation by many sisters, both those who believed they had a vocation to priesthood and those who generally stood for women’s ordination. With a year, the pope issued a document flatly rejecting women as candidates for the priesthood.
1979 – During Pope John Paul II’s visit to the United States, Sister Theresa Kane, speaking in her capacity as head of the LCWR, stuns a nation-wide audience by calling on the pope to consider admitting women to all offices in the church, including the priesthood.
“Renewal had shocked many into conscious awareness of the huge disadvantages women religious had suffered because of their gender and the low status assigned to them because of that … The fact that Rome was obliged to uphold a teaching that didn’t convince many leading theologians gave some advantage to the nuns. Pope John Paul subsequently forbade even discussing the ordination issue; at the same time he endeavored to calm the waters by emphasizing his opposition to sexism without changing a dot or tittle of church teaching.”
November, 1983 – The pope orders a study of U.S. sisters’ congregations under the direction of Bishop John R. Quinn. The study sparked fears of an investigation whose goal was reining sisters back in from renewal. The fact that it became a less threatening instrument was credited to Bishop Quinn’s sagacious, respectful handling of the process. Sister Margaret Cafferty, who was executive director of LCWR at the time, said Bishop Quinn became “the best friend we could have had.” It was widely believed that the results might have been disastrous in other hands.
“The [Quinn] final report asserted that the bishops had learned a great deal about the enhanced status of the individual and the value of women in religious life. It noted both a weakening of identity in many congregations and ‘a decline in respect for the Pope and the Magisterium of the Church.’ There remained ‘certain tensions’ between some religious and the Holy See,’ the report status.
“The Quinn report came as close to a defense of American sisters as the bishops had ever achieved.
1983 – The pope issues “Essential Elements of Religious Life,” attempts to reestablish firm, traditional guideless for religious congregations, ones that contrasted sharply with the course of much of the renewal.
“Essential Elements was the most aggressive effort yet to restrain what the Vatican saw as a renegade renewal. Nuns had ventured too far into the world, the pope thought, and it was time to head back to the convent. Little of the renewal experienced by the majority of nuns could be found in the nine elements that were being promoted as criteria for sister communities. In terms of dress, housing, work, and prayer, the document echoed the now familiar refrain that the Sacred Congregation for Religious wished renewal had never happened the way it did, or perhaps at all.”
1995 – Cardinal John J. O’Connor returned from the Synod of Bishops month-long session on religious life (he was one of three picked by the pope to preside) with a blistering attack on its widespread practice in America. He made his allegations, which ultimately were rooted in his concept of “radical feminism,” to the annual meeting of the Institute on Religious Life, which he had helped launch. He had also established his own community, the Sisters of Life, on the tradition style of Mother Teresa.
“The cardinal’s spirited defense of tradition … argued that too many nuns were trying to refashion religious life to their own liking in defiance of church teaching and in an effort to steal power from priests and bishops. He alluded to ‘a relentless pursuit of power, power sought at the expense of faith, exclusive power to determine for ourselves’ as the scourge of the allegedly rebellious nuns. The authority structure as it existed was divinely ordered, he said, and to threaten it was a sin. ‘Power is sought at the expense of faith,’ proclaimed the prelate, who had walked the corridors of church power for most of his adult life. ‘Too often it is sought by those whose faith in God and in the church has been seriously weakened’.
2009 – Two investigations ordered by the Vatican: one aimed at all congregations, the second specifically at LCWR, especially its theology.
Ordain women, smarten up
Ordain women, smarten up Vatican, and read the New Testament. God and Jesus are the source of what should be in the church : equality for women, respect, all talents and gifts of all used to serve God and the people.
Ordain women and male clergy stop clinging to power. The anger, contempt against women by Cardinal John O'Connor and Rode is palpable and vicious. It is not at all like Jesus who had women do all for the church, who praised women highly , who made women true co-workers, apostles, disciples just like the men.
It is the males who are clinging to power and who are in the wrong not letting women (and the married) to be priests. We need these harvesters in the fields of God, we need the women too to be ordained.
I strongly disagree and
I strongly disagree and recommend Pope John Paul II's Apostolic Letter which I have replicated in its entirety below. Its also available on the Vatican Website under Apostolic Letters of John Paul II. Here it is:
APOSTOLIC LETTER
ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS
OF JOHN PAUL II
TO THE BISHOPS
OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
ON RESERVING PRIESTLY ORDINATION TO MEN ALONE
Venerable Brothers in the Episcopate,
1. Priestly ordination, which hands on the office entrusted by Christ to his Apostles of teaching, sanctifying and governing the faithful, has in the Catholic Church from the beginning always been reserved to men alone. This tradition has also been faithfully maintained by the Oriental Churches.
When the question of the ordination of women arose in the Anglican Communion, Pope Paul VI, out of fidelity to his office of safeguarding the Apostolic Tradition, and also with a view to removing a new obstacle placed in the way of Christian unity, reminded Anglicans of the position of the Catholic Church: "She holds that it is not admissible to ordain women to the priesthood, for very fundamental reasons. These reasons include: the example recorded in the Sacred Scriptures of Christ choosing his Apostles only from among men; the constant practice of the Church, which has imitated Christ in choosing only men; and her living teaching authority which has consistently held that the exclusion of women from the priesthood is in accordance with God's plan for his Church."(1)
But since the question had also become the subject of debate among theologians and in certain Catholic circles, Paul VI directed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to set forth and expound the teaching of the Church on this matter. This was done through the Declaration Inter Insigniores, which the Supreme Pontiff approved and ordered to be published.(2)
2. The Declaration recalls and explains the fundamental reasons for this teaching, reasons expounded by Paul VI, and concludes that the Church "does not consider herself authorized to admit women to priestly ordination."(3) To these fundamental reasons the document adds other theological reasons which illustrate the appropriateness of the divine provision, and it also shows clearly that Christ's way of acting did not proceed from sociological or cultural motives peculiar to his time. As Paul VI later explained: "The real reason is that, in giving the Church her fundamental constitution, her theological anthropology-thereafter always followed by the Church's Tradition- Christ established things in this way."(4)
In the Apostolic Letter Mulieris Dignitatem, I myself wrote in this regard: "In calling only men as his Apostles, Christ acted in a completely free and sovereign manner. In doing so, he exercised the same freedom with which, in all his behavior, he emphasized the dignity and the vocation of women, without conforming to the prevailing customs and to the traditions sanctioned by the legislation of the time."(5)
In fact the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles attest that this call was made in accordance with God's eternal plan; Christ chose those whom he willed (cf. Mk 3:13-14; Jn 6:70), and he did so in union with the Father, "through the Holy Spirit" (Acts 1:2), after having spent the night in prayer (cf. Lk 6:12). Therefore, in granting admission to the ministerial priesthood,(6) the Church has always acknowledged as a perennial norm her Lord's way of acting in choosing the twelve men whom he made the foundation of his Church (cf. Rv 21:14). These men did not in fact receive only a function which could thereafter be exercised by any member of the Church; rather they were specifically and intimately associated in the mission of the Incarnate Word himself (cf. Mt 10:1, 7-8; 28:16-20; Mk 3:13-16; 16:14-15). The Apostles did the same when they chose fellow workers(7) who would succeed them in their ministry.(8) Also included in this choice were those who, throughout the time of the Church, would carry on the Apostles' mission of representing Christ the Lord and Redeemer.(9)
3. Furthermore, the fact that the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God and Mother of the Church, received neither the mission proper to the Apostles nor the ministerial priesthood clearly shows that the non-admission of women to priestly ordination cannot mean that women are of lesser dignity, nor can it be construed as discrimination against them. Rather, it is to be seen as the faithful observance of a plan to be ascribed to the wisdom of the Lord of the universe.
The presence and the role of women in the life and mission of the Church, although not linked to the ministerial priesthood, remain absolutely necessary and irreplaceable. As the Declaration Inter Insigniores points out, "the Church desires that Christian women should become fully aware of the greatness of their mission: today their role is of capital importance both for the renewal and humanization of society and for the rediscovery by believers of the true face of the Church."(10)
The New Testament and the whole history of the Church give ample evidence of the presence in the Church of women, true disciples, witnesses to Christ in the family and in society, as well as in total consecration to the service of God and of the Gospel. "By defending the dignity of women and their vocation, the Church has shown honor and gratitude for those women who-faithful to the Gospel-have shared in every age in the apostolic mission of the whole People of God. They are the holy martyrs, virgins and mothers of families, who bravely bore witness to their faith and passed on the Church's faith and tradition by bringing up their children in the spirit of the Gospel."(11)
Moreover, it is to the holiness of the faithful that the hierarchical structure of the Church is totally ordered. For this reason, the Declaration Inter Insigniores recalls: "the only better gift, which can and must be desired, is love (cf. 1 Cor 12 and 13). The greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven are not the ministers but the saints."(12)
4. Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church's judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.
Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.
Invoking an abundance of divine assistance upon you, venerable brothers, and upon all the faithful, I impart my apostolic blessing.
From the Vatican, on May 22, the Solemnity of Pentecost, in the year 1994, the sixteenth of my Pontificate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTES
1. Paul VI, Response to the Letter of His Grace the Most Reverend Dr. F.D. Coggan, Archbishop of Canterbury, concerning the Ordination of Women to the Priesthood (November 30, 1975); AAS 68 (1976), 599.
2. Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Inter Insigniores on the question of the Admission of Women to the Ministerial Priesthood (October 15, 1976): AAS 69 (1977), 98-116.
3. Ibid., 100.
4. Paul VI, Address on the Role of Women in the Plan of Salvation (January 30, 1977): Insegnamenti, XV (1977), 111. Cf. Also John Paul II Apostolic Exhortation Christifideles laici (December 30, 1988), n. 51: AAS 81 (1989), 393-521; Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1577.
5. Apsotolic Letter Mulieris Dignnitatem (August 15, 1988), n. 26: AAS 80 (1988), 1715.
6. Cf. Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, n. 28 Decree Presbyterorum Ordinis, n. 2b.
7. Cf. 1 Tm 3:1-13; 2 Tm 1:6; Ti 1:5-9.
8. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1577.
9. Cf. Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium, nn. 20,21.
10. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Inter Insigniores, n. 6: AAS 69 (1977), 115-116.
Dear Snowdrop, You are citing
Dear Snowdrop,
You are citing the Pope John Paul II's document as an ultimate historical truth, which it is not.
Early Christian churches did not believe in Apostolic Succession---nor did Jesus Christ give Peter the Code of Canon Law on tablets of stone. For the first six centuries, the Bishop of Rome (pope) was elected by popular acclaim--not by a Conclave.
Until the time of the Final Judgement, no pope can make a statement about Church policy and practices binding for all time. Not while the Church is supposed to be serving living human beings who are living in changing times.
The Church, for example, has taught that in the Roman Rite--De jure, that priests must be celibate. It has taught this since the 12th Century and Canon law was begun in the 13th Century.
But, De facto--a bishop may take Lutheran pastors and Angelican canons (with wives and families) and ordain them and set them up in Catholic parishes. In fact, just about two weeks ago, an Angelican man--a family man (not a canon), became Catholic, and was ordained a Roman Catholic priest for the Diocese of Charlotteville, on Prince Edward Island, Canada. After becoming a Catholic, the process of his preparation took a total of five years. Did the bishop have to have permission to do this? Yes, and he got the permission.
It is also well known that in large parts of the world (especially in Latin America and Africa) Roman Catholic priests take common law wives and raise families. The bishop looks the other way and the people are quite happy to have a married priest serving them.
If you look at the "Annuario Pontificio" which lists the bishops of the world's dioceses and pay particular note to the countries of Latin America and Africa, you will often see a diocese headed by a bishop who is a member of a religious order---Dominican, Franciscan, Salesian, or a Jesuit. One can make a very informed guess that most of the qualified priests in that diocese are family men, so Rome fills an episcopal vacancy with a member of a religious order---who has taken vows of chastity.
But we still have the law on the books (Canon law), that Roman rite priests
and priests of Eastern rites (in the U.S. and Canada) may not have wives or families. In America, those priests who married and left the ministry---could render great service, they could still say Mass (many belong to CORPUS an association of inactive priests)---but Canon law---will not permit it.
To say that women have never been priests (or bishops) in Christian communities is sheer nonsense! Too many artifacts, documents, have been found to suggest otherwise. And the official Church cannot keep these findings forever locked up and hidden. More and more is coming out every year.
You are confusing the
You are confusing the issue.
Married priests do not enter into the question of women's ordination.
Sheer nonsense? Where is your proof?
If you do not believe that the Pope is the Successor of Peter and the Vicar of Jesus Christ, that is your business.
But to claim that the Catholic Church has ordained women in the past?
I don't think so.
The assertions in OS cannot
The assertions in OS cannot be supported by recourse to ecclesial history or application of canon law.
It's when you read JPII's
It's when you read JPII's letter that you get a real feeling for just how lame the Church's arguments against ordination of women really are.
Power, power, power is the
Power, power, power is the rant of Cardinal O'Connor in his speech of 1995 yet it is clear he is the one grabbing all the power, hanging on to power. It is not about power, if he thinks priesthood is power he should not be a cardinal. Jesus tells us the job is to be a humble servant of God, and that is not at all about power, The women should be allowed to also be a priest, a humble servant of God, as defined by Jesus, his definition.
The vicious rant by O"Connor just shows his own unsuitability to be a cleric in the church. He can not love the neighbour, women, or the other, the different from himself, the feminine, he only sees worth, value, in the masculine. This unbalanced, life-hating nature of this cardinal is systemic to too many Roman Catholic clerics, especially the Vatican ones, and many bishops. This does great harm to have these as leaders in the church. They are very destructive and life-destroying to children , women and men.
Johnathon, you should know
Johnathon, you should know the facts before you write. Cardinal O'Connor has been dead since 2000. Your failure to know what you talk about leads one to believe that your are like an exuberant dog who barks at everything and is excited by everything but doesn't know what is going on.
SPECIAL BULLETIN FOR ALL
SPECIAL BULLETIN FOR ALL CATHOLICS: Alas, the facts are in and it has been reported through religious internet intelligence services internationally that the ever so exuberant anti-liberal/anti-progressive/ anti-democrat monkey-like Milbo man has found another back to jump upon. The monkey-like Milbo man does this for sport and recreation. Watch your back everyone. Expect to see this monkey-like Milbo man on anyone's back who doesn't agree with him 100% and if a single word may not be right according to his righteousness and all knowing attitude you become the playground for his habitual and ritualistic verbal abuse. Milbo man prefers female backs, but has been observed on male backs too. So be on the lookout for Milbo man on your back or your neighbors back in your local area soon. Stay tuned for additional updates.
CATHOLICS BE ALERT! The
CATHOLICS BE ALERT! The great servant of God, Milbo has been falsely attacked because he, like our Lord and Savior speaks the truth but this is too much for liberals to take. Like the Chicago political machine that gave us notorious politicans, liberals are now putting out false alerts under our name. Milbo can be comforted by the words of Our Lord who said, "Blessed are you when they attack you and utter all slanders about you because of my name." As "A Hopeful Sister" said, Milbo has both God's love and mercy. Milbo is like Demeterius and his critics are like the unfortunate soul, Diotrephes. Our Lord came to bring the light, but liberals hate the light and will seek to destroy the light, but they will not succeed.
"Putting women in their
"Putting women in their proper place" is the aim of the Vatican's Apostolic Visit. That "place" is in the Middle Ages or the high Renaissance.
This controversy is like a storm -- a tornado, a hurricane. It will leave a lot of damage. The Roman Catholic Church leadership is trying to turn the clock back. They are like the Amish or Mennonites --- stuck in a period of time. The Latin language, the flowing garments, the array of colors, the mindset, the expression of culture, etc., all these are indeed medieval. It is ironic that the Pope who came from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has opted for cultural expression (Medievalism) instead of the faith.
It is similar to the struggle of the early Church with the "Judaizers."
We have had storms before, and this one will pass.
With all the attention being
With all the attention being given to this topic, and rightly so, how is that none of thee contributors can face the obvious issue: nobody wants to join what has been created by the "Leadership" of women religious.
I can understand why people would be ideologically committed to the steps having been taken, but what about the plain facts of reality?- nobody is buying what they're selling. It just hasn't worked. Women's religious life will simply not exist in this country under this "reformed" model, not because anybody is oppressing the congregations, but because no young women apparently find it attractive enough or worthy of giving their lives to.
Doesn't that say anything to anybody here? Maybe there is a way of "handling" that objection. If so, please offer it for our better understanding of the issue.
Your statement, "nobody wants
Your statement, "nobody wants to join what has been created by the 'Leadership' of women religious" is meant to be misleading, of course. First, there are those who join. Second, the leadership didn't 'create the orders'--what you see is the result of following the directives of V2 to re-search the charisms of their founders and leaders rising from that. They are not perfect, as no one is perfect. But they are also not what their detractors claim them to be--without evidence--as I've found easily by asking for it online. It's ideology doing the talking.
Yes, that fewer young women want to enter the orders as they have emerged from the V2 re-visioning does say things to many people, just not what the conservative ideologues lay claim to over and over again. I hear that there are massive numbers of young women entering these "unreformed" models, but I've never seen ANY, so it is hard to say what they are like or why they join what they do, so I won't attempt to construct that for them here. I do hope them all the best.
What most young women with a strong spirituality have discovered is that they don't need to be on the butt-end of Church authority to envision spiritual lives, including those of great commitment and even committment to community living. They can marry or not, create and nurture communities of their choosing, have professional careers or not: they have some freedom to make decisions for their own lives. Those who once entered religious life, in other words, often were those who wanted something "different", "deeper", "more committed" than the usual and less spiritually-respected role of married women. There is now a greater respect for women, whether they become sisters or marry or work or don't or are single. Society has changed some. I was once one of those young women--and I respect religious women more than anyone in the Church today--but I am very glad that I followed my dreams and goals in life. I probably once would have been one of those leaders out there by now in my life, but I am very glad that I can focus my obedience to the Holy Spirit instead of to men with an attitude about women needing to be 'seen but not heard." My guess is you won't hear a peep from the male religious orders regardless of what the Vatican does to the women; it won't be worth it to them until it is their orders and they need to speak up.
There are other scenarios and causes etc. but the changes in the opportunities for spiritually-engaged young women has changed dramatically, as it has, for that matter, with young men. It was once the thing that every catholic family should have one of, preferably one a priest and one a sister. As with the general 'rise of the laity' maybe they don't need to in order to reach the lives God intended for them.
And it may be that some of those who choose religious life in the traditional orders have reasons for doing so that you are not acknowledging?
Please see the following for
Please see the following for confirmation of what has been said.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/11/ap/national/main5231856.shtml
As for the traditional orders receiving vocations, nobody claims that the numbers are "massive"- only that there are numbers, as opposed to the LCWR congregations. It's just a fact. See the Sisters of Life, the Ann Arbor Dominicans (17 entering next week), the Nashville Dominicans for the most dramatic instances. And to attribute some kind of menacing ulterior motive to these vocations as you do at the end of your response is a pretty cheap and ungracious shot, wouldn't you say? Let's just stick with the facts.
The bottom line is the "experiments" didn't work Quitting going to mass and refusing to pray to the Trinity is probably not what Vatican II had in mind. Would you agree with that? Much good came out of the reforms, but in the myriad instances of "reforms" that just went all out for whatever is most trendy in the culture- this didn't work and nobody wants to join it. What they do want to join- some at least- is what is consistent with the tradition- poverty, chastity and obedience, giving things up for the sake of love of Christ and his people. It might sound boring to some, but it is an adventure and one worth everything for others.
Actually, CSC, statements of
Actually, CSC, statements of "massive" numbers have been pretty consistent for several years online. I never said that any of them were from reliable sources, just that they are out there all the time.
I also didn't claim "ulterior motives" to anyone joining any order, if you mean by that that they are trying to keep something secret as a motive, which is a part of the usual definition for the word. I very much pray them all well, since I think a 'religiously committed' life is a good one. It's interesting to me that so many people see the motives they have as new applicants as somehow more perfect than those who went before, which seems to be the idea of many who are younger, and, for which there would seem little-to-no evidence. Young people generally, whom much of this discussion is aimed at, tend to be full of energy and idealism and enthusiasm, which is just great, and, as it should be. That does usually change some in one's life, and hopefully into mature Christian commitment.
What many people seem to miss is that the context has changed. Society has changed. Religious orders were not started by Jesus, but by his followers. They do change. There was a time there wasn't this order or that order, and there will be those changes again.
What isn't really clear to me is what that proves? It seems to prove to many people that the orders are "now" on a better track because they have more new members, but that can mean something real and permanent or not--none of that will be known for a longtime down the road. When these young people mature will they think and feel the same? What will be the 'frutis' which is what we also need to look at. We don't have any information in front of us at this point except these claims about how to interpret numbers. The proof in the pudding, kind of cliche, reflects that the time can hardly be here for a comparison of any kind. All that is very clear is that there seems to be a direction change.
Finally, you end with how the 'experiments' (I guess that's the re-visioning) didn't work, and then you say (1) that mostly they did, and (2) you've heard some things that didn't. Wow. Great research information. I'm always hearing about Barney masses from priests, also, but, even though I've lived all over the country and tend toward the less traditional, I don't see these things. I doubt that the traditional orders are going to want to focus on some of the extremes of some members somewhere, which we've already seen in some of the pseudo-traditional religious movements of the late twentieth century. Some of them certainly much less healthy than praying more to one Person of the Trinity.
So maybe it's best to look at your #1 point: 'mostly the 'experiments' worked well.
As a young woman who once
As a young woman who once considered vowed religious life, I just want to say that Annie's analysis is spot on (and similar reasoning to other young women I know who considered vowed religious life and chose another path).
I count many women religious among my friends and mentors, and I am drawn to the unique charisms and ministries of the orders I've been privileged to work with. The renewal of these orders in no way repelled me - in fact, it is what initially drew me to them in the first place. However, as Annie pointed out, young women have more options, both spiritually and in society, than they had in the past.
I can make the same case
I can make the same case about the priesthood. No one is much signing up for that religious option either, and the priesthood has a whole lot more perks.
What the Vatican should be doing is looking at this problem more globally for both men and women. For instance, it may be that a limited time commitment rather than a life time commitment would be more attractive across all vocations.
You ask the right question!
You ask the right question! It seems like rapidly dwindling ranks and troubled finances would give these Sisters the hint that they are barking up the wrong tree.
If the Vatican really wanted to show how much they didn't care about American Sisters, they would just sit back and watch as disobedient Orders go extinct.
most people that attend
most people that attend church are women. women built towns when they moved in with their children. before that it was saloons and brothels. the church owes their existance to women.
you are so right!!
you are so right!!
Absolutely! I've believed
Absolutely! I've believed this all my life. It is the women, mothers and sisters who have taught and sustained the faith. They have been the "workers in the field". Whether "lay" or "religious" from the very beginning they have been in the majority, moving forward and giving growth to the "kingdom". There should be nothing but gratitude and reverance for their contributions. God blesses them all.
This is statistically quite
This is statistically quite true and should be mentioned much more often as the hierarchy fights to keep women in their "roles." Women have always been the church: they have brought the families, made sure money got into the collection plates, made sure the babies were baptized. Without us, the entire church would be a couple of old men scratching their heads and staring at each other, wondering what the hell happened. The churches would collapse. So the little-acknowledged reality is, we already have the power.
"The authority structure as
"The authority structure as it existed was divinely ordered, he said, and to threaten it was a sin."
And so it is ever said. HA!
are you crazy or what, the
are you crazy or what, the authorty structure was not divnely ordered. it was man made check out the popes, what a bunch of power seeking, money grabbing, killers they were.
I take it, dixieo5599, that
I take it, dixieo5599, that maybe you don't know facetiousness when you trip over it?
It's time to throw this crowd
It's time to throw this crowd out. I am sick and tired of hearing selfish, disobedient people who have made the wrong choice in life going on about their problems. Catholicism and the kind of feminism espoused by these loudmouths are not compatible.
Many of the thoughts, words &
Many of the thoughts, words & deeds of the Church hierarchy towards Female religious make me wonder if this is how they would like their mothers or sisters to be treated by the Church?
Or even themselves, since both men & women are human beings as well!
Cardinal O'Connor died, but
Cardinal O'Connor died, but unfortunately there are some who share his fear of losing power. Only God is powerful.
How sad that both men and women of the Church cannot seem to work together for God.
Will we ever "get it" the way God intended???
It is all about the abuse of
It is all about the abuse of the power and control which continues to slip from the hands of the hierarchs along with the dissipation of credibility, individual integrity and character.
The arrogance of leadership is glaringly revealed in their refusal to support necessity legislative changes needed to protect children in the United States, their refusal to abide by state courts' decisions to unseal records, files and trial proceedings, especially by Cardinal Roger Mahony of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, California and Bishop William Lori of the Diocese of Bridgeport, Connecticut.
Many bishops still refuse to make public names and locations of known, convicted and/or credibly accused clerics.
Such things are unbelievable and unacceptable at this late date.
All of this, together with the fact that the USCCB 2002 Charter, which has no power to compel compliance anyway and has not been applied to the bishops who are known sexual offenders, has individual members all across the spectrum of the People of God up in arms.
The very structure of the institutional Roman Catholic Church needs rethinking, revision and renewal.
A good place to start is with the movement known at the American Catholic Council. More can be read about it at:
http://americancatholiccouncil.org/
*************************
Sister Maureen Paul Turlish
Victims' Advocate
New Castle, Delaware
maureenpaulturlish@yahoo.com
Sister, when will you
Sister, when will you advocate for the victims of the LCWR's abuse and cover-up?
The behavior of the men at
The behavior of the men at the Vatican, who hold the "power" over other human beings who have different ways of thinking about what the Catholic Church should be doing to address the violent and shameful treatment of women should be challenged in a very PUBLIC and LOUD fashion. It is long overdue. The LCWR should make EVERY aspect of this investigation public and should do so by making a break similar to the one taken by the Immaculate Heart of Mary Sisters in Los Angeles. This is the only way the corrupt, shameful and sinful hierarchical Roman system that is rotting and decaying at its' foundation can and should be dealt with. These old boys are not going to change unless the entire world sees them for what they are. As with the child sexual abuse crisis, they have lied, denied, covered up and committed criminal acts that would throw the average person in prison for years. The boys at the Vatican reward their behavior, such as what they did wit Boston's Cardinal Law. These men do not represent the most basic tenets that Christ laid down for all of us to follow. There is simply no other way to deal with them except to resist their grab for more power by publicly exposing them for exactly what they are. The far right neocon posters are simply shills for these men and sometimes I wonder if the cowardly ones that post under "anonymous" or other names, are not the bishops themselves. Nothing would surprise me. Even if they are just plain old fundamentalists who are posting their reactionary views, they only represent a very small fringe of baptized Catholics. They do not represent the vast majority of people who call themselves Catholic Christians. Their views always reflect a disenfranchisement and devaluing of women's roles and people who are different. We must always remind ourselves of Christ's example when it comes to loving and including all people as equals. Obviously, some branches of the Holy Catholic Church have got it right. The various Anglican branches that already have women bishops and priests are certainly centuries ahead in modeling a Catholic church that Christ envisioned. The Latin Rite is all about imperial Roman power from the top down. Not a Christ like behavior and not remotely a universal church.
Sisters should be given yet
Sisters should be given yet more representation in the Vatican! Why not increase the number of women in congregations and councils, why not adjust canon law to have women cardinals? What is the fear? A more balanced discussion?
These grumpy octogenarian men
These grumpy octogenarian men are much like the Republican neocons aka straight male WASPs: scared silly of losing power to women, gays and minorities.
Except that the men of the cloth are supposed to be Christ-like or represent Jesus of Nazareth.
They do anything but that. So they should be put in their proper places: outside in the cold, ousted from their pedestals and shunned in the public square.
Tonight's main event: angry
Tonight's main event: angry 80 year old men battling even more angry 80 year old women! Pay per View Only.
Anonymous on Aug. 11,
Anonymous on Aug. 11, 2009
Hey, for the main event, you're on. My money is on the 80 year old women.
They know how to use a frying pan and knitting needles better.
An elderly neighbor woman, 86 years young, stopped 2 young 20-some hoods from robbing her home, by cracking the young dudes over the head with the cast iron frying pan and sticking them with knitting needles. The cops were laughing their heads off as they led these young guys off to jail. And the little old lady only weighs 96 pounds. In a physical brawl, I'll wager on the Sisters.
The article's timeline
The article's timeline omitted, what I would consider, a significant element of the Vatican's agenda for women generally but which applies significantly and pointedly to their consequent strategy with regard to the visitation to US women religious and women religious congregation leadership.
The May 31, 2004 promulgation by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger,"LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON THE COLLABORATION OF MEN AND WOMEN IN THE CHURCH AND IN THE WORLD", endorsed by then Pope John Paul II is a treatise on the traditional, subserviant role of women in society and in the church.
Now Pope Benedict XVI, Ratzinger's vision of women as "equal" but subservient "vessels" of male domination defines all feminism as "radical feminism" and as inconsistent with the divinely established role of women as recipients, as attendants to and waiting for the dominant (but loving) male. Ratzinger congers up philosophy, sociology, psychology, theology and scripture to recreate the traditional subserviant model of "the feminin" (and incidently justify the exclusion of women from priestly ordination).
Agree or disagree, this thesis is on the record. It cannot but shape his delegation of responsibility and expectation of the visitation and investigation. Its conclusions will inevitably be shaped, the vatican response undoubtedly will reflect its thesis, unless it is renounced.
One can ascribe the prediction of pessimistic conclusions to paranoia or to "hatred of hierarchy", whatever; there is nevertheless, reasonable grounds for predictive results that are counter to the principle of women's equality to men in nature, in society, in church. The barriers to equality are constructed by men to maintain a misogynistic presupposition.
Memo to the Vatican and
Memo to the Vatican and Curia:
Leave our American nuns, who have been the rock upon which the American church was built and is sustained.
My own faith has already been sorely tested by the priest abuse scandals. My life has been enriched by the influence of the Sisters who educated me who have been role models and wonderful friends. They are doing God's work every day and have sacrificed greatly.
A lifelong Catholic who is watching
The nuns you speak of are
The nuns you speak of are long gone. The ones who are left are living in fear in the motherhouses. These women, upon whom many of the Church's institutions were built, were forced into giving up their religious names and habits by those in "leadership." Those leading now did not build anything. They inherited the work of the predecessors and tore it down! Those good and faithful sisters that remain depend on them for their support, so they go against what they truly believe so that the have their basic needs feed. Otherwise, the vindictive ultra-feminists will leave them out. I know this form experience with many retired, good and faithful religious.
test only do not post
test only do not post
The dissident nuns are still
The dissident nuns are still stuck in the rebellious sixties! I know, I was once there myself. Get over it and move on!
Consecrated religious life and it's norms are stated clearly in the Church's teaching. If people don't like the norms and boundaries, then leave. It's very simple really.
Stop whining and complaining and live the life you said you would when you professed your vows!!! It's not all about YOU, it's about the Church and her needs.
Now we have "dissident nuns"?
Now we have "dissident nuns"? Really? And the evidence?
And unless the Church is now everyone on earth, your final statement is nonsensical. It is not about the church's needs; it's about people's needs. Religious men and women vow themselves to try to leave more of themselves available to serve others, not to make themselves less available by serving the church only. Not the bottom rung of a hierarchy, but adults called to serve others.
What is up with you people?!
What is up with you people?! A war on women?! Maintaining power?! What are you talking about!?
1) NO ONE has the right to say "he is unworthy to be a priest!" because they do not support women's ordination. You have NO RIGHT to say that! I think only God is able to say such a thing.
2) 1965: 180,000 religion
2009: 57,000
What power are you referring to that the Vatican wants? American religious orders of nuns are DYING, people! Wake up! You actually think the Vatican hates them and wants power? Grow up for crying out loud. They are trying to HELP them! Why do you think an Italian NUN is in charge of the investigation?! Give me a break...
Oh, Anonymous of Aug.
Oh, Anonymous of Aug. 11,
Stop your screaming! Women in religious orders are graying. But they are not dead, by a long shot. Do you believe that in Europe, young women are flocking to convents in droves? Not by a long shot.
I love the screaming,
I love the screaming, especially when the screamed facts are wrong. Mother Millea is an American who happens to live in Rome.
Here's some other facts. Schools are screaming for teachers because teaching is no longer perceived as one of the few vocations for women. Hospitals are screaming for nurses--same reason. This is no different than the numbers crunch faced by Congregations of the LCWR. Women are no longer limited in their vocational choices and they are choosing other professions.
If teaching and nursing are so important why aren't droves of men signing up to fill the void, rather than screaming about the betrayal of the congregations of the LCWR?
Post new comment