Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
'We did what the church asked us to do'
The visitation of Mary and Elizabeth was full of love. Luke tells us that Mary hastened to a Judean town in the hill country to visit Elizabeth. Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, greeted Mary with the words, “Blessed are you among women.” Mary in turn acknowledged God’s goodness as she dared to say, “The Lord has done great things for me. Holy is God’s name.”
Apostolic Visitations, unlike the visitation between Mary and Elizabeth, are not celebratory occasions. “Visitation” in this context has taken on the meaning of “investigation.” Recent Apostolic Visitations by the Holy See include the visitation of United States seminaries and houses of formation for men in response to the sexual abuse of children by priests and the question of the perceived relationship of homosexuality to that scandal, and a visitation of the Legionnaires of Christ in various countries because of sexual improprieties of the order’s founder.
According to Cardinal Franc Rode, C.M., prefect of the Vatican’s Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, the purpose of the current visitation of the sisters is “to look into the quality of life of apostolic Congregations of women religious in the United States.” Women religious who are in contemplative or cloistered congregations are not included in the visitation; nor are male religious.
“Quality of life” is difficult to measure. Literature on the official website of the visitation,, hints at what it means by quality when it describes the “objectives” of the visitation as to “encourage the growth of Catholic Institutes of women religious in the United States who engage in apostolic works.” Quality of life is not ordinarily related to the number of sisters, but that connection has been made on the Apostolic Visitation web page.
It is true that the number of sisters has decreased. In 1966 there were approximately 181,000 Catholic sisters in the United States, the great majority of them belonging to apostolic as distinct from contemplative congregations. Today there are approximately 59,000 sisters in apostolic congregations. The foundational question is what has caused the decrease in numbers. There are many such possibilities, including a change in both cultural and church realities. The decrease in numbers may or may not be related to the quality of our lives.
“Quality of Life”
How can we measure the quality of our lives. We might ask how to assess the quality of a marriage, or the quality of life of priests, or the quality of life of those who are poor, or those who are successful. In every case the quality of life will be related to other persons. How do a husband and wife relate to each other? How do they relate to their children? to the community in which they live? to the nation of which they are citizens, to the church which they are?
In the beginning of my life as a Dominican sister the quality of my life was quite different from the quality of my life today. The pattern of daily life was stable. I lived in a community of sisters in a convent located close to the parish church. Our community chanted the Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary each morning and each evening. We walked to the church each day for Mass. Our daily schedule included time for meditation, spiritual reading, study, and recreation together. We ate our meals in silence, listening to spiritual reading at supper. We were teachers in the parish school. Life was prayerful. It had a daily rhythm and a focus.
We lived according to our Constitution, a document approved by the official Church. At that time the first article in our Constitution stated that we “should be found uniform . . . in all observance of Religion in order that the outward uniformity of our practice may both represent and maintain the inward unity which should exist in our hearts.” Uniformity was what was most evident to our parishioners. We each had our own talents and temperaments but those differences were sometimes hidden behind separation and uniform observances.
By the time I was ready for retirement I was teaching in a graduate program at a university in California and living with one other sister from our congregation. Both of us taught at the same university. Often we taught at different times, one early in the morning, the other in the evening. The university celebrated eucharist each day at noon. Prayer, meditation, spiritual reading, study and sharing meals together were integral parts of our daily life but we were often unable to do them together.
Today the first article in our revised Constitution begins with the words, “The life of the Trinity is the source of mission.” Within thirty years we moved from emphasizing uniformity as a sign of our unity, to recognizing that the true source of our unity is the divine life God shares with us. It is the Holy Trinity who unites us.
Changes Begin
In 1950 Pope Pius XII initiated changes in religious life. In a letter to the prefect of the Sacred Congregation for Religious, Cardinal Micara, the pope noted the need for adaptation and renewal in religious life, lest “the holy laws of each Institute degenerate into an assemblage of exterior regulations uselessly imposed, whose letter, in the absence of the spirit, kills.” The Congregation called for a meeting of Superiors General of religious congregations in Rome (Nov. 26 – Dec.8). The theme of the conference was the renewal and adaptation of religious life.
At that meeting Pope Pius XII asked the 4000 superiors to reduce “whatever nonessential and archaic customs were hindering their apostolates.” He noted that some practices were essential to develop the spirit of an order, but others were not necessary as they were extrinsic, historical practices. In Sponsa Christi, an exhortation on Religious Life, Pope Pius XII decreed that superiors ought “to introduce cautiously and prudently those adaptations to present day conditions which will be able to bring not only greater dignity but also greater efficacy” to the institutes.
Pope Pius XII also recommended changes in sisters’ clothing, calling for a religious habit that was “simple and modest, poor and at the same time becoming.” He said that the habit “must be suited to the circumstances of time and place and to the needs of the ministry involved.” He believed that “it was the strangeness of outdated costumes and customs and the strain of being sent into ministry without proper training . . . that was behind the alarming drop-off of religious vocations in Europe after World War II.”
The Council’s Call for Renewal of Religious Life
In 1962 the Second Vatican Council began and the lives of all Catholics began to change. Most sisters watched the opening and closing sessions on television, read conciliar documents, mourned the death of Pope John XXIII and looked forward to the leadership of Pope Paul VI. In response to the Council many Catholics began to live the Gospel in a renewed way. The 1960s were for many of us full of hope and new life, both new intellectual life and a renewed spiritual life.
Our congregations kept us up-to-date on conciliar developments. Council experts gave lectures throughout the country and many of us listened to those lectures on audio tapes. Cardinal Leon Suenens challenged women religious to reconsider their lives through his book, The Nun in the World (1963). He startled many of us with his statement that, “The world of women ought to appear to a nun’s eye as a mission field entrusted to her.” He told us that we need to know clearly what is essential in the Church and what is incidental. New questions emerged, including what is essential and what is incidental in religious life.
At the final session in 1965, the Council approved The Decree on the Adaptation and Renewal of Religious Life. This decree directed religious to do three things, 1) to return to the sources of Christianity for guidance, 2) to return to the original spirit of our founders, and 3) to adapt ourselves to the changed conditions of our time. After the Council, Pope Paul VI issued norms for the implementation of the Decree on Religious Life.
One norm called for general chapters of religious congregations to make allowance for adequate and prudent experimentation, and it recommended that superiors “should hear the members of the Order in those things which concern the future well being of the whole institute” The chapters could alter norms of the constitutions and permit experiments contrary to the common law.” (Norms, article 4).
The sisters took the prescriptions of the Church through the Council and pope seriously. Many sisters, though not all, were enthusiastic about renewal. We had no idea where this obedience would take us, nor did the whole Church, including curial officials and the laity. Only the Spirit knew where we would be led.
The Response of the Sisters
With tremendous energy religious congregations and individual sisters moved to reassess their lives. A new emphasis on adult and other forms of religious education led some sisters to move or be moved by their superiors from the schools into diocesan offices and to parishes without Catholic schools. Other sisters moved into different forms of social ministry in response to the opening words of Gaudium et Spes:
We moved into the neighborhoods of those who are poor so we might educate them, learn from them, help them navigate the complex roads of government and societal programs. Many women recognized us as women who could understand them and reached out to us to share both their joys and sorrows.
In response to the Council’s request that sisters return to the “sources of all Christian life,” congregations sent sisters to study the Scriptures and theology. Many institutes assigned sisters to graduate study in biblical studies, theology, spirituality, liturgical studies, catechetics, Church history, canon law. Women religious became highly educated in these disciplines and began to teach them in colleges and universities. Now some women are professors in some of the finest theological schools, a reality forbidden until the last half of the twentieth century.
The admonition to honor the spirit and aims of our founders made us re-examine our historical beginnings. We asked what our founders wanted of us. How did they foresee us preaching the Gospel and serving the Church? Sometimes sisters realized that their founders or foundresses were the object of hostility or contempt from their bishop, or had themselves been expelled from the congregation they founded. At other times the spirit and aims of the founder were denied by bishops or Roman congregations. The founding path was not always smooth.
Sisters renewed themselves through new forms of prayer. Many congregations began to pray the Liturgy of the Hours each morning and evening. Sometimes parishes in rural towns or geographic areas where there were no sisters, sought our services and we went to those places, lived alone, and tried to figure out new ways of experiencing both the riches and the difficulties of community living. In many cities community life became difficult because convents were no longer available as housing for sisters.
Our revised Constitution set forth in written form that which gives birth to the quality of our lives. For twenty to thirty years sisters reworked their constitutions to establish realistic goals for their congregations. They then submitted these renewed constitutions for approval to the Vatican Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life.
The Holy Spirit renewed us as we struggled together to fulfill our mandate. We did make mistakes. We have struggled to find unity in the midst of differences. Renewal was costly. We are not perfect, but we set our goal high, to follow Christ as set forth in the Gospel, through the Church and our founders, in today’s world. “The life of the Trinity is the source of mission.”
One Sister’s Perspective
I cannot speak for other sisters or other congregations, but one of the rewards of renewal is the way in which various congregations of sisters have worked together harmoniously. I believe we share a common culture as well as a shared faith which compels us to live as we do. While other congregations may have experienced renewal differently and while sisters in my own congregation also responded uniquely, I do believe we share a common culture as well as a common faith.
As I consider the purpose of the Apostolic Visitation many more questions enter my mind than I have addressed here. I know that many sisters are perplexed and saddened by the action taken by the Vatican Congregation. Is it possible that Vatican authorities and some of our bishops may not know the guidelines we were asked to follow? Many of the men who are bishops today were forty-five years younger when we were given these directions.
We did what the Church asked us to do and we have been renewed in faith and hope and love. I am convinced that the quality of our lives today is more deeply rooted in Gospel values than it was in an earlier time.
Voices of support
The voices of many Catholics have been strong and consistent in support of the sisters. Year after year Catholics have been most generous in their financial contributions to the retirement fund for the sisters, and I do not know what we would have done or will do without their generosity. We believe they must be as puzzled by this Visitation as we are.
We also hear voices of support from thousands of women and men who are associate members of our congregations. Associates join congregations of sisters in prayer, in study, and in support of our ministries because they find value in our lives. They share our spirit. They grow in faith with us and they strengthen our faith.
Associates give us a new vitality and I believe they are a sign of our own vitality.
Sisters are also grateful for the unequivocal support of the International Union of Superiors General, whose membership comprises nearly 2,000 leaders of congregations of apostolic women religious. After learning of the Apostolic Visitation these sisters publicly affirmed their support for “our sisters in the United States.”
The first visitation was full of love. Elizabeth presumed Mary’s faithfulness and Mary in turn acknowledged God’s goodness to her as she dared to say, “The Lord has done great things for me. Holy is God’s name.”
So say we all. “The Lord has done great things for us. Holy is God’s name.”
Dominican Sister Anne Marie Mongoven is a sister of Sinsinawa, Wisconsin, and a Professor emerita from Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, CA.




Dear Sr. Mongoven: You
Dear Sr. Mongoven:
You say:
"In 1966 there were approximately 181,000 Catholic sisters in the United States, the great majority of them belonging to apostolic as distinct from contemplative congregations. Today there are approximately 59,000 sisters in apostolic congregations."
I don't think your statistics can be proven. I suppose you derive them from the Official Catholic Directory. Can you name ten or so "apostolic congregations" that retain 32% of their 1966 population? The congregations I have followed most closely for decades are down to 18%. Does your own community have 32% of its 1966 membership?
(The Official Catholic Directory prints a disclaimer on its title page about its statistics, which are supplied by bishops who do not list by name the nuns they include in their counts. I don't trust the 1966 numbers or the current numbers or any in between. Why doesn't someone -- a nun trained in statistics, conduct a census of women's congregations and provide us with a real record of all nuns in all American convents from the beginning?
Dear Gerelyn, Every religious
Dear Gerelyn,
Every religious congregation is well aware of the numbers of their membership.
And those numbers can change from day to day. A religious community that I am well acquainted with---had two Sisters die in a single day.
But by the time the "Official Catholic Directory" gets the information---it is incorrect.
But each congregation, province, etc---knows the number of its members. And with congregations merging provinces within its own membership or with congregations merging with other congregations---those numbers are constantly changing.
True that the numbers are
True that the numbers are constantly changing.
Also true, as anyone knows who examines The Official Catholic Directory every year, as I do, that many nuns are counted twice (or three times or more).
My suggestion: choose ten or so dioceses. Your favorites, or some big ones and some small ones. Look at their pages in the Directory. You'll see that in each diocese or archdiocese, the "Institutions Located in the Diocese" are listed. One of the categories is "Convents and Residences for Sisters".
These are motherhouses: they provide their numbers in their listings. E.g., "Professed Nuns 15; Novices 2; Postulants 2.
But then, there's another category of nuns, following "Secular Institutes, Catholic Charities, Personal Prelatures (LOL), Miscellaneous Listing, and Religious Institutes of Men Represented in the Diocese": That one is "Religious Institutes of Women REPRESENTED in the Diocese".
That means nuns whose motherhouses are in OTHER Dioceses. They made their vows in OTHER Dioceses, and they will be buried in OTHER Dioceses, but they are TEMPORARILY living in the Diocese in question.
(In the example I'm looking at right now, there are over fifty communities represented in the category of nuns from outside the diocese. Some are from other countries.)
At the very end of the Dioceses' pages you will find the "Recapitulation of Statistics". Here, you will see that the "Total Sisters" figure includes BOTH categories.
Sorry if this is too complicated. The only thing I can suggest is that you go to a Catholic university library and examine the last 43 issues of the "Official" Catholic Directory. You will see that Sister Mongoven, like so many others, takes the bishops' statistics literally. If the figures were true, the communities she describes, including her own, would still retain 32% of their 1966 populations. Obviously, they do not.
The Directory itself knows that its figures are bogus. On its title page, it says, " . . . neither the publishers not the ecclesiastical authorities assume responsibility for any errors or omissions."
I'm not sure I understand the
I'm not sure I understand the point of all of this complicated detective work about numbers. Are you accusing Sister Mongoven of deception? Is your sleuthing designed to cast a pall of mendacity over Sister Mongoven's article. And what follows from all of this? What's your point? Is your point that these Catholic women have gone haywire? That they need to be renewed with spiritual handcuffs and chains and be brought back to the uniform structured convent life of the 1940's even before the admonitions of Pius Xll. Cleverly you don't tell why you've done all of this number crunching. You let us draw our conclusions, but within the narrow strictures of your numbers game. You take one short sentence from this admirable article and pretend that's all we should be looking at. Why not come from behind your numbers, your library work, your examination of "Official" Catholic Directories and say why you've done all of this. What do you really mean
What I "really mean" is what
What I "really mean" is what I really said. (Which was nothing about "Catholic women" going "haywire" or needing "spiritual handcuffs", etc.)
Sister Mongoven, like so many who write about nuns, accepts without question and repeats the inflated numbers from The Official Catholic Directory.
What I would like to see is an accurate count of nuns, a census, in which each religious woman from every American convent is listed by NAME. In The Official Catholic Directory, every priest, bishop, archbishop, abbott, cardinal, and pope is listed by name, but women religious are not named.
NCR is capable of doing this. They could call every congregation of women and ask questions:
1) How many professed sisters are in your community?
2) What are their names?
3) How many sisters are in your motherhouse graveyard?
4) What are their names?
With that simple list on a computer, there would be no possibility of counting anyone twice, no way for a bishop who wished to appear to be in charge of more nuns than he really is to inflate the numbers. A nun, listed by baptismal name, name in religion, surname, and dates of birth, profession, and death, could only appear once.
At the end of the enumeration, NCR could post that listing on this website. Everyone would have access to a true and complete listing of religious women -- those who are alive and those who are in heaven.
Simple, really. A gift to the Church that could easily be given. End the confusion by those who accept the bishops' statistics without question. (And end the anger by those who seem to take offense at the call for accuracy.)
Maybe not so simple? You seem
Maybe not so simple? You seem to be calling all religious women "nuns" and that is itself not accurate, is it?
Should NCR should put a stop
Should NCR should put a stop to the common practice of using the word "nuns" to describe professed religious who are really only "sisters"?
Tom Fox did it again this morning.
http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/cardinal-bernardin-clerical-culture...
Clicking on "Women" above brings up another recent article that does it.
http://ncronline.org/news/women/nuns-free-porridge-helps-poor-pay-medica...
Searching NCR's archives for the word "nun", just since 2008, brings up over 200 articles and blogs, many with over 200 comments. Nearly all are actually about "sisters", but no one seems confused.
http://ncronline.org/search/node/nun
Searching for the plural, "nuns", since 2008, brings up over 32 pages of articles and blogs, many with over 200 comments. Nearly all are actually about "sisters", and no one seems confused.
http://ncronline.org/search/node/nuns
Searching NCR's older archives for "nun[s]" brings up 962 documents, many with multiple articles, reviews, comments, included. Nearly all are actually about "sisters", but no one seems confused.
http://www.picosearch.com/cgi-bin/ts.pl
The terms are used interchangeably so frequently, that it's hard to believe anyone could really be confused. Maybe it's more about protecting bishops from criticism. Or maybe it's still about minimizing the magnitude of the exodus from religious life.
You sound very angry. Now I
You sound very angry. Now I have little idea of what you are so angry about or so confused about.
If you are trying to get accurate stats, however, you do have to identify who you are trying to get stats on, or people are going to ask you why you are questioning others and telling them that they are missing what is so "simple" to you. Yes?
Gerellyn, The reason women
Gerellyn,
The reason women religious are not listed "by name" is simple: sexism. Women do not count as persons, only their "bodies" (head-count). This is patriarchy at it's best! (And you said it all, when you said, "no way for a bishop who wished to appear to be in charge of more nuns than he really is..." --if you read the history of American women religious, you'll see that bishops even fought over "my nuns," especially when it came to having them be cheap labor for Catholic schools)
Do not your questions three
Do not your questions three and four appear rather cruel and insensitive?
Also does it fully take into account that not all associations of women religious have a motherhouse, and that even fewer of these motherhouses have civil permission to have a graveyard?
But basically do you realize how damaging it is to even ask such a question?
Please take some basic grad courses in statistical research and in ethnographic research methodology, but more importantly in human relations . . .
Frere, Frere - How is it
Frere, Frere -
How is it damaging to ask a question of fact?
It may be time to come in from the desert.
if you are certain it is a
if you are certain it is a fact, why ask? But when can you have absolute certainty.
The fact is very few associations of Catholic religious women even have a motherhouse, let alone a private graveyard.
If you cannot perceive the cruelty of walking up to someone's door or, more cowardly as anonymous, telephoning someone and saying: "Tell me, how many of your loved ones are dead?" then you certainly are a member of that crabby institution which currently considers itself the anglo-speaking American Catholic Church.
Do unto others what you would want them to do for you.
So, how long have you been ugly? As it is a fact, where's the problem in the question? "How is it damaging to ask a question of fact?"
then why are you so resistant
then why are you so resistant to my asking for statement of facts regarding the lifestyles of Living Nuns later in these pages?
You insult me coming and going to hide the facts.
dear anunymous how is it NOT
dear anunymous
how is it NOT damaging to call someone up out of the blue asking how many dead sisters she has buried in the backyard? Close community members with whom she has spent a lifetime?
YOu do not see this as damaging?
THen you should not be a nun . . .
DEvelop some empathy
do for others what you want them to do for you.
The confusion in the
The confusion in the discussion about numbers is partly due to Gerelyn's inaccurate use of the words "nuns" and "sisters". Those words are mutually exclusive. They do not mean the same thing. All sisters are to be visitated; no nuns are involved in the Visitation at all.
Sorry for using the terms
Sorry for using the terms "nun" and "sister" and "religious" interchangeably, Anonymous.
You're right that it is "inaccurate" to do so.
Everyone should be more careful with the terms. E.g., Cardinal Suenens, referred to by Sister Mongoven, should not have called his book The NUN in the World. It should have been titled The SISTER in the World.
And active congregations like Sister Mongoven's should not have been "startled" by it, for its title should have made it clear that it wasn't about THEM at all.
(But the bishops who count the nuns and sisters whom they rule, count them all, many more than once. I hope someone will provide Catholics with a truthful count in which every religious woman is mentioned by name.)
Gere writes: "But the bishops
Gere writes:
"But the bishops who count the nuns and sisters whom they rule"
they wish, and are pushing to do so, with a close eye to the good religious women's real estate, to finance their settlements!
What an interesting and not immaculate conception of ecclesiology you labor under. Kindly read the reference works of the Reverend Father Richard P. McBrien for starters.
What would the great Saint Teresa of Avila say!
"Everyone should be more
"Everyone should be more careful with the terms. E.g., Cardinal Suenens, referred to by Sister Mongoven, should not have called his book The NUN in the World. It should have been titled The SISTER in the World."
FYI: Belgian Cardinal Suenens, writing in French, did NOT call his book "The Nun in the World." His translators at Westminster Press in Maryland chose that simplistic free-rendering of his original mouthful of a title: "La promotion apostolique de LA RELIGIEUSE" (Desclee de Brouwer, Bruges, 1962). He didn't use the words NUN, SISTER, or WORLD. He used the feminine form of RELIGIOUS, when speaking about her APOSTOLIC PROMOTION. The English publishers just tried to sex it up for better sales, you know, kinda like your continuing promotion of your own self-published book on this blog - where I'm sure that mistake was avoided...religiously.
You're absolutely right, Gerelyn, EVERYONE should be more careful....
Dear Craig: Yes, "EVERYONE
Dear Craig:
Yes, "EVERYONE should be more careful". (It wasn't "Westminster Press in Maryland" who published Suenens' book in the USA: it was the Newman Press, located in Westminster, Maryland.)
Suenens' first publisher in English was Burns & Oates, the great Catholic publisher of Cardinal Newman, Wilfrid Meynell, et al.
Burns & Oates was named Publishers to the Holy See by Leo XIII. Harsh to accuse them of imposing an inaccurate title on a book by a Prince of the Church to "sex it up".
The distinguished translator of Suenens' book was Geoffrey Stevens, who was also responsible for the translations of Fundamentals of Christian Sociology, by Joseph Höffner, Marriage in the Modern World by Bernard Häring, etc., etc.
Surely you meant no disrespect to Cardinal Suenens or his publishers and translator.
The Nun in the World may be found at AbeBooks:
http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=suenens&sts=t&tn=nun+in...
The point made by "Anonymous"
The point made by "Anonymous" about the "inaccurate use of the words 'nuns' and 'sisters'" is an important one. Many in media are guilty of using the terms interchangeably.
1) NCR does it.
http://ncronline.org/node/1330
Community supports ousted St. Louis nun
Jul. 02, 2008
By Tom Fox NCR Staff
2) Catholic News USA does it.
http://www.cathnewsusa.com/article.aspx?aeid=14297
St Louis nun killed outside church
Published: June 08, 2009
3) The secular press does it.
http://www.stlbeacon.org/region/american_nuns_come_under_vatican_scrutiny
American nuns come under Vatican scrutiny
By Patricia Rice, Special to the Beacon
4) The Official Catholic Directory does it.
(Too many examples to cite.)
Sorry I added this same
Sorry I added this same comment. I either didn't see yours or it came up when I put mine in. Thanks for the clarification.
It IS annoying when Catholics
It IS annoying when Catholics are careless about language. I've heard priests get very annoyed with nuns who use the term "laity" incorrectly.
E.g., Sister Mongoven, in her article, says, "Many sisters, though not all, were enthusiastic about renewal. We had no idea where this obedience would take us, nor did the whole Church, including curial officials and the laity".
Sisters, of course (and nuns, are part of the laity.
Only men who have been raised to the clerical state are not laity. Religious, no matter how solemn their vows, no matter how strict their enclosure, are laywomen and laymen.
The Official Catholic Directory includes nuns, both cloistered and active (like the Visitation Nuns and the Ursuline Nuns), in its "Sisters" categories.)
Dear Gere, Although I see
Dear Gere,
Although I see from your posts you present yourself expert in statistical matters, I believe perhaps you have misread the syntax here.
In no way does Sister Mongovern claim NOT to be laity. Laity is used here attached to the whole church, along with the curia, and not as a separate category from "many sisters."
Although you seek a tempest within a teapot, there is no ill wind blowing here, no fly speck in the ointment.
Although you wish to dismiss her entire article upon this point, it will not fly.
The phenomenon you describe brought great scandal and division and corruption to my beloved and ancient Benedictine order, in which we may still find in some houses clear distinction between the priest/monks and the lay brothers, a distinction directly counter to the Holy Rule for Monks, which forbids giving priests any special favor, quite the opposite. Refreshingly we have seen some few houses raise lay brothers to positions of authority after centuries of virtual slavery. Thank God for the Second Vatican Council and the return to the Spirit and Letter of our Founders!
Dear Char: (I have not
Dear Char:
(I have not presented myself as an expert in anything, least of all statistics. If I were a statistician, I would undertake the census of nuns in American convents myself, rather than asking for it to be done by someone else -- someone with training in methodology and with the right contacts.)
As to St. Benedict's rule about priests vs. brothers: as you may know, a brother cannot serve as abbot. We see in the recent election at Glenstal Abbey, that a simple monk had to be ordained before he could take the position his fellow monks burdened him with.
http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS257&q=glens...
Being self-admittedly not an
Being self-admittedly not an expert in statistics, kindly do not act as one without having taken the required coursework. Any local community college can sign you up for basic statistical research courses. Any state university can train you in accurate methodology. Otherwise your statements here will continue to bear little to no validity even while draped as such, and you might even have a book written worth the paper it was printed upon, instead of just your personal conclusions drawn from insufficient and invalid evidence.
WEll, I would think that
WEll, I would think that religious men and women can be relieved that they are "lay." It's a better life without the hounds of hell chasing you around.
You really sound awfully angry for a little conversation.
Dear Gere, We cannot so
Dear Gere,
We cannot so easily assume from the standard statement: ". . . neither the publishers not the ecclesiastical authorities assume responsibility for any errors or omissions." that therefore the Directory KNOWS they are 'Bogus" statistics, as you state: "The Directory itself knows that its figures are bogus."
Please, do not assume a cause where there is none. This is quite illogical of you. It is a standard publishing clause.
Most people, certainly the
Most people, certainly the sisters/nuns, knew that religious life needed updating. These orders tried to follow the encouragement of the pope and then the Second Vatican Council. However, the statistics show that something went wrong with manner in which change and reform was directed and has become post-Christian, post Catholic and the way religious life was reformed no longer attracted young candidates, caught their imagination or inspired them to join. The sisters who were reformed loved their new freedoms and choices and are quite comfortable with where they are now compared to a previous time. The recent CARA study shows that orders that are more traditional, wear habits (modified or not) and live in community and experience some uniformity are the ones attracting new candidates. The other more liberal orders are not, in fact in twenty years will be extinct. I think we need to let the comfortable older sisters who do not want to create an environment to attract new sisters/nuns, simply die out and let the newer more traditional orders take over. Change is difficult but needed now more than in 1965!
Don't let yourself be deluded
Don't let yourself be deluded by the CARA statistics. It's not like we're talking about thousands and thousands of new postulants, and half of those who do enter leave before professing final vows.
This is an impressive and
This is an impressive and enlightening article. Many of the critics of the religious women and their concern for the visitation/investigation give/have the impression that women religious struck out on their own after VaticanII in rampant exploitation of a specious freedom. This article outlines, in summary form yes, an authoritative progression that began prior to Vatican II led by the intelligent insight of a conservative Pope. That is the least of the mispreceptions and mal-judgements of the critics.
We men seem afraid of intelligent women. When this intelligence is infused by learning, curiosity and innate leadership ability, that fear transmorgifies into hate. There seems no limits in human or religious values which will temper this fear/hatred.
This visitation/investigation really seems to be an inevitable consequence of,rooted in, and directed towards then Cardinal Ratzinger's 2004 "Letter "to the bishops of the catholic church on the collaboration of men and women in the church and in the world". This document begins by asserting the church's authority and expertise in "humanity" and then defines "feminism" in its adversarial anti-male radicalism, a straw-"person", speciously embracing feminism generally and to be disposed of as if it were a scholastic philosophy thesis. The Catholic "woman" who emerges from his particular (but not unique) biblical, theological, socio-psychological and even poetic analysis is a creature of stature whose essential role is to "wait", "serve", "submit", "nurture", mitigate, i.e., support the male. "Women are called to be unique examples and witnesses for all Christians of how the Bride is to respond in love to the love of the Bridegroom" (sec.16)This is the equality in the Ratzinger to Benedict perception and judgement of women. (Some quirk of specious reasoning leads the author to induce from this a rationale for the "reservation of priestly ordination solely to men".
If the Roman Catholic Church was relevant in the contemporary world this perspective, expressed boldly in the visitation/investigation of religious women would make headlines and be tracked by major media not only in the US but around the world. Even when striped of personal experiences and opinions, an intelligent analysis of this example of regressionism would not stand scrutiny. Since the chuch is irrelevant it is left to the reciprocal sniping of cafeteria and ultra-orhtodox internacine squabbeling. So,it is up to the congregations themselves, the male religious orders, the male clergy and we concerned Roman Catholics to learn, to listen, to protest and demand. Ha!
Dear Sister Anne Marie, I
Dear Sister Anne Marie, I virtually wept as I read your prophetic words. If we had more women religious
such as yourself & fewer of the "EWTN" sort, there would be no Apostolic Visitation. Of course, I do not have
the lived experience as a member of a female religious congregation engaged in active ministry,
however I can state without qualification that woman of your generation who willingly served as Sisters
in nursing & teaching did so for love of their fellow human beings & not for material reward. I find it
absolutely shameful that once per year, Catholic churches around the US take up a collection to help
"support" retired Sisters in their hour of need, after decades of service. All I can say is, Bishops
you ought to be ashamed, & Cardinal Rode, yourself a religious (Congregation of the Mission, the Vincentians &
"brothers" of the Daughters of Charity) you should be even more ashamed for initiating such a sham!
Sister Anne Marie, to quote my late mother, Mary Louise, "God bless your vocation, I think it's wonderful!"
Dear Sister Anne Marie, Thank
Dear Sister Anne Marie,
Thank you for the time you took to go over your life and write about the many events and developments that shaped your life as a Dominican. I also feel like weeping, for the beauty of what you write, and also for what I sense is happening right now through this Visitation.
God bless you and everyone of the 59,000 sisters. May the Trinity be with you and protect you all always.
The Lord bless you and keep you!
The Lord let his face shine upon you, and be gracious to you!
The Lord look upon you kindly and give you peace!
Sister Anne Marie, God bless
Sister Anne Marie,
God bless you, your Dominican congregation and all the Sisters involved in this nasty visitation. People should be writing to Cardinal Rode and give
him a strong message about what they think of this visitation.
LittleBear, I think it is a
LittleBear, I think it is a good thing. Objective examination is always good. Should I write Cardinal Rode?
Dear Milbo 1, The Native
Dear Milbo 1,
The Native Americas had a saying which has been popularized--and goes like this: "Before making a judgement, walk a mile in another man's moccasins."
I don't believe that you know, care, or understand what the history of religious women in the United States entailed. You have not walked in their moccasins. Have you bothered to study their histories in America? Have you seen the horrible conditions that many of them lived under (and still do today)---conditions that no priest, bishop, or cardinal would live with?
I recently met two Sisters who live in a convent with 27 rooms in it, six broken flights of stairs and ceilings falling down in rooms. The pastor of the parish will do nothing to repair it. The parish rectory is in excellent shape. The Sisters stay because they are serving the urban poor.
Cardinal Rode has personally never fed the poor, never personally clothed the naked, never personally nursed the sick. These Sisters do all of the above. Like their pastor, Cardinal Rode lives in the lap of luxury---HE deserves to be investigated.
Little Bear, you know these
Little Bear, you know these things about Cardinal Rhode? Can these things be said about every Sister? There are Sisters who have had administrative positions and worked with the wealthy since they were professed. You can not make generalizations, neither can I nor do I. I do not doubt that there are some Sisters that sacrifice and live lives of poverty and service to God and neighbor. I do not believe this is true of all. I say the same thing about priests, bishops and cardinals. Did you know that the late Cardinal O'Connor of New York used to frequently work in an AIDS wing and changed bed-pans? By the way, have you walked in the moccasins of all priests? The difference between me and you is that I acknowledge the good women religious have done in the past and I acknowledge the good that some continue to do presently. I do not say all are doing good; particularly the leadership of the LCRW. You seem to have an antipathy for men and do not acknowledge the good the any of them have and continue to do. Should I write my letter?
Dear Milbo 1, I learned a
Dear Milbo 1,
I learned a long time ago that self praise---stinks. You are always stating (in your responses) how different you are---it reeks!
Since this article is about WOMEN Religious---I am addressing what I see and know about them. No young religious is started out in administrative work----she has to be out in the field first. In many communities, a woman religious has to have at least 10 years out first, and must be least 25 years professed before she can be a major superior.
Your comments about the leadership of LCRW, is a bunch of ballyhoo. You don't know all of them, either. Nor do you know what the LCRW have put up with from a number of bishops and the Vatican---some of it is criminal---and these men can get away with it.
Yes, I do know a lot about bishops, cardinals---I see a number of them up close---and Cardinal Rode is no saint. I know of a good bishop who, by himself, cooked 1000 meals for folks in a soup kitchen last February. And I do know of the very Christian practices of the late Cardinal O'Connor, may God give him heaven. There are good clergy and bishops out there---but not enough to counter the political ambitions of too many who feel that they are only accountable to the Vatican. And that it is the Vatican that rewards them for their loyality.
Indirectly, Pope Benedict has his hands in this---he receives reports, oral and written, that is. When he was the head of the Holy Office, he once remarked that Americans only make up 6% of the world's Catholic population, but that they take up 50% of his time. I'm sure that he still believes that.
Little Bear, I am happy to
Little Bear, I am happy to know that you do believe that there are good clergy and bishops out there. I was not so sure from your previous comments whether you believed this or not. Your comments did not seem to indicate this; thus the comments about differences. I am sure as always that truth lies in the middle. The LCRW probably is not as bad as I have stated and they are not as good as you have stated. I am alarmed that on their web-site they do not have any links to National Right to Life or any pro-life websites. Their letters and statements do not seem to indicate that they feel these are worthy public policy issues. We must get to the bottom of the issues that have caused LCRW and some bishops and the Vatican to have differences of opinion. I for one will not accept that the bishops are always wrong and the sisters are always right or vice-versa. One commentator stated that a religous congregaton was givne to praying to the creation rather than the creator. If this is so, this is certainly an issue of concern. As to Pope Benedict's alleged comment, isn't this basically the same thing some environmentalists say (although the percentages may be different) that Americans make up a small percentage of the world's population yet consume an inordinate percentage of the world's goods. Is this the American mentality? It would seem that they cause more problems in all areas.
Mil writes: "I am alarmed
Mil writes:
"I am alarmed that on their web-site they do not have any links to National Right to Life or any pro-life websites."
Why does this alarm you, if true?
Mil writes:
"Their letters and statements do not seem to indicate that they feel these are worthy public policy issues."
How many of their letters (and of what type, including personal correspondence?)and statements have you surveyed, and how do you mean "seem?" Have you been blind to some which might disprove your hypothesis presented here as seeming fact?
Mil writes:
"One commentator stated that a religous congregaton was givne to praying to the creation rather than the creator. If this is so, this is certainly an issue of concern."
Was this alleged religious congregation so given a member of the LCRW? If it is not proven to be so, why is this included here? Otherwise is it not simply malicious gossip?
Just wondering
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco)
A lot of the talk is just
A lot of the talk is just that, Frere Charles, "malicious gossip."
And what makes you think this
And what makes you think this is an "objective examination"?
Re: "Objective
Re: "Objective examination"......when is an examination "objective"? When is any questioning, any statement "objective"? When is anything said or asked without some kind of bias in the background?
I guess that we have to accept the fact that anything we say (like what I am saying here), etc. has an agenda. This is a normal and acceptable part of any discourse, but we must always be aware of this bias.
The examination referred to here also has an agenda, a bias, and my guess is that it has to do with "reigning in those nuns (sisters)", keeping them in line. It's a clerical power-trip.
Gone are the days when sisters (nuns) could mostly be heard to say, "Yes, Father", "Yes Bishop", "Just tell me what to do, what to think, what to say, Father"...
I respect and greatly value these "progressive" sisters (nuns). That they may continue to remain a real thorn in the flesh of all those hierarchs in Rome and elsewhere, and also of all of us, "ordinary " church members.
Absolutely, Henk! The
Absolutely, Henk! The Hawthorne Effect reigns especially powerfully in this "objective" study!
Sister Anne Marie's
Sister Anne Marie's thoughtful and truthful article should be read by every cardinal and bishop of the Catholic Church. These men should then apologize for this adversarial witch-hunt. It is not only an insult to these remarkable women, it is deeply sinful. These men who are driving this investigation need to be publicly shamed and held accountable for their offensive and unethical behavior. These religious communities changed because they were asked to renew and make relevant their original purpose. They did what they were asked to do. Now, because of the far right fundamentalism that began with John Paul II and continues with Benedict they are being punished because they don't subscribe to the narrow and backward thinking right wingers who now hold the power in the Vatican. Not for long though. These are the last days of a corrupt and decaying system that devalues and disenfranchises a very large number of women and people who think differently.
Chris Smith, are you a man or
Chris Smith, are you a man or a woman? Your contempt for men; especially men of the cloth is baffling.
Dear Milbo, As you asked Yvon
Dear Milbo,
As you asked Yvon recently:
Why are you always so mean-spirited?
Have you yet written to Rode?
just wondering
I could use some visitators myself here in this desert
Maybe help me move some sagebrush and stone
Or whitewash the hermitage
We could all go to my vibrant parish across the way in Mexico!
Sorry, no tortillas for Eucharists, so sorry to disappoint you, not even of wheat flour . . .
I remain ever
your worst little apostolic/contemplative brother
Please provide your address.
Please provide your address. I will be happy to consider being your guest. Besides pointing out that Chris Smith has an anger directed toward men is not mean-spirited; it is simply asking him why?
I apologize. I should have
I apologize. I should have said "asking him/her why"
try the Roman Catholic Church
try the Roman Catholic Church in Puerto Palomas de Villa (Yes, THAT Villa).
Ask for the parish priest, Padre Gallo, and he'll say, "Oh. That guy? wait for Saturday night. He'll show up. No getting rid of him."
Enjoy the Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament til I get there. Pray for peace.
And I understand from your positive reception of my earlier comment you are ready for working in stone, cactus and sagebrush? Bring leather gloves.
by the way, I am a dude. Sorry to cause you any confusion on that point. Are you? It is unclear from your name . . .
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco)
If i will be asked to choose
If i will be asked to choose between going far right or far left, i will prefer going right. I don't want the church to slip to heresy as the Anglican church did.
Also, i dont care about numbers. i care about quality. I woulod be happy with a few who are faithful and loyal to Christ, the Church and the Pope rather than having great numbers who are disobedient. after all, "great things in the world started from a few and convinced individuals."
Certainly, i thank the Holy Spirit for His work in the Church. He inspired the Church to renew itself while at the same time He sets the limits, through Church authorities, so this renewal wont be excessive.
God bless the Church. God bless the Pope. May the visitation bear fruits; good fruits for the Church.
Dear forestking, I am so glad
Dear forestking,
I am so glad that the Holy Spirit is operating as you think He/She should. I'm sure that you give Him/Her directives every day. Never mind that it is the sinner that Christ came for----not the self-righteous.
The Holy Spirit will move the Church the way it should go----with or without the Church authorities' permission.
LittleBear. You said, "The
LittleBear. You said, "The Holy Spirit will move the Church the way it should go----with or without the Church authorities' permission."
May God forgive me for the term "stupid", but how "stupid" is God for establishing a Church with its authorities and at the end of the day, set them aside and put the direction of the Church in anarchy, led just by anyone who claim to be inspired by the Holy Spirit (Many people claimed to be inspired by the Holy Spirit, yet they were in conflict with each other. I dont believe that the Holy Spirit will contradict himself similar to how his supposedly "inspired" people opposed each other).
Certainly, God is not stupid. He built a Church with its authorities. He is a faithful God and so I trust that he will continue to guide these men whom he chose to be the authotities of his very own Church.
and as soon as those men
and as soon as those men perceive at long last the direction in which the Holy Spirit is guiding our Church, DIVINO AFFLANTE SPIRITU, those men will rush and tumble all over one another just to get out in front of that direction
and a small child shall guide them
Dear forestking, Are you
Dear forestking,
Are you aware of how many times that which you suggested actually occured? You stated, "how "stupid" is God for establishing a Church with its authorities and at the end of the day, set them aside and put the direction of the Church in anarchy, led just by anyone who claim to be inspired by the Holy Spirit."
You seem to forget that the Church is ALL of us---and the Holy Spirit can and DOES speak through all members of the Church---not just the hierarchy. I can and will list a number of people--both clergy and laity (none of whom were members of the Vatican offices), who inspired by the Holy Spirit,influenced how and what we believe today--and who moved the Church in a different direction.
1) Jean Buridan, artist
2) Marsilius of Padua, political theorist and philosopher
3) Joan of Arc, laywoman, general and mystic
4) Catherine of Siena, religious and doctor of the church
5) Dante, layman and poet
6) John of the Cross, religious and mystic
7) Irenaeus, father of the Church
8) Augustine of Hippo, doctor of the church
9) Denis, bishop and martyr
10) Anselm, religiious, bishop and theologian
11) Bonaventure, religious, bishop and theologian
12) Pascal, mathamatician and philosopher (layman)
13) Galileo, scientist and astronomer (layman)
14) Hamann, (layman) philosopher
15) Hopkins, (layman) poet
And I can name many others of historical fame. The Holy Spirit is elusive and can move and motivate at will. But the Holy Spirit is not boxed in by Church hierarchy (and never has been). I repeat again, the Holy Spirit will move the Church where it is to go, with or without the Church authorities' permission. It has done so in the past and can certainly do so now.
Gerard Manley Hopkins a
Gerard Manley Hopkins a layman?
Are Jesuit priests again to be so despised as to be laicized ever post-mortem?
Dear frere Charles, Ooops!
Dear frere Charles,
Ooops! You are absolutely correct! Gerard Manley Hopkins is a Jesuit, and a great poet. I got up to answer the phone---came back----and my paws typed in layman. My mistake!
Little Bear it is always a
Little Bear it is always a blessing and joy and a comfort to read your wise words and I only wish I had an ounce of your compassion, great wisdom, gentle patience and knowledge
May Turtle Island know God's peace, and justice.
LittleBear, Yes, there are
LittleBear,
Yes, there are many voices in the Church; but, we moved forward as a One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church for 2000 years. At the end of the day, the Holy Spirit works through Church authorities, they who are given the responsibiltiy to ensure what is good for the Church based on her Faith and Tradition.
Also, i didnt see a moment when the Church changed direction with her faith. there never was a change in direction. otherwise, it would imply a change of faith. a constant change of direction also implies the absence of truth. certainly, this is not the case with the Catholic Church. We have been consistent with our beliefs.
Dear forestking on Aug. 12,
Dear forestking on Aug. 12, 2009,
What we consider faith, belief and traditon----has evolved and developed many times over the centuries. We did not have our beliefs all down pat in the beginning of the Church's history---but that grew out of circumstances and situations that the Church faced. If the Church has never changed---we might be having Popes living in France now, rather than in Rome. Or how about the times that we had two or three men claiming, all at one time, to be the only rightful pope---and each one excommunicating the other ones. Never been a change in direction? Sorry, history does not bear that out!
Or more recently---what about the Church's stance concerning the Jews---and how we are to view them. It is an extremely complicated position and it is still evolving. We used to hold them completely guilty for the death of Jesus
(and during the Middle Ages---they could be punished with loss of property, or loss of life in Catholic nations). If the Holy Spirit was guiding the authorities of the Church in all of these circumstances, He/She is guilty of many crimes against humanity.
The Church has changed many times in how it expresses its beliefs. Let me give you an example. It is a long tradition of the Church, for popes NOT to tell the people what they must believe. When Pius XII declared that the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary into Heaven was a Catholic doctrine, he did not say, 'This is what you must believe,' but rather, after he polled the world's bishops, he stated, "This is what we do believe."
It is rather that the people's faith comes out of their prayer life "Lex orandi, lex credendi". Not the other way around. There are too many people (as seen on this site) who attribute every piece of governance, structure, doctrine, etc. to the church's Divine Founder. Too many elements have been deemed to be "of divine law," only to be modified or discarded subsequently in a few years.
To go back to what you stated originally---perhaps you could answer me this question. In the many appearances of Jesus and our Blessed Mother to people, why didn't they appear to the Church authorities? Why did Our Lady appear to Catherine Laboure, to Juan Diago, to Bernadette Soubirous, to the three children at Fatima? Why did Jesus appear to Margaret Mary or to Faustina? It would have been so much "smarter" of the both of them to appear to the local ordinaries and relay to them their wishes---after all, the bishops are responsible for leading the people, right? Not the other way around. The Church authorities forbade the people to come to the grotto at Lourdes and to the field in Fatima----the people came anyways.
In truth, the Holy Spirit does, indeed, speak to the people. Change in the church arises from the ground level up. Jesus did indeed threaten the political power of the Pharisees---urging his followers to hunger and thirst after justice---and they had him crucified for his trouble. And those who followed his lead---a good number of them got crucified, too. Peter was crucified and Paul was beheaded. And the Church continued through the faith of the people, who trained up new leaders to continue on.
The Holy Spirit will lead the Church in the way it is to go, with or without the Church authorities' permission.
Perhaps reading the Reverend
Perhaps reading the Reverend FAther Richard P. McBrien's histories of the CAtholic Church will relieve you of this misconception.
Sister Anne Marie, I just
Sister Anne Marie, I just wanted to say "thanks", through you, for all the Dominican Sisters (Sinsinawa) did for me as a boy. It takes a lot of holy women to guide a child as he grows up.
Sister Ann Marie, Thank you
Sister Ann Marie,
Thank you for saying what I am thinking. As a member of a Congregation that has i
engaged in the process which you described so well, I know I am living a life worthy of Father Medaille sj and the six women he called together in LePuy over 350 years ago. In 1957, my novice mistress told us that if our rule of life was ever lost, we should see it lived out in our sisters' lives. I am proud to say that I do see this on a daily basis in the sisters with whom I live and the many Sisters of St. Joseph I meet in ministry. I also see so many American women religious at our retreat house living out their call from the Holy One and I learn so very much from them. (By the way I have been a religious for over 50 years.)
Dear Sister: I was pleased to
Dear Sister:
I was pleased to read that you and your community have not "moved beyond Jesus and the Church" as described by your fellow Dominican Sister Lauire Brink at the 2007 LCWR.
These words "moving beyond Jesus and the Church" were extremely upsetting. I no longer viewed women religious as my sisters but as outsiders who seek to create another church and/or destroy one from within, or as Goerge Weigel put it, a church that no longer has anything to deal with what we called Roman Catholicism. In my circle of friends, when sisters speak ill of the papacy, or refuse to believe in the Lordship of Jesus Christ, or refuse to express their communion with the entire Catholic Church, well, we are moved too. LCWR and your article refuse to acknowledge that maybe the actual reforms your community had made went just a little over the edge and just maybe the words that many sisters use today are beyond the bounds of authentic theological debate. Questioning whether or not Jesus is the only Son of God isn't up for debate but many women religious believe that it is as Sister Lauire publicly admitted. This is why there needs to be an investigation. We as the Catholic People of God have a right to know who beleives in Jesus and in the Magesterium of the Church and who doesn't, especially when they ask us to donate money to their retirement fund.
Our words mean something, and your very nice article failed to address the seriousness of some of these VERY SERIOUS mistakes. Just as there are many stories of lay people celebrating the goodness of women religious everywhere, there are just as many stories of women religious who were condescending, militant and outright vindicative toward those MEN who did not embrace their radical ideas after the council, and LCWR acts if this never happened.
I came out of the Charismatic Movement where ecueminism, women's role, scriptural study and contemporary liturgy and especially music were empahsized. I am not a Traditionalist but the words "moving beyond Jesus and the Church" have forced me to wonder just how deep has this smoke of Satan enterred the church covered up by so called Vatican II renewal.
The real question is, "Who do you say that Jesus is." It is not a question of the good things that women religious have done but it is a question of intellectual honesty. Do you stand with Jesus and Peter's successor or don't you? And we all have a right to know. Vatican II no longer allowed you to hide behind your veil, now you shouldn't be able to hide behind the title of Sister.
Gosh, can't words be tricky!
Gosh, can't words be tricky! I have no idea what Sr. Lauire Brink meant when she spoke of "moving beyond Jesus and the Church" in 2007. But when I hear those words what I think is that someone is telling me that, having been taught and nurtured by Jesus and the Church, it is time for me to move out and carry what I have learned beyond the Church and out into the world to see how I might further the coming of the Kingdom among those who don't know about it.
I repeat, can't words be tricky?
JH - If you read Laurie
JH - If you read Laurie Brink's article, her meaning will be more clear to you. She herself is asking for intellectual honesty, as is the writer to whom you responded. One cannot be Catholic and not place the risen Jesus and the Eucharist at the center of worship and spiritual practice. That is what the writer is addressing and Laurie Brink's article will show that that is what she, too, was addressing. NOT espousing. Just addressing. Just be honest about it as a reality in the lives of some Catholic sisters.
Read her essay at the LCWR
Read her essay at the LCWR website like I did at least 10 times and then you will know what she meant., She was very clear; nothing tricky about her words.
Mara - I agree with you.
Mara - I agree with you. There is nothing tricky about Sr Laurie's words. The mistake is in believing that she is advocating ANYTHING other than intellectual honesty (by everyone and anyone); she is simply observing the facts and asking of all congregations of women religious the same four neutral questions. I too have read the LCWR presentation again and again. She is using her intellectual honesty as a scholar to request others' intellectual honesty. I find very little of that in these exchanges. Instead, I find emotionalism and strident black-and-white advocacy in most of these comments. A shame.
When I first read Sister
When I first read Sister Laurie's presentation, I really enjoyed her article. Her intellectual honesty might cost her, but it nonetheless has further developed a very important debate. 1) Can those communities of women religious who no longer view Jesus as the only Son of God remain part of LCWR and part of of the church?
Further, her comments raise even more an important question. "Why have so many communities tend to push Christ, prayer, the centrality of the Eucharist" off to the sidelines as if they are no longer part of our Eucharistic faith. You know, as a layperson, when I read that "Sisters no longer attend Mass" or "Sisters no longer pray together in community" or that "Sisters no longer believe that Jesus is the only Son of God," well, I ask a question, why then are they women religious or even Catholics at that. This attitude is even more evident on various websites of many women religious: very few of them even mention the words "Jesus" or "prayer," as if these things are no longer important. Is this the image that these sisters want to reinforce to the every day person who visits their website?
These are normal questions to ask. They are not extreme. And if laypeople are asking these questions about the sisters, well, it would make sense why the Vatican is doing the same. There is a lot of good that can come out of this. The Spirit wants us to clarify where we stand because confusion, espeically on the essentials of our faith, can only create false ideas and misunderstandings. This is an opportunity for the sisters themselves to say, "hey, wait a second, we might have some new ideas about how to live our lives but that doesn't mean that we agree with everything that is said out there." St. Thomas More once said that "silence is consent" and maybe the LCWR needs to end their silence and clarify not only things with the Vatican but with the entire Catholic community.
If the sisters don't, the words of Sr. Laurie "of moving beyond Jesus and the Church" will forever haunt the inaction of LCWR and women religious everywhere. These words mean a lot to good people everywhere and LCWR can not afford to have any Catholic wodnering if sisters today accept or reject that only Jesus Christ is Lord.
Mara you ask yourself: "well,
Mara you ask yourself: "well, I ask a question, why then are they women religious . . ."
Why are you not, being so personally obsessed with such questions? Are you battling tooth and nail a true vocation brewing within, deleted, denied, deferred, yet ever present? GO on a vocation weekend already, for God's sake!
Try the LCWR website for information!
yours
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco)
Frere Charles - Your
Frere Charles -
Your responses are seeming increasingly unpleassant toward anyone who asks a question you dislike or makes a point that you disagree with.
Post new comment