Author says women's conference should return to authentic religious life [CNA]

[CNA News]

Washington D.C., Apr 22, 2012 / 04:03 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- An expert on religious women in America believes that renewal within the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) will require “very strong self-evaluation” and cooperation with the Vatican's recent call for reform.

“After having studied this for many years, I think it was 40 years in the making,” said Ann Carey, author of the 1997 book “Sisters in Crisis: The Tragic Unraveling of Women’s Religious Communities.”

Carey told CNA on April 20 that ever since the LCWR revised its statutes in 1971, it has had a rocky relationship with the Vatican.

“The Vatican was patient, trying to give the sisters some guidelines to modify the direction they were taking, and they resisted that,” she said.

On April 18, the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith announced that it had appointed Archbishop J. Peter Sartain of Seattle to lead reform efforts within the conference.

The announcement came as the findings of a multi-year doctrinal assessment of the women's conference were released, raising concerns of dissent from Church teaching on topics including homosexuality, the sacramental priesthood and the divinity of Christ.

Carey said that members of the LCWR have “definitely” exhibited doctrinal problems and have also “made it quite clear that they are intent on changing the nature of religious life.”

They have also spoken of “loyal dissent,” as if to suggest that “it is permissible for one to disagree with Church teaching as long as one professes loyalty to the Church,” she added.

Carey explained that many of the problems illuminated in the Vatican’s assessment are the result of a “misinterpretation of Vatican II documents.”

In the early 1960s, the Second Vatican Council called on religious orders to renew and update themselves, removing “outdated” rules and customs so as to engage the modern world.

For example, many religious orders were continuing the custom of waking up at dawn and going to bed at twilight, she said. This rule was left over from a time before electricity was in use, and it is now unnecessary and outdated.

But while the council called for renewal by returning to the orders’ original founding ideas and adapting them to modern times, many people misinterpreted this call and instead proceeded to “totally throw off some of the essentials of religious life,” she said.

The result was an abandonment of central elements of religious life, such as living and praying in community, serving in a corporate apostolate and wearing some type of distinctive religious garb, she explained.

Carey said that after Vatican II, members of many religious orders began to live in apartments and find their own jobs, separate from a corporate apostolate such as teaching or care for the sick.

In addition, they threw off the “loyalty and faithfulness to the Church” as well as the “deference to the hierarchy” that had previously characterized religious life.

The changes were so drastic that they caused some women to leave the LCWR, Carey said. These women formed another group, which eventually became an alternative superiors’ conference known as the Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious.

This more traditional group, which requires its members to adhere to the essentials of religious life as understood by the Church, is attracting the bulk of young vocations today, she noted.

If the conference is to undergo a true renewal, Carey said, its members must re-examine the Church’s understanding of religious life and make a firm commitment to live as “representatives of the Church,” in union with the local bishop.

She emphasized that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is not trying to return to the pre-Vatican II days but is instead promoting an “accurate interpretation of those documents” and the life they portray.

Carey said it will be “very interesting to watch” as the situation progresses. While she does not know what will happen, she said there are ultimately only two possible outcomes.

It is possible that the LCWR will cooperate with the Vatican’s reform efforts and see that they have gotten away from Church teaching, she explained.

However, she is unsure whether that will happen, because some of the group’s members are “very convicted that what they’re doing is the right thing.”

The other option is for the conference to relinquish its canonical status and simply continue as a professional group, which Carey believes will cause them to “lose a lot of their members.”

She said that some of the group’s members value their canonical standing and have simply continued their membership with the conference over the years because they had always done so.

No matter what the organization decides, “there will be dissenting voices,” predicted Carey.

She explained that the LCWR consists of the leaders of various religious orders, so it is actually only made up of about three percent of the religious women in America. She said that she knows many individual sisters with no say in decisions of the conference who are “very unhappy” with the organization and “welcome this move” by the Vatican.

Carey also commented on the possibility of the group asking the Vatican to establish a new category of consecrated life that would better fit them.

While other types of consecrated life – such as hermits and consecrated virgins – do exist, she said, there would still be a pressing need to address the theological problems exhibited by the conference.

“For valid religious to be embracing teachings that are dramatically opposed to the official Church teaching is very scandalous and damaging,” she said.




Full article...

[AnotherVoice]

Jimmy Akin interviewed this author on his podcast show; it was very interesting. I was surprised that the formal expressions of concern from the Vatican go back to 2001, so there has been plenty of time to resolve theologically unacceptable positions proposed by the LCWR. After years of annual meetings with the Vatican I can not imagine the LCWR claim of being stunned or surprised in any way.

[manualman]

After 40 years of shennanigans, I think the shock and surprise is that someone is actually going to do something about it, eh?

[opus101]

Originally Posted by AnotherVoice

Jimmy Akin interviewed this author on his podcast show; it was very interesting. I was surprised that the formal expressions of concern from the Vatican go back to 2001,

I was surprised to hear that too. This is not brought out in the press.

[KCT]

Originally Posted by CNA News

Carey told CNA on April 20 that ever since the LCWR revised its statutes in 1971, it has had a rocky relationship with the Vatican.

“The Vatican was patient, trying to give the sisters some guidelines to modify the direction they were taking, and they resisted that,” she said.

This is what baffles me. They've been patient for 40 years??

Of course it was only going to get worse. Just like kids in a classroom - if you don't deal with it right away, the problem spirals. Not that the sisters are kids in a classroom, but I think the principle is the same.

Rome moving at a glacial pace can really cause problems.

[opus101]

Originally Posted by KCT

This is what baffles me. They've been patient for 40 years??

Of course it was only going to get worse. Just like kids in a classroom - if you don't deal with it right away, the problem spirals. Not that the sisters are kids in a classroom, but I think the principle is the same.

Rome moving at a glacial pace can really cause problems.

It might not be Rome's fault, but more the fault of the Bishops we had during that time period (late 60's - through the 80's). They are now retired, passed on, or defrocked. God help the Bishops we have now. They have a real mess to deal with.

[Elizabeth502]

It has always astonished me that any women religious, let alone entire Orders, were allowed to become "independent," living outside of community. Make no mistake about it: Community is essential to any consecrated religious life. The charism of the Order exists only within community (or as a fruit of it). Religious vows are best lived within community. Members are supported by the community.

And there is no reason to establish an exception for female religious as opposed to male religious and clergy: Men also live in community, whether that is considered a parish, a diocese, an Order. Not to do so invites a host of problems & threatens the character of consecration to vocation -- not because of increased temptation per se (temptation is everywhere, including in the cloister), but because, again, neither the ministerial priesthood nor religious life consists of separate cells.

I always thought that the breaking apart to live in solo apartments & have an independent lifestyle (and even profession !) disconnected from the rest of the Order was a decision that women made as some kind of "statement" of resentment against (male) authority. But the thing is, it's a statement against all authority, including that within their own Orders. The vows of obedience and poverty are intertwined with community. If a woman of any age is "beyond" community, then she is beyond her vocation: she has left it or no longer follows it faithfully.

[iloveangels]

Originally Posted by opus101

It might not be Rome's fault, but more the fault of the Bishops we had during that time period (late 60's - through the 80's). They are now retired, passed on, or defrocked. God help the Bishops we have now. They have a real mess to deal with.

How much a bishop can do depends on what kind of religious organization the group is. Some are Diocesan Right and are approved by the local bishop, but some are Pontifical right and are approved by Rome. The bishop can't really do anything about a Pontifical Right congregation.

Originally Posted by Elizabeth502

.....clip......

And there is no reason to establish an exception for female religious as opposed to male religious and clergy: Men also live in community, whether that is considered a parish, a diocese, an Order. Not to do so invites a host of problems & threatens the character of consecration to vocation -- not because of increased temptation per se (temptation is everywhere, including in the cloister), but because, again, neither the ministerial priesthood nor religious life consists of separate cells.

.....clip......

A member of the diocesan priesthood and a member of a religious congregation can't really be equated. They're in completely different states of life, very different. They only look alike to laypeople.

Diocesan priests are secular (not consecrated by vows), but ordained. Diocesan priests make promises of celibacy and obedience to their bishop, but not poverty. These are *promises* not vows. Big canonical difference. [Deacons are in a similar situation, bound to the diocese by promises.]

Male members of religious orders, congregations, institutes and associations are consecrated (vowed) but may or may not be ordained. Many are not ordained, in fact, and that trend is increasing among friars and brothers.

Female members of religious orders, congregations, institutes and associations are consecrated (vowed) but never ordained, for reasons that should be obvious. Nuns and sisters are quite different. Most people have never seen a nun because they're cloistered; you've all seen sisters.

Catholic laypeople, male and female, are neither ordained nor consecrated.

The point of all this is, of course, that yes, consecrated life involves religious community in almost all cases. Sisters, nuns, monks, friars, brothers and religious order priests commonly live in religious communities. There are legitimate reasons for exceptions, but generally they do live in religious communities.

Whereas diocesan priests usually do not live in religious communities, and living in the parish in a rectory is proper for a diocesan priest. In much of the country, there is only one priest per parish and this is the usual situation. Priests have meetings and they do keep in touch with one another for a lot of reasons, including companionship, but usually they do live alone in a rectory, except in the most populous or busy areas of the country.

Also, to identify something as a vowed religious community is a lot more than simply noting that ordained or even vowed people live in a group. A vowed religious community is a particular kind of a thing, not just shared housing.

[opus101]

Originally Posted by iloveangels

How much a bishop can do depends on what kind of religious organization the group is. Some are Diocesan Right and are approved by the local bishop, but some are Pontifical right and are approved by Rome. The bishop can't really do anything about a Pontifical Right congregation.

I'm aware that there are Diocesan right and Pontifical right communities, but I was under the impression that, even if a community is Pontifical, the local Bishop can allow or disallow them in his diocese. Is that true?

[iloveangels]

Originally Posted by opus101

I'm aware of that there are Diocesan right and Pontifical right communities, but I was under the impression that, even if a community is Pontifical, the local Bishop can allow or disallow them in his diocese. Is that true?

Only once. As I understand it, once he lets them in, they're in for good. Even if the bishop changes.

I am not an expert on canon law, however, there is a friar named Br JR who comes into this forum and he has spoken on this a number of times. You might search his posts. His username is JReducation.

[opus101]

Originally Posted by iloveangels

Nuns and sisters are quite different. Most people have never seen a nun because they're cloistered; you've all seen sisters.

What about Benedictines who live a monastic life, but have outside apostolates? In my area, they are still called Benedictine nuns, not sisters. They are not cloistered in the traditional sense.

[iloveangels]

Originally Posted by opus101

What about Benedictines who live a monastic life, but have outside apostolates? In my area, they are still called Benedictine nuns, not sisters. They are not cloistered in the traditional sense.

Benedictines are interesting because they're organized not by a hierarchy of leaders or offices in the Order like Franciscans, for instance, but by monasteries. In order to start a Benedictine group, you first start a monastery using the Benedictine rule. And then once that monastery is operational you get all the successive levels of approval for the monastery, and along the way, you join the Benedictine federation of monasteries.

This is an ancient way of doing things and it dates from the founding of the first of St. Benedict's monasteries in 529AD. Benedictines (and their offshoots) are one of the only orders that still do things this way.

The ancient rule and all the customs and practices of the Benedictines date from the period of their greatest influence in the Church, 529-1200AD. The only provision for women in the traditional Benedictine rule is the cloister since before the modern era, ALL women religious were expected to be cloistered and contemplative, *without exception.*

About orders: The Church stopped approving religious orders long, long ago, around the time of the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. Only one exception after that has ever been made and that was the Jesuits because of the emergency of the Reformation. The Benedictines are an order as are the Franciscans (main branches only), the Dominicans, the Servites, the Trinitarians and the Norbertines. However, EVERYTHING ELSE newer than that are congregations, institutes, organizations or other modern structures. And almost all the religious you know are probably from those newer structures, not orders. Why? Because they have more members than the older forms, the orders, and because they have apostolates like teaching and nursing. "Sisters" is the generally the term for women who belong to congregations, institutes and organizations. "Nuns" is generally the term used for contemplative cloistered sisters.

Why is this important? Because the ORDERS are early examples of Pontifical Right institutions. For instance the OFMs have had Pontifical Right approval since the 13th century. But the more modern and recent congregations, institutes, societies and other modern groups have to become Diocesan Right first, and then work toward being Pontifical Right.

So, about the Benedictines: The monasteries of American Benedictines were founded in the 1800-1900s in the US, often as offshoots of monasteries in Europe. They would have been founded as Diocesan Right or local monasteries to start with. In the 1800-1900s in the USA, non-Pontifical right religious in general were often pressed into parish or institutional service no matter what their charism was. This was able to happen because they did not have Pontifical Right, but were Diocesan Right organizations and thus had to participate in dioceses as they were told. A bishop can direct the activities of a Diocesan right organization; he can even shut them down. So the form of nun often morphed into sister in this case, and they became schoolteachers. Later, in the late 20th century when the push was on for autonomy from diocesan control, most of these religious organizations applied for Pontifical Right status and many of them attained it, but some of them never dropped their changed lifestyle. Some of them call themselves sisters; some call themselves nuns. This is the source of the confusion. Vatican II also intensified this confusion.

The story is different for other orders, like the women's expression of the Franciscans, the Poor Clares, who were also founded as contemplative cloistered nuns in 1212. They obtained Pontifical Right status in the 13th century and never became schoolteaching sisters in this country because of that status; because of their internal governmental structure, they have not been Diocesan Right anywhere in 800 years. There are far fewer of them and they are contemplative nuns to this day.

[iloveangels]

We're seeing something like this now, with the Franciscans, actually.

The main orders of Franciscans were founded in the 13th century and received Pontifical Right status nearly immediately after their founding. These are the OFMs, OFM Cap., OFM Conv., Poor Clares, and the Third Order, including the TOR and the SFO. Each of them has a Pontifical Rule that they follow in addition to constitutions and statutes.

However, in the last 200 years or so, "Franciscan-flavored" congregations, institutes of life, and other organizations have been founded. These do not generally use one of the ancient Pontifical Rules but rather, constitutions and statutes; they have to obtain approval through the regular process which starts in the diocese and they are usually service organizations with apostolates such as teaching and nursing. A lot of the Franciscan sisters' groups belong here. [Remember Poor Clares are contemplative and not sisters.]

The latest group of these are men's and women's Franciscan renewal organizations which use one of the ancient Rules plus constitutions and statutes, but are otherwise starting from the Diocese approval-wise and moving toward Pontifical status. Fr. Benedict Groeschel's CFRs is one of these groups, albeit very much closer to the spirit of the first OFMs than most "Franciscan-flavored" derivatives.

On top of it all, when you're dealing with Franciscans, we lump all of these together into the "Franciscan Family," even though each kind of Franciscan has it's own governing structure, as if it wasn't confusing enough, eh?

So, you see, structures of religious life are complex, interesting and sometimes capable of change and mutation, even though they are strictly governed by canon laws and more than fifteen hundred years of precedent. They're really interesting.

[Elizabeth502]

Originally Posted by iloveangels

A member of the diocesan priesthood and a member of a religious congregation can't really be equated. They're in completely different states of life, very different. [SNIP.....]

Thanks for the, um, info which I was thoroughly acquainted with.

[snip, snip, snip, snip.. ]

The point of all this is, of course, that yes, consecrated life involves religious community in almost all cases.

That is in fact the overriding point. The other "points" you made are juridical technicalities, not core concepts

In much of the country, there is only one priest per parish and this is the usual situation.

That is neither here nor there. A "secular" priest, even serving alone, is nevertheless part of a diocese, and shares more than just opportunities to "keep in touch" with other priests.
Because of the too-frequent solo residency of many parish priests now, there has developed a movement to create regular, structured community among these priests in vicinity because of the acknowledged value of community in their spiritual development. It involves regular Days of Recollection, retreats, etc.

While vowed religious have a more intense dimension to their vocation, diocesan priests who make promises are also supported and strengthened by their brother priests.

But that doesn't matter: The subject of this thread is:

Author says women's conference should return to authentic religious life

Authenticity and community are interwoven in this context. To deny that is to deny the special charism of religious consecration and even of the particular Order itself.

[iloveangels]

Originally Posted by Elizabeth502

Thanks for the, um, info which I was thoroughly acquainted with.

[snip, snip, snip, snip.. ]

Authenticity and community are interwoven in this context. To deny that is to deny the special charism of religious consecration and even of the particular Order itself.

My big point was that consecrated religious life does not equal ordained non-consecrated life. They are entirely different in practice and in canon law. And people are confused enough about this because they don't know this unless someone tells them. It matters. It has everything to do with what they can expect locally, nationally and coming from Rome, and how they can understand what's happening.

For instance, you can't expect a bishop to do what he can't do, period. Bishops get blamed for a lot of things they have nothing to do with. Another thing: You can't expect your priest to act like a consecrated religious, because most likely he's not one.

People often think that priests take vows of poverty and then they are confused and let down when they see him in a nice car or taking a vacation. Priests don't take vows of poverty. They don't take vows at all. They do promise celibacy and obedience, specifically to the bishop. It's very helpful to know this if you're trying to figure out all the perplexing things people hear.

Ignorance is a bad thing; knowledge is good.