Vatican demands reform of American nuns' leadership group [CWN]

[jwinch2]

Originally Posted by opus101

Wow. Thanks , Jason, for the article. That last sentence was really hard hitting.

You're welcome. I found the whole article to be pretty telling to be honest. Even in 1997, it was apparent that the more traditional communities were receiving vocations and that the ones who had embraced change, were not. The comment about sisters becoming virtually indistinguishable from their secular counterparts was particularly interesting, and very sad.

I can't help but wonder how it happened to be honest. Not, Vatican II, the psychological training they received, the perfect storm of the 1960's, etc.; but the total abandonment of the way of life. Seriously, one day did some Benedictine Sisters just wake up and decide they weren't going to pray the Divine Office anymore or embrace obedience even though it is central to the Benedictine vocation? Did some Dominican Sisters just wake up one day and decide not to preach the Gospel anymore even though it is central to the Dominican Vocation? Did some Franciscan Sisters just jump out of bed one day and decide that they really didn't need to listen to the pope or the magesterium even though St. Francis would have sooner sprouted wings and flown to the moon than to disobey the Holy Father?

There has been plenty of discussion about how all of this came to be, so intellectually I have a pretty good idea of how this happened. Having said all of that, how did this happen? Its almost unreal.

[Michael Mayo]

Originally Posted by KSU

Michael, after reading all or at least many of the posts in this thread about the nuns who run the LCWR, you said, "They aren't all bad, you know." To back it up, you then provided the link to Fr. Martin's video extolling the virtues of some of them. Now you go on to say you know plenty of faithful religious sister who persevered to serve, sacrifice and inspire.

In an effort to avoid misunderstanding your point, would you please tell me if the nuns extolled by Fr. Martin are examples of those who persevered to serve, sacrifice and inspire?

Thanks, Michael.

Can you tell me why there such persistence to call the nuns? They prefer “Sister” and that is their title as well as part of the title in most of their congregations.

Two of the sisters extolled are Mary Luke Tobin and Dorothy Stang. This is the first I have heard of either one. It would be rather interesting to study the history of religious women since Vatican II but I would not count on lesfemmes-thetruth.blogspot. as my sole source of information on them.

Also mentioned were the El Salvador Martyrs: Ita Ford, Maura Clark, Dorothy Kazel, and Jean Donovan and the Liberian martyrs: Sr. Barbara Ann Muttra, Sr. Mary Joel Kolmer, Sr. Shirley Kolmer, Sr. Kathleen McGuire, and Sr. Agnes Mueller. Do you seriously question their faithfulness and position as examples of those who persevered to serve, sacrifice and inspire?

Also mentioned is Joan Chittister. I never cared much for her writing and remain pretty unfamiliar with them and her activities. I do believe she remains in good standing with her order. Elizabeth Johnson is currently at odd with the bishops over her recent book Quest for the Living God. She is not the first theologian to be in such a position. I believe she has also written at least four other books with Bishop approvals.

In the absence of any damaging evidence I give Joyce Rupp, Helen Prejean, Janice Farnham, Louise French the benefit of any doubt.

As far as Fr. James Martin is concerned, I don't think it is for you nor I to cast the "disgraced" stone.

I am not saying the LCWR will not benefit from collaboration with the Bishops in the renwal of their work. But just because they do not wear habits or remain in the traditional ministries of nursing and elementary school teaching when they venture from the cloister does not make them heretics. There are yet some very holy women in religious life and it seems quite inappropriate for any of them to be under such harsh jurgement of the laity.

[Michael Mayo]

KSU, you ask me to please tell you if the nuns extolled by Fr. Martin are examples of those who persevered to serve, sacrifice and inspire. I mention just about each one and you take issue because I include the martyrs, who for all I know you may view as socialists. Then you go off on a tangent with Call to Action. You have already pigeonholed me as well, so I do not see any good friut coming from more similar exchanges. I am not here to argue.

I wish you peace.

[iloveangels]

Originally Posted by Michael Mayo

Can you tell me why there such persistence to call the nuns? They prefer “Sister” and that is their title as well as part of the title in most of their congregations.

Two of the sisters extolled are Mary Luke Tobin and Dorothy Stang. This is the first I have heard of either one. It would be rather interesting to study the history of religious women since Vatican II but I would not count on lesfemmes-thetruth.blogspot. as my sole source of information on them.

Also mentioned were the El Salvador Martyrs: Ita Ford, Maura Clark, Dorothy Kazel, and Jean Donovan and the Liberian martyrs: Sr. Barbara Ann Muttra, Sr. Mary Joel Kolmer, Sr. Shirley Kolmer, Sr. Kathleen McGuire, and Sr. Agnes Mueller. Do you seriously question their faithfulness and position as examples of those who persevered to serve, sacrifice and inspire?

Also mentioned is Joan Chittister. I never cared much for her writing and remain pretty unfamiliar with them and her activities. I do believe she remains in good standing with her order. Elizabeth Johnson is currently at odd with the bishops over her recent book Quest for the Living God. She is not the first theologian to be in such a position. I believe she has also written at least four other books with Bishop approvals.

In the absence of any damaging evidence I give Joyce Rupp, Helen Prejean, Janice Farnham, Louise French the benefit of any doubt.

As far as Fr. James Martin is concerned, I don't think it is for you nor I to cast the "disgraced" stone.

I am not saying the LCWR will not benefit from collaboration with the Bishops in the renwal of their work. But just because they do not wear habits or remain in the traditional ministries of nursing and elementary school teaching when they venture from the cloister does not make them heretics. There are yet some very holy women in religious life and it seems quite inappropriate for any of them to be under such harsh jurgement of the laity.

There are several very good books on the topic. The best one, in my opinion, is:
The Rise And Decline Of Catholic Religious Orders: A Social Movement Perspective by Patricia Wittberg ISBN: 0791422305
Written by a sister, it's more scholarly but the explanation is very good and it's not superficial. She does tell many sides to the story, and there are many sides. The mess we have didn't happen overnight.

I just received: Sisters in Crisis: The Tragic Unraveling of Women's Religious Communities by Ann Carey. ISBN: 0879736550
We'll see how good this one is. It was written by a laywoman, I believe, and it's more for a general audience. I haven't read it yet, so I can't vouch for it.

PS, nuns and sisters are quite different. You can search out Br. JR's posts on this forum where he talks about the difference or you can read the first book I listed above which talks about it.

[KSU]

Glad to see you re-join the discussion, iloveangels. I, too, replied to Michael, but it was removed. His bewildering (to be charitable) reply to it, however, was not.

I think that those who have no idea what all the current LCWR--related hubbub is about need only read http://www.wandererforum.org/publications/focus010.html , especially the section headed LCWR OBJECTIVES DECLARED , wherein the LCWR made its aims and methods clear decades ago.

[Michael Mayo]

Originally Posted by iloveangels

There are several very good books on the topic. The best one, in my opinion, is:
The Rise And Decline Of Catholic Religious Orders: A Social Movement Perspective by Patricia Wittberg ISBN: 0791422305
Written by a sister, it's more scholarly but the explanation is very good and it's not superficial. She does tell many sides to the story, and there are many sides. The mess we have didn't happen overnight.

I just received: Sisters in Crisis: The Tragic Unraveling of Women's Religious Communities by Ann Carey. ISBN: 0879736550
We'll see how good this one is. It was written by a laywoman, I believe, and it's more for a general audience. I haven't read it yet, so I can't vouch for it.

PS, nuns and sisters are quite different. You can search out Br. JR's posts on this forum where he talks about the difference or you can read the first book I listed above which talks about it.

Please do share your opinion of the second book. I was disappointed that the first book only had two reviews at Amazon.

The LCWR represents about 80% of the nearly 56,000 women religious in the United States.

The Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious (CMSWR) represents 20% (about 10,000) religious women in the United States.

I would not be at all suprised if these percentages change dramatically in the next 20 years shiffting more to the CMSWR unless the LCWR more consistently aligns itself with church teaching and the two can once again merge .

[jwinch2]

Originally Posted by Michael Mayo

The LCWR represents about 80% of the nearly 56,000 women religious in the United States.

The Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious (CMSWR) represents 20% (about 10,000) religious women in the United States.

I would not be at all suprised if these percentages change dramatically in the next 20 years shiffting more to the CMSWR unless the LCWR more consistently aligns itself with church teaching and the two can once again merge .

Even those numbers are misleading to be honest. LCWR has membership from approximately 80% of the women religious in the United States. That does not mean that 80% of women religious belong to, or are active with, LCWR. Some members of 80% of the congregations in the US are involved with LCWR in some way. Heck, some congregations have members involved with both groups to varying levels while other congregations are only affiliated with one or the other. Even within LCWR, there are congregations that wish to be faithful and have been advocating for change from within for many years rather than bolt to CMSWR.

All of this serves to muddy the waters significantly when trying to get a handle on who is really representing who. LCWR throws out the 80% number and so does the popular media because it makes them look better and helps project their spin that the Vatican is cracking down on women religious in general, and not just the dissident ones.

Earlier in the thread, I posted some links discussing the issue regarding the numbers and what the more likely percentages are. If you are so inclined, you might go back to the beginning of the thread and track it down as it was pretty early on in the discussion.

Also, I believe you are correct in that the numbers will shift. For one thing, most reports are consistent in that the congregations of women religious which are the most successful in attracting young vocations are the ones who are going out of their way to proclaim and live magesterial fidelity. Most, not necessarily all, of those groups are affiliated with CMSWR. In addition, the average age of religious congregations in LCWR is approx. 74 from the reports I have seen. Life expectancy for women in the USA of their generation is between 76 - 84 years old. Simple biology in the form of mortality, combined with the fact that they are not attracting vocations, is going to lead to a massive drop in their numbers starting very soon.

[Michael Mayo]

Originally Posted by jwinch2

Earlier in the thread, I posted some links discussing the issue regarding the numbers and what the more likely percentages are. If you are so inclined, you might go back to the beginning of the thread and track it down as it was pretty early on in the discussion.

Yes. I will go back and find it. Sounds interesting.

[jwinch2]

Originally Posted by Michael Mayo

Yes. I will go back and find it. Sounds interesting.

Cool. If you are really interested in this situation, I would encourage reading the whole thread if you have the time. Particularly early on, there were many articles posted discussing the genesis of this current situation including commentary from various women religious, etc. Its actually a very informative thread and based on some of the comments and questions you have made since joining, you would likely find it informative.

Peace,

[opus101]

Originally Posted by poorsinner7

My wife and my family think Catholics believe stuff like put out by organizations like this and therefore refute everything the Catholic Church teaches, even when it agrees with their own beliefs.

poorsinner, IMO this is one of the worst aspects of the decline of religious life. The witness of the Faith is fractured and murky. When religious sisters (and "nuns" -the Benedictines in my area live in a monastery, take monastic vows, but live very public, active lives, and insist on being called "nuns" - a further blurring of traditional distinctions) actively pursue and teach/reflect unorthodox theologies and deny basic Church doctrine, confusion and chaos result.

[opus101]

Originally Posted by Michael Mayo

The LCWR represents about 80% of the nearly 56,000 women religious in the United States.

I wouldn't be surprised if this statisctic is false. It may be true, it may not be. It is a statistic put forth from the organization itself. One of the Rules for Radicals (by Saul Alinsky- someone who developed organizations that many LCWR sisters are involved in) is to misrepresent statistics in order to make one's organization look bigger and more formidable than it actually is.

The reform that will take place might shed some light on the actual statistic.

[jwinch2]

Originally Posted by poorsinner7

I never knew about all of these different organizations. No one in my family ever clued me in on about these organizations. I was not raised Catholic and the Catholics in my family seem to have dissed the authority of the Church. My father held traditional Catholic ideas but struggled to live up to his own conscience. I would love to see some of the progress with the TLM issues and reforms from more faithful religious orders that are growing. I never understood the things he talked about and no one seemed to care nor believed I could learn. So, as I discover things like this, I'm not really surprised. But I assure you, I feel ignorant when in the company of cradle Catholics that know these things. My wife and my family think Catholics believe stuff like put out by organizations like this and therefore refute everything the Catholic Church teaches, even when it agrees with their own beliefs.

Its a very tough situation all around.

As I suggested to another member shortly ago, I would strongly encourage you to go back and read this entire thread to include reading the articles and watching the videos which are linked throughout. There are some very good information throughout the thread which can explain the current status of this situation, how it came to be, the investigation status and genesis, etc.

I know it is a ton of stuff to read and would likely take several hours, and things get a littel jumpy now and then because some threads were combined to form this one, but it would be very much worth your time if you want to have a good handle on the situation.

Peace,

[Michael Mayo]

Originally Posted by jwinch2

Cool. If you are really interested in this situation, I would encourage reading the whole thread if you have the time. Particularly early on, there were many articles posted discussing the genesis of this current situation including commentary from various women religious, etc. Its actually a very informative thread and based on some of the comments and questions you have made since joining, you would likely find it informative.

Peace,

It is a slow trek because of all the links but it helps to see this current topic in the larger social context. It makes me think The Rise And Decline Of Catholic Religious Orders: A Social Movement Perspective might pull a lot together.

Somehwere back there was the article from Latin Mass interview with repentant Rogerian psychologist who says:

Maslow referred to it as Psychology Three. By that he meant to oppose it to Freud, which is Psychology One, and Skinner and Watson, the behaviorism which is Psychology Two. We Catholics who got involved in it thought this third force would take account of Catholic things. It would take account of the fact that every person is precious, that we are not just corrupted as Freud would have it, or a <tabula rasa>, which is available to be conditioned in whatever way the behaviorist chooses; but rather we have human potential, and it's glorious because we are the children of a loving Creator who has something marvelous in mind for every one of us.

But Maslow quickly came to see that there was something on the horizon which
he called the fourth force. It has since come to be known as transpersonal
psychology. It's the fastest growing field of psychology; but it is
primarily New Ageism, because it doesn't want to endorse traditional
religious faith. It is psychology trying to be religion, because it
understands that humanistic orientation is inadequate.

Freud, Skinner, Watson, Rogers, Maslow stabbing in the dark. At that time there was a massive hunger for renewal and freedom in many aspects of social and personal life. Some sort of movement was inevitable. And now Transpersonal psychology is indeed very popular these days. A Catholic psychology would be aware of these and glean something from them but also draw upon the deep tradition of care for the soul we already have. Even today when someone need psychological help or even spiritual direction it is difficult to find suitable help. But in the 50's and 60's there was just uncontrolled explosion. What we see in religious life are the remnants of that explosion.

I know several religious sisters in their 80's and they certainly would not consider themselves feminists. They are just wise faithful ladies with many stories to tell about pre and post Vatican II. When I am fortunate enough to celebrate mass with them at their motherhouse chapel I am humbled, surrounded by hundreds of accumulated years of religious life. Those who serve in leadership roles are naturally younger. Some of them do seem to have more critical views of some Church positions. But they are a minority, perhaps a powerful minority. But these days there is a lot of consolidation going on, congregational mergers. What must it be like to have given 50 or 60 years to a religious order to now see it dwindling and perhaps straying?

If you see a sister, give her a hug.

[LittleSoldier]

Originally Posted by Michael Mayo

Please do share your opinion of the second book. I was disappointed that the first book only had two reviews at Amazon.

The LCWR represents about 80% of the nearly 56,000 women religious in the United States.

The Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious (CMSWR) represents 20% (about 10,000) religious women in the United States.

I would not be at all suprised if these percentages change dramatically in the next 20 years shiffting more to the CMSWR unless the LCWR more consistently aligns itself with church teaching and the two can once again merge .

This is an example of how to prove anything with statistics. The LCWR does not directly represent 80% of the Women Religious but represents their alleged representatives. There is a difference. It's like saying the Sisters of Notre Dame represent 100% of the students in the schools in which they teach. But they don't, as many of the students disagree with the Sisters and their policies.

I hope that the LCWR understands humility and obedience and does what it is supposed to do - make the changes that must be made in order to align itself with Church teaching. I also hope that the CMSWR and the LCWR eventually merge, as long as the merger is done in order to follow Church teaching, especially when it comes to pro-life issues.

[Michael Mayo]

Originally Posted by LittleSoldier

I hope that the LCWR understands humility and obedience and does what it is supposed to do - make the changes that must be made in order to align itself with Church teaching.

It is hard to imagine some of those women doing that.
So I wonder how things would play out.
Sanctions on LCWR? Some individual women or orders going Episcopal or something?