U.S.: Franciscans side with the LCWR

[Elizabeth502]

Originally Posted by JReducation

Obviously, if the conference is derailed, those who depend on the conference, (the religious sisters) won't draw the benefit that they should draw from it. They will pass on their impoverished theology.

Agreed!

Originally Posted by JReducation

The groups are at both ends of the spectrum, orthodox and hardline radicals.

I believe that.

Originally Posted by JReducation

The big issue right now in many theologates is whether allowing women to enter the four-year M.Div program and the STB, STL or STD. .....It has nothing to do with being priests.

Again, in my area the slight differences in content in the MDiv program for men in formation vs. women (who obviously cannot be in priestly formation) are indeed specifically with regard to priesthood (maleness) or no priesthood (both males and females). Women have been doing MDiv programs (with that slight variation) in these theologates for years, and no change is on the horizon that I'm aware of.

Originally Posted by JReducation

At this point, I'm going to bail out of this conversation, because I feel that I'm not contributing anything to it, since it is obvious that no matter what I say is going to be the wrong answer.

LOL. No "wrong answer." Perhaps inaccurate for a particular locale which differs from yours, but nothing "wrong." Also, I've appreciated the perspective and corrections you've brought with regard to the purpose of The Letter and its limitations. I think that has helped to provide balance and accuracy to lay people reading this forum.

[M-Dent]

Originally Posted by JReducation

At this point, I'm going to bail out of this conversation, because I feel that I'm not contributing anything to it, since it is obvious that no matter what I say is going to be the wrong answer.

I know the feeling...

[iloveangels]

Originally Posted by JReducation

....... I explained that the authors wrote them for a particular audience. This audience did not include the laity. They never expected that this letter would end up on the Internet. ......

Okay, so now the logical thing to ask is "How did the document get on the Internet?" If it wasn't really intended to get on the Net, how did that happen?

Originally Posted by JReducation

The big issue right now in many theologates is whether allowing women to enter the four-year M.Div program and the STB, STL or STD. For example, I studied at Santa Cruce, there are two tracks, one for clerg, brothers and laymen, and another for laywomen and sisters. The same is true at NAC, CUA, Josephinum and other pontifical schools of theology. It has nothing to do with being priests. In my community, only 2/10 become priests, but everyone goes through to the STL. You can't make solemn vows without it.

The pontifical system does separate women from men.

Well, yes, this may be one consideration. On the other hand, as just one symptom of what's wrong, does a person really truly need an STL degree to tell that Barbara Marx Hubbard is an inappropriate choice for a conference lead speaker? Seriously.

There are certainly more symptoms but this one is graphic enough and I'd rather stop there.

[iloveangels]

Originally Posted by JReducation

At this point, I'm going to bail out of this conversation, because I feel that I'm not contributing anything to it, since it is obvious that no matter what I say is going to be the wrong answer.

My brothers need my attention.

God bless!

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Br. JR, you are contributing positively to the conversation because it's important to hear all the perspectives. You know a lot and your perspective is valuable and unique in CAF.

[Elizabeth502]

Originally Posted by JReducation

The big issue right now in many theologates is whether allowing women to enter the four-year M.Div program and the STB, STL or STD.

Since I was the one who provided contrary information, I though I would follow up and check. And indeed, even on a quick check, two top Catholic theology institutions provide all of the following to both men and women without restriction, and to lay, religious, and those in seminary:

M.Div
STB
STL
STD

As I mentioned earlier, the M.Div program at one of the institutions in question denies 4 of those courses to anyone not in an ordination program; those courses are specific to those headed for priestly ministry. And those who are preparing for ordination must take comps in those 4 courses. Everyone else (along with those headed for ordination) must take comps in all of the other coursework.

There are no distinctions in coursework for the other 3 above degree programs, nor diferences in expected scholarship, research, comprehensive exams, proficiency in languages, philosophical foundation, etc. The same mastery of subject matter is expected of men and of women, whether lay, religious, or in seminary, and the same resources are offered to all enrolled.

Of course the separate question is what proportion of current consecrated religious women have such levels of knowledge/education (which is what iloveangels brought up). And second, what percentage of the LCWR has such training. I agree with iloveangels that we're seeing increasingly high levels of education for some women religious, which i.m.o. is not a bad thing. The promotion of full literacy about Catholicism benefits the sisters and all those affected by them, and hopefully will continue to improve communication between the Vatican and the leadership in future years.

[Luigi Daniele]

Originally Posted by JReducation

Though I believe that the Provincial Ministers of the Order of Friars Minor of the Observance (OFM) acted prematurely, it is very clear that what they are being accused of here is not what was in their statement.

No where in their statement do they lend support for any heresy or any dissent from the teachings of the Church. Their statement is very simple. Unfortunately, it's clouded by the usual ecclesial verbage that we tend to use when Catholics speak.

They are saying that given the evidence that was presented to the CDF the response of the CDF was over the top. It's that simple. They're not saying that the LCWR's positions on this or that matter is right or wrong.

They are also saying that the media does not seem to make a distinction between assent on principle and difference of opinion on the application. The latter is not a rejection of Church teaching is actually true. One can agree on a moral principle and disagree on how we're going to proceed with this. The disagreement on procedure is not disagreement on the content.

The brothers are taking a preventive position, which in my mind is premature. They are reminding everyone that there is a law in place that says that conflicts between religious and bishops must be resolved in a committee of superiors and bishops.

Many lay people don't know this, but bishops have no doctrinal or moral authority over religious . . . only the major superior does. Above the major superior would be the Holy Father. But the bishops themselves do not. That's why the law provides for a council. When that does not work, then the Holy Father is asked to resolve the problem. The brothers don't explain this in their letter. My guess is that the letter is meant to the LCWR and they figure that they should already know about these laws.

I see it as premature, because the bishops have not overstepped their authority. I don't believe it's necessary to remind anyone about the ruling of the Council of Trent that prohibits the intervention of bishops in affairs of religious. Bishops are not even allowed to set foot in religious houses without asking for permission from the religious. But all of this is very premature. Unless they know something that we don't know, I don't get the impression that bishops are getting involved in the affairs of the sisters.

It is important to recall that the LCWR is not the same as a religious community. Therefore, the involvement of one bishop with the LCWR does not constitute direct involvement of bishops with religious, which is the part that is not allowed. Until this happens, if it ever happens, I believe that this letter should have been put on hold.

But it is important that people know the truth. The Observants (OFM) are not endorsing anything that the LCWR has done or not done. They are speaking about two points and two points only.

1. The reaction of the CDF is over the top (a matter of dispute)

Moreover, we are concerned that the tone and direction set forth in the Doctrinal Assessment of LCWR are excessive, given the evidence raised.

2. The bishops must remember the conflicts must be resolved in a council (too early to bring this out, since no one has overstepped their authority).

We trust that CDF was attempting to follow their counsel from Mutuae Relationes; however, we fear that in today’s public media world their action easily could be misunderstood.

The rest of their statement is pretty much repeating what the Holy Father himself said last week. The sisters have made a great contribution to the Church in America that we can never repay and should never forget. I believe that most people with common sense know this and don't need to be reminded.

There are hot button issues that will lead to conflicts when discussed. We know that too. No need to remind us of that either.

Part of living out our faith is to discern how to address those hot issues. Another thing that we know.

In essence, they're not saying anything other than the two points that I made above. My personal opinion, it's too early to have made such a statement. We need to wait until the sisters go to the Vatican to meet with Cardinal Levada and then see what happens.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Brother (or anyone that knows), are you saying that only the OFM wrote this letter (ie, not the Capuchins or Conventuals)?

[JReducation]

Originally Posted by Luigi Daniele

Brother (or anyone that knows), are you saying that only the OFM wrote this letter (ie, not the Capuchins or Conventuals)?

The Minister Provincial of the American provinces of the Observants wrote the letter. The letter was sent to the LCWR, the CDF and FCMS. It was not meant for anyone else to read it. Therefore, it doesn't mention the problems inside the LCWR, because the assumption is that the three groups who were receiving the letter know that part.

They wanted to tell the sisters that they are there for them and to remind the Vatican that there is a procedure in place for when there is a conflict between religious and bishops. You must have a council of religious superiors and bishops. The religious superiors must control the council by one.

The bishops are only allowed to discuss issues of doctrine, morals and policies. They cannot bring up discipline, behavior of individual religious, finances, or apostolic labor. The superiors can, if they want the bishops' input on these subjects.

The purpose of such a council is to give the bishops an opportunity to speak directly to the religious superiors about their concerns and the other way around. The second purpose is to resolve the differences at the local level so that the Holy Father does not have to get involved. Popes do not like to get involved in the problems of religious. They do so only when it becomes apparent that the problem cannot be resolved at the lowest level of authority.

It's like the famous debate between Jesuits and Dominicans about the definition of grace. They have two different definitions that don't agree. For a very long time they were in conflict and even called each other heretics. Finally, the pope ordered both sides to back down and stop calling each other heretic. They asked the pope which was the correct definition of grace, the Jesuit version or the Dominican. The pope said that he would not take sides in a conflict between to of the major religious orders of the Church. Since then, no pope has ever resolved the issue. To the point that once, Cardinal Ratzinger commented that both could be right, since neither was heresy and left it at that.

That's the reason for these councils,to avoid sucking the pope into conflicts. There was a concern among male religious that there could be a conflict between the sisters and the bishops. The threat is still possible. There are man people in this world that don't use common sense when they speak and it triggers a bigger problem than what had at the beginning.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV