The Sisters: Two Views
May 30, 2012
George Weigel
After the April announcement that the Vatican was taking the Leadership Conference of Women Religious into a form of ecclesiastical receivership, appointing Seattle Archbishop J. Peter Sartain to oversee the LCWR until its statutes and program are reformed, Tom Fox, a major figure at the National Catholic Reporter for decades, had this to say:
Some of our bishops are acting like bullies, abusing the authority of their offices in the name of enforcing orthodoxy…Dealing with U.S. women religious, these bishops’ actions appear governed more by a desire to enforce obedience than to develop fidelity in our sisters…What the bully bishops claim to be matters of orthodoxy are really matters of pastoral style. They are the results of an unwillingness among our bishops to enter into sincere and mutually respectful dialogue with the women. None of the issues at hand has anything to do with the Creed. They stem from the actions of a small group of misdirected and fearful men determined to take ‘catholic’ out of ‘Catholic’ while judging, silencing and demeaning those who stand in their way…
Shortly after a correspondent sent me the link to this rather intemperate comment, another interlocutor passed along an interview with the late Walker Percy, one of American Catholicism’s greatest 20th century literary talents. Percy was asked what would have most surprised another major Catholic literary figure, Flannery O’Connor, about the post-conciliar Church she did not live to see:
I think probably the disunity, the near-sundering of the American Church. I think she would be horrified, and probably most of all by the nuns, by what happened to the Georgia nuns, to the Louisiana nuns, and I guess to most of the others. They completely fell apart. They were seduced, not by feminism—which the pope approves of, in the sense of the right of women not to be discriminated against—but by radical feminism. Many of the nuns I know were completely seduced by it, to the point of rebelling against any sort of discipline. They began to mix up the magisterium with macho masculinism, as if the pope were Hemingway. I think that would horrify O’Connor more than anything.
There’s not a whole lot of “common ground” to be found between these two readings of the post-conciliar history of women’s religious life in these United States. Either Tom Fox is right in his general view of the situation, or Walker Percy is right in his. Yet while Percy would almost certainly have agreed that there are many holy and devoted women doing great service to Church and society within the LCWR orders, Fox seems unlikely to make any such concession about the bishops who have, over three decades, raised concern about the spiritual life of those orders. If inflexibility and intellectual bullying are at work here, they’re far more prevalent on the port side of the Barque of Peter than on the starboard side.
There is also a question of demographics to be considered in assessing these two views. Ann Carey’s 1997 book, Sisters in Crisis, reported a hard fact, thoroughly supported by the data: Progressive orders of religious women don’t generate new vocations. LCWR-affiliated sisters responded that their job was “not to grow but to be.” How one could “be” without new recruits was not explained—a reflection, perhaps, of the same cast of mind that led a recent LCWR annual assembly speaker to praise the “post-Christian” stance of some religious orders. In any case, there can be no denying that the “renewal” of women’s religious life led by the LCWR and its affiliated orders has utterly failed to attract new vocations. The LCWR orders are dying, while several religious orders that disaffiliated from the LCWR are growing.
And this is the question that neither the LCWR nor its defenders, like Tom Fox, ever engage: If what you’ve been doing for about 40 years is so right, why do young women not find it attractive?
Walker Percy and Flannery O’Connor, however, would understand.
George Weigel is Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C.
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
5.30.2012 | 11:11am
Roaming Catholic says:
What's with the either/or? I can see grains of truth as well as some distortion in both Fox's and Percy's descriptions. Inflexibility abounds on both sides, and taking sides only underscores this point.
5.30.2012 | 1:14pm
Mike Melendez says:
You got me, Roaming Catholic. Your two sentences just don't go together. You make a claim without supporting it and somehow that two viewpoints exist demonstrates the point. Is it possible that one side might be right and the other wrong on the core issue?
And Michael PS, would you be so kind as to connect Blondel's statement of a hundred years ago to the current situation?
And Michael PS, would you be so kind as to connect Blondel's statement of a hundred years ago to the current situation?
5.30.2012 | 1:47pm
2hearts4life says:
I don’t see as the ‘roaming catholic’ sees this situation but rather as Percy viewed the Church, highlighting the negative influence of the ‘radical’ feminist. Their ideology reeks of conflict within themselves, which lies will do. This type of mockery against the Church has been going on for some time and now has reached epidemic levels, via enlightenment, invading even the feminists lay educators of Catholic schools and elsewhere. These far-reaching feminists feel it is their prerogative to ‘bully’ into submission, any woman who seeks to teach and remain faithful to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Yet, this is the same ‘inferred’ style of behavior of which the feminists seek asylum.
The bottom line is that either you have faith in God with a passion to serve your Creator or you live and die by the rules of the world. By the same token, if you seek reparation for your sins and live to grow in your faith and help others to move towards cleansing their souls, then you are living your life in His divine will, while moving forward towards His Light. These wayward nuns and all of us know the difference between right and wrong; between apologetics and heretics; between good and evil. If our intellects move to erase this clarity with clouds of grey, then our job should be to fight against our human will with the 'whole armor of God' but never to fight against our Shepherds who were chosen by God to guard against intruders against our faith.
The Pope should not be reduced to a mere roadblock against you living your life against the Magisterium and I feel he should voice stern reminders at times to shepherd his sheep towards a clean soul.
The bottom line is that either you have faith in God with a passion to serve your Creator or you live and die by the rules of the world. By the same token, if you seek reparation for your sins and live to grow in your faith and help others to move towards cleansing their souls, then you are living your life in His divine will, while moving forward towards His Light. These wayward nuns and all of us know the difference between right and wrong; between apologetics and heretics; between good and evil. If our intellects move to erase this clarity with clouds of grey, then our job should be to fight against our human will with the 'whole armor of God' but never to fight against our Shepherds who were chosen by God to guard against intruders against our faith.
The Pope should not be reduced to a mere roadblock against you living your life against the Magisterium and I feel he should voice stern reminders at times to shepherd his sheep towards a clean soul.
5.30.2012 | 4:34pm
bernie says:
It won't really matter who is correct in the future for the progressives are a dying lot and the other nuns who are traditional are growing. If you can't generate new vocations then the problem will just naturally work its way out in the next 15 to 20 years. When nuns cease to act as nuns then what do you have. A catholic should be obedient to the church whether they are single, married or religious. It is very sad situation when nuns go against the church with such things as new age, accepting abortion and contraceptive. May the Lord open their eyes to what they are doing and bring them home to the church.
5.30.2012 | 4:44pm
Canon1095 says:
The average age of a sister in the US is about 70. If they taught in schools their communities got half what the lay teachers got. Most of them struggle to take care of their elderly. The Arch/diocese never paid into their retirement, paid for their theological education. While they influence Catholics as a presence. Asked to serve when no priest an be found. They are essentially laity. So now they are criticized for not being theologically correct? For being feminists when the church does not pay attention unless there is to be done. Hildegarde of Bingen, Doctor of the Chirch indeed!
5.30.2012 | 8:22pm
Mark VA says:
Well, it seems that the LCWR sisterhood, after tuning in to an exceptionally successful harmonic convergence event, has entered the noosphere. They've evolved far beyond us, mere reactionary earth bound mortals.
In reality, we should pray for them, for they are confused. The demographics point to a rather clear future - the faithful orders already flourish, and as long as they remain faithful, they will continue to do so. The other orders are becoming footnotes.
In reality, we should pray for them, for they are confused. The demographics point to a rather clear future - the faithful orders already flourish, and as long as they remain faithful, they will continue to do so. The other orders are becoming footnotes.
5.31.2012 | 5:38am
Michael PS says:
Mike Melendez
The applicability of Blondel's words to the conflicting views of Fox and Percy are too obvious to require illustration
The applicability of Blondel's words to the conflicting views of Fox and Percy are too obvious to require illustration
5.31.2012 | 1:39pm
Peter says:
2hearts, Bernie and Mark VA,
You are, in your blanket criticisms of the LCWR sisters, making the same kind of mistake that Tom Fox makes in his criticism of the bishops. You all employ the straw man (or woman) fallacy to build up a false, one dimensional stereotype of an entire group so that you can attack the faithfulness and integrity of all of its members. You appear to have overlooked Mr. Weigel's point that, apart from their differences of opinion, a crucial difference between Fox and Walker Percy is that Percy would have been charitable towards the sisters he spoke about and would have acknowledged their good works.
Canon 1095's description of the sacrifices and contributions of the sisters is accurate. Even if some of the orders or their members may have gone off the rails in theological terms, that does not detract from the lives of sacrifice and service they have led. They have done the Lord's work in their teaching and other service ministries. I don't have strong views one way or another about the bishops' review of the LCWR orders, but no one should use the fact of the review to make all- encompassing disparaging remarks about the women religious.
I believe much of the conflict between "liberal" and "conservative" Catholics has its roots in the desire of members of both these camps to equate their secular political and social beliefs with the tenets of the faith. Liberals rally under the banner of "social justice" while conservatives rally under that of "obedience". In both cases they are trying to make their faith conform to their politics instead of the other way around. I happen to believe that it's both/and - both obedience and social justice (I don't necessarily equate social justice with any specific set of government programs or policies, but engagement in advocacy on a range of issues, both "conservative" and "liberal" can be a form of witness and service).
To the extent that Catholic Christians are meant to serve as a sign of contradiction, both a married couple faithfully using NFP and a nun protesting nuclear weapons production or capital punishment are serving this role. To me, a good example of someone who advocates for both "liberal" and "conservative" policies is Sister Helen Prejean, an opponent of capital punishment, who has reached out and ministered to people on all sides of this issue, and a staunch opponent of abortion. Several years ago, she and some other "liberal" Catholics (among them Martin Sheen and the members of a Catholic Worker house) had their names removed from an ad criticizing the Iraq war after the organizers of the ad added to it some text critical of Bush's "anti-choice" policies.
I can't resist ending this without taking a respectful dig at Mr. Weigel. George, if I can call you George, I hope the next time you criticize the magesterium, including up to the Pope, for misapplication of Catholic theology when they happen to take a position on military action or capital punishment that does not conform with yours, that you will at least consider the possibility that you can come off sounding like the mirror image of those members of Congress who waxed indignant at the "intrusion" of the bishops when they lobbied for adding a prohibition against abortion funding into the health care law. My general impression is that politicians and activists of all stripes love the clergy when they agree with them politically but disparage them when they don't. Hypocrisy, it's the way of "the world."
You are, in your blanket criticisms of the LCWR sisters, making the same kind of mistake that Tom Fox makes in his criticism of the bishops. You all employ the straw man (or woman) fallacy to build up a false, one dimensional stereotype of an entire group so that you can attack the faithfulness and integrity of all of its members. You appear to have overlooked Mr. Weigel's point that, apart from their differences of opinion, a crucial difference between Fox and Walker Percy is that Percy would have been charitable towards the sisters he spoke about and would have acknowledged their good works.
Canon 1095's description of the sacrifices and contributions of the sisters is accurate. Even if some of the orders or their members may have gone off the rails in theological terms, that does not detract from the lives of sacrifice and service they have led. They have done the Lord's work in their teaching and other service ministries. I don't have strong views one way or another about the bishops' review of the LCWR orders, but no one should use the fact of the review to make all- encompassing disparaging remarks about the women religious.
I believe much of the conflict between "liberal" and "conservative" Catholics has its roots in the desire of members of both these camps to equate their secular political and social beliefs with the tenets of the faith. Liberals rally under the banner of "social justice" while conservatives rally under that of "obedience". In both cases they are trying to make their faith conform to their politics instead of the other way around. I happen to believe that it's both/and - both obedience and social justice (I don't necessarily equate social justice with any specific set of government programs or policies, but engagement in advocacy on a range of issues, both "conservative" and "liberal" can be a form of witness and service).
To the extent that Catholic Christians are meant to serve as a sign of contradiction, both a married couple faithfully using NFP and a nun protesting nuclear weapons production or capital punishment are serving this role. To me, a good example of someone who advocates for both "liberal" and "conservative" policies is Sister Helen Prejean, an opponent of capital punishment, who has reached out and ministered to people on all sides of this issue, and a staunch opponent of abortion. Several years ago, she and some other "liberal" Catholics (among them Martin Sheen and the members of a Catholic Worker house) had their names removed from an ad criticizing the Iraq war after the organizers of the ad added to it some text critical of Bush's "anti-choice" policies.
I can't resist ending this without taking a respectful dig at Mr. Weigel. George, if I can call you George, I hope the next time you criticize the magesterium, including up to the Pope, for misapplication of Catholic theology when they happen to take a position on military action or capital punishment that does not conform with yours, that you will at least consider the possibility that you can come off sounding like the mirror image of those members of Congress who waxed indignant at the "intrusion" of the bishops when they lobbied for adding a prohibition against abortion funding into the health care law. My general impression is that politicians and activists of all stripes love the clergy when they agree with them politically but disparage them when they don't. Hypocrisy, it's the way of "the world."
5.31.2012 | 9:05pm
Mark VA says:
Peter:
I agree with you up to a point. My comment should have made it clear that it is the leadership of the LCWR, not the rank and file, that is in question here. On the issue of LCWR's inner circle fidelity to the Church, I don't intend to back off one inch.
Compare the lists of “Justice Issues” and “Resolutions To Action” from the LCWR, to a comparable list (Tackling Issues) from the Gamaliel Foundation. See what's common, but most importantly, what is absent from all these lists, then draw your own conclusions.
A “seamless garment” it ain't.
I agree with you up to a point. My comment should have made it clear that it is the leadership of the LCWR, not the rank and file, that is in question here. On the issue of LCWR's inner circle fidelity to the Church, I don't intend to back off one inch.
Compare the lists of “Justice Issues” and “Resolutions To Action” from the LCWR, to a comparable list (Tackling Issues) from the Gamaliel Foundation. See what's common, but most importantly, what is absent from all these lists, then draw your own conclusions.
A “seamless garment” it ain't.
6.1.2012 | 3:32pm
MercyNurse1 says:
It is not religious communities that women are scorning; it is the church. See Patricia Wittberg's sociological study on young women and the church in Feb 20 America magazine.
6.1.2012 | 10:51pm
Mark VA says:
MercyNurse1:
I've read the article by Sister Patricia Wittberg you mentioned, and found it to be a straightforward presentation of some trends for certain ex-Catholic American women, followed by three recommendations on how to counteract these trends. It is more of a statistical approach to the problem, rather than a psychological one.
In my view, the article did not characterize these women as "scorning" the Church, but rather as being “very spiritual”, but not religious persons. Thus, it is plausible to say that these women were not catechised to begin with, and instead drifted into a "spiritual but not religious" posture in vogue at the moment.
It would also seem that such women are just unlikely to join a religious community, as they are to go to Mass. So, is it scorning the Church first (which would imply at least some knowledge of Her) and then leaving, or is it not ever knowing Her, and then just floating away?
Perhaps Sister Wittberg would care to weigh in on this?
I've read the article by Sister Patricia Wittberg you mentioned, and found it to be a straightforward presentation of some trends for certain ex-Catholic American women, followed by three recommendations on how to counteract these trends. It is more of a statistical approach to the problem, rather than a psychological one.
In my view, the article did not characterize these women as "scorning" the Church, but rather as being “very spiritual”, but not religious persons. Thus, it is plausible to say that these women were not catechised to begin with, and instead drifted into a "spiritual but not religious" posture in vogue at the moment.
It would also seem that such women are just unlikely to join a religious community, as they are to go to Mass. So, is it scorning the Church first (which would imply at least some knowledge of Her) and then leaving, or is it not ever knowing Her, and then just floating away?
Perhaps Sister Wittberg would care to weigh in on this?
6.2.2012 | 1:34am
Frank Pray says:
Weigel's most significant point of evidence is that "progressive" or "leftist" religious orders are diminishing in numbers. What is the personality profile of the religious adherent? It could very well be someone seeking to be apart from the world and its changing movements left or right. We certainly see in the growth of the Muslim faith that people disillusioned with the world culture around them want desperately to be affiliated with something or someone that assures them: "this is the way of unchanging Truth."
But I am skeptical of this idea that conservative equates with Truth, or that stability equates with wisdom. Jesus was neither conservative nor stable. He was radical and dynamic. His core identity was God, and He lived and loved in the Spirit of His Father. In that he was "conservative" if the term must be used.
Percy notes nuns have been "seduced" by feminism. Seducing a nun is certainly unforgivable. But I could accept a radically committed follower of Christ who was "feminist" because she would have Christ at the center of her feminism. Imagine for a moment what a fully Christian woman might do in the world. She might indeed have "feminist" tendencies.
Christ never bought into a political movement. He was very clear that His Kingdom was not a worldly government. So I think we can both "loosen up" and "tighten up" on this subject: Following the rules of a conservative religious order is not the answer, but neither is chasing the current cultural trend.
But I am skeptical of this idea that conservative equates with Truth, or that stability equates with wisdom. Jesus was neither conservative nor stable. He was radical and dynamic. His core identity was God, and He lived and loved in the Spirit of His Father. In that he was "conservative" if the term must be used.
Percy notes nuns have been "seduced" by feminism. Seducing a nun is certainly unforgivable. But I could accept a radically committed follower of Christ who was "feminist" because she would have Christ at the center of her feminism. Imagine for a moment what a fully Christian woman might do in the world. She might indeed have "feminist" tendencies.
Christ never bought into a political movement. He was very clear that His Kingdom was not a worldly government. So I think we can both "loosen up" and "tighten up" on this subject: Following the rules of a conservative religious order is not the answer, but neither is chasing the current cultural trend.
6.19.2012 | 12:31pm
Lionel Andrades says:
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
When the LCWR invites Curran, Hubbard and Schneiders they are saying the Catholic Church is not the one true Church (UR 3) and every one does not need faith and baptism for salvation (AG 7)
The Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) is rejecting Vatican Council II (AG 7) and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.They are saying that the Catholic Church is not the sole moral authority.
Statutes are approved of a religious organization which does not believe in exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church and the literal interpretation of the dogma ? The LCWR is Catholic even when it says invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are explicit exceptions to the dogma ? Are these 'exceptions' not always implicit for the SSPX?
I have mentioned on a blog that if you invite Charles Curran to speak you are telling us all what you believe. If you openly promote New Age you are telling us what you believe. In the case of the LCWR, they represent the Church and so they are saying that this is what the Church teaches. They are also saying that there is no exclusive salvation in only the Catholic Church. When you invite Barbara Marx Hubbard your message is clear. You are saying that the Catholic Church is not the one true Church (UR 3, Vatican Council II) and all people do not need Catholic faith and the baptism of water for salvation (AG 7).Your also saying that there can be an interpretation of Vatican Council II which negates AG 7.
If a Mother Superior of a community affiliated with the LCWR inquired if their community could hold the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus along with implicit baptism of desire and invincible ignorance etc in accord with Vatican Council II (AG 7), would the LCWR approve?
They would be saying that all non Catholics in 2012 need to enter the Catholic Church for salvation and if there are any exceptions,' who have not had the Gospel preached to them’ it would be known only to God.
This is not the ecclesiology of the LCWR which is centered on Jesus and excludes the Church. So an LCWR member can believe in Jesus, according to the Jehovah Witnesses, distribute sacred pictures of Jesus as they do in Rome, and teach according to their religion and still consider oneself in the Catholic Church. This would be Jesus without the Catholic Church which the Bible tells us is His Mystical Body.The LCWR rejects exclusive ecclesiocentrism.
The CDF could help the sisters by announcing that those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptisms of desire are implicit for us and only explicit for God.
It is true that only those who know about Jesus and the Church and yet do not enter are oriented to Hell (LG 14) however we cannot judge that someone is really in invincible ignorance or someone is not. This judgement is left to God.The dogma and AG 7 says all need to convert into the Church for salvation.
If anyone says Fr. Leonard Feeney was wrong for rejecting the baptism of desire they are making a mistake. The baptism of desire is not a known exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma.-Lionel Andrades
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/06/when-lcwr-invites-curran-hubbard-and.html#links
When the LCWR invites Curran, Hubbard and Schneiders they are saying the Catholic Church is not the one true Church (UR 3) and every one does not need faith and baptism for salvation (AG 7)
The Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) is rejecting Vatican Council II (AG 7) and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.They are saying that the Catholic Church is not the sole moral authority.
Statutes are approved of a religious organization which does not believe in exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church and the literal interpretation of the dogma ? The LCWR is Catholic even when it says invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are explicit exceptions to the dogma ? Are these 'exceptions' not always implicit for the SSPX?
I have mentioned on a blog that if you invite Charles Curran to speak you are telling us all what you believe. If you openly promote New Age you are telling us what you believe. In the case of the LCWR, they represent the Church and so they are saying that this is what the Church teaches. They are also saying that there is no exclusive salvation in only the Catholic Church. When you invite Barbara Marx Hubbard your message is clear. You are saying that the Catholic Church is not the one true Church (UR 3, Vatican Council II) and all people do not need Catholic faith and the baptism of water for salvation (AG 7).Your also saying that there can be an interpretation of Vatican Council II which negates AG 7.
If a Mother Superior of a community affiliated with the LCWR inquired if their community could hold the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus along with implicit baptism of desire and invincible ignorance etc in accord with Vatican Council II (AG 7), would the LCWR approve?
They would be saying that all non Catholics in 2012 need to enter the Catholic Church for salvation and if there are any exceptions,' who have not had the Gospel preached to them’ it would be known only to God.
This is not the ecclesiology of the LCWR which is centered on Jesus and excludes the Church. So an LCWR member can believe in Jesus, according to the Jehovah Witnesses, distribute sacred pictures of Jesus as they do in Rome, and teach according to their religion and still consider oneself in the Catholic Church. This would be Jesus without the Catholic Church which the Bible tells us is His Mystical Body.The LCWR rejects exclusive ecclesiocentrism.
The CDF could help the sisters by announcing that those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptisms of desire are implicit for us and only explicit for God.
It is true that only those who know about Jesus and the Church and yet do not enter are oriented to Hell (LG 14) however we cannot judge that someone is really in invincible ignorance or someone is not. This judgement is left to God.The dogma and AG 7 says all need to convert into the Church for salvation.
If anyone says Fr. Leonard Feeney was wrong for rejecting the baptism of desire they are making a mistake. The baptism of desire is not a known exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma.-Lionel Andrades
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/06/when-lcwr-invites-curran-hubbard-and.html#links
8.1.2012 | 10:47am
Kiera says:
Using the 'logic' of Mr. Weigel's original argument, I now understand why we have so few vocations to the priesthood. Perhaps our post Vatican II experience of our Church life has made us radically anticlerical?
“With every day that passes, the conflict between tendencies that set Catholic against Catholic in every order--social, political, philosophical--is revealed as sharper and more general. One could almost say that there are now two quite incompatible “Catholic mentalities,” particularly in France. And that is manifestly abnormal, since there cannot be two Catholicisms.”
Those words could have been written today, substituting, perhaps, “the West” for “France.”