Many people have been upset by the Vatican’s doctrinal assessment of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR). Understandably enough, most people haven’t actually read the assessment (after all, ecclesiastical documents tend not to be page-turners). Judging only from most media reports, we’d have to conclude that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is gathering sticks for the first auto-da-fè in centuries. Unfortunately, the actual content of Vatican documents and pronouncements is often quite different from what is assumed, reported, and judged. The doctrinal assessment of the LCWR, carried out in charitable, pastoral (dare I say paternal?) concern, is no exception.
Now, I can appreciate that censure–especially public censure–might sting a bit. Being corrected by a superior can be embarrassing, humbling, and vexing. But any correction performed in charity, as the Vatican's formal assessment clearly is, has as its goal the well-being of the one corrected.
The assessment, which arises out of “sincere concern for the life of faith,” is neither unequivocally condemnatory nor draconian. “The Holy See acknowledges with gratitude,” it says, “the great contribution of women Religious to the Church in the United States as seen particularly in the many schools, hospitals, and institutions of support for the poor.” The assessment “does not intend to offer judgment on the faith and life of Women Religious in the member Congregations which belong to that conference.” And as for His Holiness? “This act should be understood in virtue of the mandate given by the Lord to Simon Peter as the rock on which He founded his Church (cf. Luke 22:32): ‘I have prayed for you, Peter, that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned to me, you must strengthen the faith of your brothers and sisters.’”
Donum Veritatis describes the goal of the Magisterium as ‘preserving the People of God in the truth which sets free and thereby making them "a light to the nations.”’ When the Magisterium reacts to assemblies and speakers that “challenge core Catholic beliefs;” when it challenges “policies of corporate dissent” from the Church’s moral teaching; and when it questions a “radical feminism” which “distorts faith in Jesus and His loving Father,” the Church is not butting in where it doesn’t belong.
The Church exists to bring God to men in this life and men to God in the next. As the “living teaching office” which infallibly ensures the pure and authentic communication of Divine Revelation, the Magisterium deserves the confidence and firm trust of those in via, especially professed religious, who are in a privileged position to represent the Church and assist in handing on the faith.
The religious life is defined by the evangelical counsels, so-called because they are 1) from the Gospel, and 2) unlike the commandments, not strictly necessary, but propitious, for perfection in charity. In a sex-crazed culture, it is not a surprise that people assume the vow of chastity to be the most demanding. (I am very frequently assured by concerned laity that the Church will eventually come around and change “mandatory celibacy” for priests.)
It’s true, giving up marriage is a great sacrifice. But then again, so is being married–and faithful–to one’s spouse, decade after decade. And poverty pinches too, especially as one ages and the common impulse to hoard and build a nest egg worms its way further into one’s psyche. The tradition of the Church, however, gives the vow of obedience pride of place in the religious life. Why? “Because by the vow of obedience,” St. Thomas explains, “man offers God something greater, namely his own will; for this is of more account than his own body, which he offers God by continence, and than external things, which he offers God by the vow of poverty. Wherefore that which is done out of obedience is more acceptable to God than that which is done of one's own will . . . ”
These are difficult statements to appreciate. To obey is to follow another’s will, and we live in an age which does not highly prize the virtue of obedience (or many others besides). The Catholic understanding of conscience is far more robust and human than the “gut feeling” that most people feel obligated to follow. The Magisterium, an immeasurable gift to human conscience, aids the free pursuit of human excellence. To obey the Church is to obey Christ, whose words initiate every religious vocation—“Come, follow me.” By their vows, religious unite their wills all the more closely to that of the Church, and thus it is all the more saddening when they dissent. The sisters of the LCWR deserve gratitude and support for the work they have done and continue to do in the service of the Gospel. But we cannot, need not, ought not ignore institutional problems in the LCWR. The Church has the right and responsibility to correct, in charity, when Christological and theological errors threaten the purity of the faith. It doesn’t take an advanced degree in theology to realize that the Vatican’s concerns are eminently reasonable.
Consider, for example, the keynote speaker for the LCWR’s forthcoming annual assembly, Barbara Marx Hubbard. One of her books is described as follows: “These higher frequency Evolutionary Codes selected from the journals of Barbara Marx Hubbard along with the accompanying meditation CD, Contact With Your Universal Self, are offered as a step-by-step experiential guide to personal transformation. The purpose of the 52 Codes is to awaken us to the guidance of our own Universal Self, the highest frequency of our being, so we can integrate these higher frequencies within ourselves to become Whole Beings, Universal Humans.” Barbara Marx sounds a bit like L. Ron.
When the engine is smoking and rattling, one looks under the hood. When sparing the rod may have eternal consequences, superiors have a grave, moral obligation to act. As meetings between the LCWR and the Vatican begin this week in Rome, we might hope that the sisters recall the import of their sacred vows. Obedience and docility to the legitimate prescriptions of a superior–in this case, the ultimate authority of the Church–may feel constraining and unfair, but if it brings us into more secure union with Christ, it is liberating indeed.
Sebastian White, O.P., is a Dominican friar of the Province of St. Joseph and a summer fellow at First Things. He is studying for the priesthood.
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
And can anyone explain how Tradition could have happened at all in those periods in which one could be burned for dissent? If coercion can nullify Matrimony then coercion can nullify Tradition. Being barbecued for heresy lasted from 1253 A.D. til 1816 A.D. with papal authority. Is parroting out of fear...Tradition?
Return to Scripture and to the extraordinary magisterium. The uom has problems no one is facing.
I agree it's ludicrous that Charles Manson should still have the ability to make cell phone calls, and that the examples of the true love of Samuel and Elijah (insofar as they did what they had to protect the innocent) should be more frequently recalled; but it is not my place to coach the team, direct the army, or shepherd the flock. And ("in joculus veritas") who is to say how many would have been saved from error and mortal sin if Calvin had been burned at the stake?
Humility and obedience do not come naturally, especially to those with great gifts of strength and intelligence. But as Brother Sebastian says, God appreciates these attributes—probably more than any human wisdom.
†
Even the Twelve were having a dispute about which of them should be regarded as the greatest. It appears that even some of them were slow to
understand the beautiful message of Christ. Before the quote from Luke cited above, Christ says to the contentious apostles, "The Kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you; rather let the greatest of you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves. For which is the greater, one who sits at table, or one who serves? Is it not the one who sits at table? But I am among you as one who serves."
Right before the quote, our good Dominican cites, Christ says, "Simon, Simon behold, Satan demanded to have you, that I might sift you as wheat . . . and then Christ continues with what the Dominican cited. Towards the end of that section in Luke, Christ says, "I tell you Peter, the cock will not crow this day, until you deny three times that you know me." And it came to be that even Peter did not recognize the servant and suffering Christ.
I believe it is important to put the words of Christ in context.
I have read the entire content of the Vatican document and believe me it does not feel like a bit of a "sting." Mosquitoes sting. The Vatican hardly stings. I am a lay woman of 77. I recently buried a beloved husband. Please do not call the Sisters "radical feminists." Their "radix" or roots came out of the Gospel which they were encouraged to read by Vatican II. They saw the Servant Christ, who had his disciples go out two by two, who spoke of feeding the hungry, taking care of the poor, being like the Good Samaritan. He spoke of the lilies of the field and the beauties of children and nature. And so it is that some Christians find Christ in the Scripture, in the extraordinary gifts of God found every day in nature and yes in the incredible insights and discoveries of astronomers. Some of us like to live in the Presence of God as it surrounds us in everything and in all God's creatures-human and otherwise--in people who need help. The Sisters see this and do not limit their spirituality and quest for God.
As a lay woman, I do not find the treatment of women in the Catholic Church a"sting." I find it offensive. I doubt some men have the empathy to understand how excluded and denigrated we feel. It is not just the Sisters. Look at what the polls say about what the majority of Catholics say. Many of them are men. I guess we need to call these men radical feminists?
May we stop all the talk and prayerfully go back to the New Testament.
I commend your defence of the Sisters. And since you wish to return to the New Testament, I should remind you that Christ warned his disciples about being nothing more than doers of good works. In the days following Christ's feeding the 5000, he adamantly pointed out to his followers (they numbered much more than 12 at the time) that they must eat His flesh in order to have eternal life. He made this point 3 times. Feeding the Hungry was only the beginning. It was at this point that the vast majority of his followers left Him. The 5000 who were fed expected this arrganement to continue. But, Christ was troubled at how the common people misunderstood his plan so completely.
Christ wishes Enternal Life for all. And Christian Acts of Mercy and Charity are intrinsic to Christ's mission. But, if these acts become and thing in itself, if these acts are divorced from Christ's ultimate goal, they become nothing but secular good works. As Christ said, he comes with food that will satisy forever. To make matters worse, if the person performing these works of charity and mercy bring with them a message counter to Christ's Message (in many cases the Sisters teach a theology that runs counter to basic Christianity) then their "good" works are for naught. As the Gospel passage says, What profits a man if he gains the world but forfeits his own soul?"
The evidence is thick of many orders that push outright heresey. Others may not be as bold, but their disobedience to Church teaching (ie New Testament) is also obvious. The Vatican wishes to re-orient these orders towards Etnernal Life and away from things which will not only damage their own souls, but the ones to whom they give so generously.
The path to heaven is paved with good intentations, but it is a narrow road whiich demands obediance to Gospel Truth and the churches teaching. Obedience is not difficult when we follow Truth...Veritas...it is liberating!!!
Thank you for your article. I look forward to reading more.
I work with incarcerated youth, and wish I could do more to help them; but I am under no illusions: Their free-will choices (to eschew school work, dishonor girls, use drugs, rob, fight, etc.) are the source of their unhappiness, and the cure is in their hands. But they must choose good over evil. Every day. They must help God to sculpt their souls.
Wayward nuns—and all rebellious Christians—have it within their power to either build up the Body of Christ, or tear it down. It is depressing to see so many brothers and sisters walking away from God's light, following the phantom flickers of false gods and teachings. But we know who wins in the end.
†