Statement of the LCWR Officers on the CDF Doctrinal Assessment and Conclusion of the Mandate

The LCWR and all other participants were asked to remain silent about the conclusion of the Mandate and the process it involved for a period of thirty days.  That period ends today and the initial LCWR Officers' statement follows below. I will post a response to this statement as soon as I have had some time to digest it. For now I would say it strikes me as both honest and restrained in its frankness. The comments on Abp Peter Sartain are certainly gratifying and encouraging while the reference to the "ambiguity" of the origins of the process can certainly be called open even as it is "tactful".

Most significant I think is this statement's clear reminder that when unexpected, unpleasant, and even truly unjust accusations and situations interrupt our lives and ministry, dealing with these in a truly contemplative, attentive, and dialogical way may become the ministry we are most meant to do at that time and place. Every situation is an opportunity for God to bring reconciliation and good out of it if we really allow it to be that. Today's Gospel speaks of the great joy and new life that follows the labor pains of birth. Clearly this process, despite ending prematurely, was a difficult, long and painful one for the LCWR. My own hope is that something really God-filled has been borne of this particular travail. I think that is what the LCWR and the rest of the Church hopes for as well. Certainly all the reports coming out from individual participants, both Bishops and Sisters, stress the listening and dialogue which characterized the process. Given the genuine and fruitful --- if nonetheless difficult --- conversation they each describe, the Church has something to be very gratified by here. (cf: NY Times: Nuns Spoke Out, Archbishop Listened)

The Statement:

Issued by Sister Sharon Holland, IHM (LCWR President); Sister Marcia Allen, CSJ (LCWR President-Elect); Sister Carol Zinn, SSJ (LCWR Past President); and Sister Joan Marie Steadman, CSC (LCWR Executive Director)

[[We have been asked by our members and the public for our thoughts and reflections regarding the completion of the mandate of implementation issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) after its doctrinal assessment of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR). We do so here, but emphasize that these are only preliminary personal observations and reflections. We will not have the opportunity to reflect on the experience in its entirety with the members of the conference and hear their insights until the LCWR assembly in August 2015.

From the time of the 2012 public issuance of the findings of the doctrinal assessment of LCWR, we had serious concerns about both the content of the assessment and the process by which it was prepared. We believed that the sanctions called for in the CDF mandate were disproportionate to the concerns raised and we feared the sanctions could compromise the ability of the LCWR officers and members to fulfill the mission of the conference. Furthermore, we were deeply saddened that the report caused scandal and pain throughout the Catholic community. We, along with our members, felt publicly humiliated as the false accusations were re-published repeatedly in the press.

Beginning with our first meeting with LCWR’s board of directors in May 2012 shortly after the issuance of the mandate, we situated all discussions of the assessment and mandate in a context of communal contemplative prayer. This involved acknowledging the depth of our feelings about the actions of CDF; careful listening to all perspectives on the matter; engaging in honest conversations with one another about not only LCWR and its work, but our own faith journeys; communally sitting in silence to ponder all we heard; and bringing our insights to God in prayer. We continued to utilize contemplative processes each time we gathered as the executive officers of the conference, as a board, and as an assembly to discuss the mandate. We believe this approach strengthened our capacity to hear and better understand the concerns of CDF as well as clarify and strengthen our own convictions about the mission and purpose of LCWR. The processes in which we engaged as a conference became a profound source of personal growth for each of us and deepened and strengthened the bonds that exist among us as women religious.

We brought this desire for deep listening and respectful dialogue to our work with the CDF officials and found they held a similar desire. Our interactions with the CDF officers and the three bishops whom CDF delegated to implement its mandate -- Archbishop J. Peter Sartain, Archbishop Leonard Blair, and Bishop Thomas Paprocki -- were always conducted in a spirit of prayer and openness. We engaged in long and challenging exchanges with these officials about our understandings of and perspectives on critical matters of faith and its practice, religious life and its mission, and the role of a leadership conference of religious. We believe that because these exchanges were carried out in an atmosphere of mutual respect, we were brought to deeper understandings of one another. We gained insights into the experiences and perspectives of these church leaders, and felt that our experiences and perspectives were heard and valued.

Preparation for and participation in such rigorous dialogue and exchange of ideas was time-consuming and, at times, difficult. The choice to stay at the table and continue dialogue around issues of profound importance to us as US women religious had its costs. The process was made more difficult because of the ambiguity over the origin of the concerns raised in the doctrinal assessment report that seemed not to have basis in the reality of LCWR’s work. The journey in this uncharted territory at times was dark and a positive outcome seemed remote.

We were encouraged, however, to remain in the process by the manner in which Archbishop Sartain journeyed with us. His presence to us as the LCWR officers, as well as to our members at the LCWR assemblies and board of director meetings he attended, spoke clearly of his sincerity and integrity. His capacity to listen to us from a stance of respect and genuine care strengthened our confidence that honest dialogue would eventually help us all to recognize our commonalities and gain clearer understanding of and appreciation for our differences.

LCWR has a long history of conducting evaluations and assessments of its work and has always welcomed new ideas that could strengthen its mission. We appreciate what we learned through our work with Archbishop Sartain and the other CDF officers and delegates about how LCWR is perceived by others and are integrating these new insights into the work and life of the conference. One example is the recommendation of theological reviews of LCWR periodicals. We accepted and already implemented this suggestion because we believe such a review will fortify LCWR’s publications.

From the beginning of LCWR’s work with the bishop delegates in 2012, we agreed that we would speak honestly and directly with one another and not through the media. We recognize that this decision frustrated some of our own members, as well as the public and the media. We were highly aware that many people throughout the world were concerned about LCWR and were supporting and praying for us. While at times we too wished we could have shared more along the way with all who cared about this matter, we believe that by keeping our conversations private, we were able to speak with one another at a level of honesty that we believe contributed to the mandate coming to its conclusion as it did. Of utmost importance to us throughout this process was the directive we had received from our own members not to compromise the integrity of LCWR. We believe that integrity was not only kept intact, but perhaps deepened and strengthened through the process.

We acknowledge as well that the doctrinal assessment and mandate deeply disturbed many Catholics and non-Catholics throughout the world. Thousands of people communicated to us their concern not only for LCWR and Catholic sisters, but for the ramifications these two actions could have for the wider world and church. Many perceived the assessment and mandate as an attempt to suppress the voice of LCWR which was seen as an organization that responsibly raises questions on matters of conscience, faith, and justice. Repeatedly, we heard that people were praying that the manner in which LCWR and the bishop delegates engaged in this process would lead to the creation of safe spaces where matters of such importance could be discussed with openness and honesty, and in an environment freed of fear.

Our hope is that the positive outcome of the assessment and mandate will lead to the creation of additional spaces within the Catholic Church where the church leadership and membership can speak together regularly about the critical matters before all of us. The collective exploration of the meaning and application of key theological, spiritual, social, moral, and ethical concepts must be an ongoing effort for all of us in the world today. Admittedly, entering into a commitment to regular and consistent dialogue about core matters that have the potential to divide us can be arduous, demanding work, but work that is ultimately transformative. However challenging these efforts are, in a world marked by polarities and intolerance of difference, perhaps no work is more important. In an epoch of massive change in the world, we believe such efforts towards ongoing dialogue are fundamental and essential for the sake of our future as a global community. We hope that our years of working through this difficult mandate made some small contribution to this end.]]

The CDF, LCWR, and the Gamaliel Principle (Reprised with Introduction)

I am reposting this piece for two reasons: 1) today the CDF/Vatican announced the "completion" of the mandate given to Archbishop Peter Sartain, et al to assess and "reform" the LCWR, and 2) because we have the same first reading tomorrow almost three years to the day the mandate was issued. Despite the pain of the accusations accompanying that mandate, Sisters have indeed been faithful to their hope that ultimately God will bring good out of even the most unjust of situations and God's will would triumph. They have been faithful to prayer, presented a contemplative presence in the midst of serious difficulty, persevered courageously despite a sense that they had been seriously misunderstood and doubted  by the hierarchy of the very Church they have given their lives to and for, and just generally carried on their ministries and lives as consecrated Women religious are called by their Lord and his Church to do.

At the same time I trust that the CDF learned a good deal about US Women Religious and their Leadership Conference --- as well as about the Church in the US and around the world; many many lay persons and clergy in the US as well as religious and clergy from other countries supported the LCWR --- and while women religious may (quite justifiedly) be feeling vindicated by the conclusion cited by Gerhard Mueller today (cf. Mandate to Assess and Reform LCWR is Concluded) and the generous words of Archbishop Sartain, it is the wounded Church which is victorious today. Because of this decision to complete this mandate without substantive reforms of the LCWR, the Church as a whole is a bit closer to being the Church Jesus' Gospel calls for and requires. That is especially true if the dialogical paradigm modeled by both the LCWR and Peter Sartain is allowed to define the way other perceived conflicts and difficulties within the church are dealt with.

As Sister Sharon Holland, IHM noted from here in the US, [[We are pleased at the completion of the Mandate, which involved long and challenging exchanges of our understandings of and perspectives on critical matters of Religious Life and its practice. Through these exchanges, conducted always in a spirit of prayer and mutual respect, we were brought to deeper understandings of one another’s experiences, roles, responsibilities, and hopes for the Church and the people it serves. We learned that what we hold in common is much greater than any of our differences.]]

Post from 2012
If it is of Human Origin it will Destroy Itself. If it is of God you will not be Able to Destroy it:

Sometimes Scripture texts seem so straightforward we don't give them a lot of thought. The insight they convey seems routine, hardly worth making a big deal over. "If it is of God, it will persist; if it is of human origin it will not," is one of these. Abstract, apparently not very compelling, hardly demanding in what it asks of us, or providing much hope really. Just, it seems, a theological conclusion we can agree with (or not) and move on from.

Unless of course you find yourself threatened with death by the traditional religious leadership while you proclaim what you understand to be the good news of God's ultimate act of vindication, justice, and mercy as the Apostles in Friday's first lection. Unless you find yourself being asked to back off, to have a little humility, and let God be the judge as the Pharisees have been asked by Gamaliel. Unless, of course, you are freshly faced with a risen Christ who suffered and died a godless death at the hands of the established religious and civil powers so that nothing whatsoever would stand in the way of the love of God. Unless, for instance, you are confronted with a portrait of tens of 1000's of lives of patient discernment, faithful sacrifice, and persistent trust in God which extends over decades and decades and which demonstrates that when something is of God it will indeed not only persist but produce immeasurable fruit as grain pressed down, shaken together and running over.

This week the incredible demands and promises of this "Gamaliel principle" were brought home to me in ways I could not have imagined a week and a half ago. Two events in particular did this. First, there was the exhibit sponsored by the LCWR, Women and Spirit, which gives a good sense of the place of women religious in the history of the United States. Here before Catholicism was established, here before there was even statehood, Sisters came to minister. Sailing in twos and threes and fours, habited and landing in swampy, humid, mosquito-ridden land, they came. Prepared originally to teach, they nursed instead; prepared to nurse they set up orphanages; always they adapted and responded to the Spirit. Seeking simply to serve they taught, nursed, invented, built, advocated for the poorest and neediest, comforted, explored, researched, etc etc. They did not fit in neat boxes --- not in terms of the country they came to, nor (though always faithful to their vows) in terms of the ways Bishops and the institutional church expected them to live their lives. ALWAYS they shattered boundaries and constraints with their service to the Gospel.

Did you Know???

Did you know, for instance that it was a nun who co-founded Alcoholics Anonymous and was the first ever to admit alcoholics to hospital or treat the problem as a disease? Were you aware that a nun invented a low cost incubator which was effective for premature neonates and was affordable to every doctor, clinic, or hospital? Did you know that the Mayo clinic owes its existence to the foresight and advocacy of a nun? She enlisted the Mayo brothers and promised to build a needed hospital if they would serve as doctors. They promised and she carried through as well. Were you aware that it was Sisters from a variety of congregations or communities that served as Civil War nurses without regard for the side the wounded were on? Did you know that Sisters have been a central presence in every epidemic the US has had, nursing, doctoring, etc, without regard for the danger to their lives? Were you aware that it was Catholic Sisters that provided the first insurance coverage for loggers or who opened the still-extant NY Foundling Asylum with $5 and an empty building?

And of course, it was religious Sisters who built the Catholic school system -- initially in response to anti-Catholicism, or who personally corresponded with Jefferson to ensure religious freedom when it was hardly accepted and seriously threatened. (Jefferson responded with a promise to do all in his power to ensure such freedom.) Sisters routinely circuit rode, acted as architects, carpenters, and construction workers. (One Sister regularly treated those needing medical care in the Territory of New Mexico and was known for the quality of the care she gave. Despite never having been to medical school she was granted a medical license!) Sisters adapted their garb, and their schedules as necessary to pursue their various missions --- and remained vowed women of prayer at the same time. Later, Sisters became attorneys, surgeons, social workers, policy makers, scientists (did you know a seminal figure in the history of the understanding of DNA was a nun?), etc. These are some of the things I remember off the top of my head. At every point in US history Sisters were present adapting from medieval patterns of enclosed life and the narrower expectations of the hierarchy in order to respond to the Holy Spirit and the needs of people --- to serve an agenda of LIFE in its broadest sense as Christians have always been called to serve.

I was aware of some of these things, but not all, and the simple fact is that at every turn I was surprised by something more Sisters had done with few resources except their faith, courage, and a sense that they were called to serve in the power of the Holy Spirit. They begged, borrowed, and above all went where there was need. They grew the Church and brought her precisely where Jesus said she was to be --- to the least of the least, the sick, those without hope, those requiring comfort and hungry for justice. The exhibit was astounding and tremendously inspiring. I was both completely blown away by it and grateful to God for these women, for the legacy they have created and continue to create, and terribly humbled by my own very small place in this history. This Friday's reading from Acts could not have been more compelling in light of the huge task and danger facing the apostles entrusted with their new message of Jesus' resurrection: if it is of God it will persist and be fruitful beyond all imagining. But of course, living in this way takes imagination, creativity, courage, persistence, intelligence, and faith. It takes a willingness to discern God's will and follow it wherever it summons us. It takes a willingness to risk everything for a conclusion or harvest one might never see. And that was what I saw celebrated in this exhibit. Women and Spirit --- an ultimately indomitable combination.

The CDF "doctrinal assessment of the LCWR"

And then on Wednesday, the CDF published its "Doctrinal Assessment" of the LCWR. If the Women and Spirit exhibit spoke of the reality of Easter and focused my mind and heart on the truth of the first part of Gamaliel's Principle, this focused me on the danger the first Apostles found themselves in. Acting in good conscience, acting to proclaim the gospel but prohibited from doing so, prohibited from acting "in the name of Jesus, " and threatened with execution. It also, of course, brought out clearly Gamaliel's intervention:"Leave these men alone! . . .if what they are doing is of man, then it will not last. You may even find that you are fighting against God!"

Gamaliel was not counselling to passivity and abdication of the Pharisees' appropriate place in overseeing the law and life of Israel, but rather to discernment and humility. Neither was he giving the Apostles a free pass to do or teach anything they wanted, but an opportunity to demonstrate whether what they were doing and teaching was of God or not. With regard to both groups Gamaliel saw clearly I think, that God is always larger than we conceive, and routinely acts in surprising and countercultural ways. He interpreted the law according to the principle, "If it is not prohibited, then it is permitted." where a large number of the pharisees he was engaging approached life from the interpretive principle, "If it is not mentioned in the law, then it is prohibited." His approach was prudent and charitable and trusted both God and human freedom, whereas the Shammaite pharisee's approach was narrow, fearful, and controlling --- leaving little scope for the Holy Spirit or the imagination or creativity required by the Apostles of the Risen Christ.

This is only the third [second] week of the Easter season, and we are trying to get our heads and hearts freshly around the truth Gamaliel reminds us of: God indeed will ultimately win out --- but he also must be given room to work freely. Meanwhile as Jesus himself taught his disciples, it may also be the case that the "Evil One" has sown some weeds in with the wheat, but even if this is the case we cannot precipitously tear at the weeds because we will uproot the wheat as well. It takes humility to recognize that only God can adequately judge and resolve such complex situations, and wisdom to accede to Gamaliel's demands. My prayer is that the CDF and those representing them in this entire affair recognize the wisdom and profoundly Christian nature of the Gamaliel principle (it is a theological and pastoral imperative, nothing less), while the LCWR courageously and faithfully participate in what, despite current evidence to the contrary, has been publicly purported by the CDF to represent a "collaborative process." In some ways there could not be more at stake for the Church as a whole.

CDF Mandate with regard to the LCWR is completed!!

The following is the press release announcing today that the mandate of the CDF regarding the Doctrinal Assessment and "Reform" of the LCWR has been completed. The mandate allowed the process to run for up to 5 years. It ran for three. This premature cessation or "completion" of the process augurs well for the LCWR and for Pope Francis' influence in this matter. It also clears the way for women religious to celebrate this Year of Consecrated Life with a special lightness and joy. My own impression is that Abp Sartain and others involved discovered the LCWR was not the organization they originally thought it to be. I also think that Pope Francis gave the word to cease and desist! Francis met with representatives of the LCWR for an hour --- a very generous chunk of time in this Pope's schedule and, as the NY Times noted, as close to an apology as one is likely to get in the Church. 

Especially critical (significant) was the paragraph included below by Cardinal Mueller which I have emboldened. To my mind, it is the heart of the CDF's conclusions regarding US women's institutes of consecrated life. It reads: “At the conclusion of this process, the Congregation is confident that L.C.W.R. has made clear its mission to support its member Institutes by fostering a vision of religious life that is centered on the person of Jesus Christ and is rooted in the tradition of the Church. It is this vision that makes religious women and men radical witnesses to the Gospel, and, therefore, is essential for the flourishing of religious life in the Church”.

The most significant and painful accusations made by the CDF at the beginning of this mandate cast doubts on the faithfulness of US ministerial women religious and the centrality of Christ in their lives. In light of this statement it is now possible to see some forms of feminism and some of the newer theological approaches to creation, cosmology, and religious life, for instance, as the fruit and support of lives centered in Christ and minds and hearts that "think with the Church." Even Francis' comments on religious life as necessarily prophetic and challenging to the institutional Church has been profoundly influenced by this theology represented most articulately by Sister Sandra Schneiders, IHM (Prophets in Their Own Country or her Trilogy on Religious Life in the Third Millennium). It is no small feat to be declared "radical witnesses to the Gospel" and "essential to the flourishing of religious life" just a scant three years after being accused of a heterodoxy which had damaged and threatened the well-being of the Church and Religious Life itself!

(N.B. There are different numbers floating around regarding the CDF mandate. Some (The NCR, for instance) are writing it ran for more than six years and the Mandate was given for at least five years. I believe the NCR article was mistaken in its interpretation of the numbers and the time limit of the Mandate. As I understand the situation the facts are that while the CDF's investigation of the LCWR began several years before Abp Sartain's mandate to oversee and reform the LCWR was given, and while his mandate was to extend up to five years, that mandate only ran for three years almost to the day of the announcement from Rome. Hence I have written that the mandate was 'completed' prematurely.)

The Press Release:

Vatican City, 16 April 2015 (VIS) - Officials of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (C.D.F.), Archbishop Peter Sartain and officers of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (L.C.W.R.) met April 16. Archbishop Sartain and L.C.W.R. officers presented a joint report (attached) on the implementation of the C.D.F. Doctrinal Assessment and Mandate of April 2012. The joint report outlines the manner in which the implementation of the Mandate has been accomplished. The Congregation accepted the joint report, marking the conclusion of the Doctrinal Assessment of L.C.W.R. Present for the April 16 meeting were His Eminence Gerhard Cardinal Muller, Archbishop Peter Sartain, Sr. Carol Zinn, S.S.J., Sr. Marcia Allen, C.S.J., Sr. Joan Marie Steadman, C.S.C., and Sr. Janet Mock, C.S.J., and other officials of CDF.

During the meeting, Archbishop Sartain and L.C.W.R. officers outlined the process undertaken by the Bishop Delegates and L.C.W.R. over the past three years, noting the spirit of cooperation among participants throughout the sensitive process. Cardinal Muller offered his thoughts on the Doctrinal Assessment as well as the Mandate and its completion. He expressed gratitude to those present for their willing participation in this important and delicate work and extended thanks to others who had participated, especially Archbishop Leonard P. Blair, Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki, and the past officers and executive directors of L.C.W.R.

Following the meeting, Cardinal Muller said: “At the conclusion of this process, the Congregation is confident that L.C.W.R. has made clear its mission to support its member Institutes by fostering a vision of religious life that is centered on the person of Jesus Christ and is rooted in the tradition of the Church. It is this vision that makes religious women and men radical witnesses to the Gospel, and, therefore, is essential for the flourishing of religious life in the Church”.

Sr. Sharon Holland, IHM,President of L.C.W.R., was unable to be present for the meeting but commented, “We are pleased at the completion of the Mandate, which involved long and challenging exchanges of our understandings of and perspectives on critical matters of Religious Life and its practice. Through these exchanges, conducted always in a spirit of prayer and mutual respect, we were brought to deeper understandings of one another’s experiences, roles, responsibilities, and hopes for the Church and the people it serves. We learned that what we hold in common is much greater than any of our differences”.

Archbishop Sartain added, “Over the past several years, I have had the honour of working with L.C.W.R. officers and meeting a large number of L.C.W.R. members through the implementation of the Mandate. Our work included the revision of L.C.W.R. Statutes; review of L.C.W.R. publications, programs and speakers; and discussion of a wide range of issues raised by the Doctrinal Assessment, L.C.W.R., and the Bishop Delegates.The assistance of C.D.F. officials was essential to the great progress we made. Our work together was undertaken in an atmosphere of love for the Church and profound respect for the critical place of religious life in the United States, and the very fact of such substantive dialogue between bishops and religious women has been mutually beneficial and a blessing from the Lord. As we state in our joint final report, ‘The commitment of L.C.W.R. leadership to its crucial role in service to the mission and membership of the Conference will continue to guide and strengthen L.C.W.R.'s witness to the great vocation of Religious Life, to its sure foundation in Christ, and to ecclesial communion'. The other two Bishop Delegates and I are grateful for the opportunity to be involved in such a fruitful dialogue.”

Jesus and the Canaanite Woman

If we're looking for a Gospel lection that breaks all stereotypes today's is one of these! This reading is sometimes categorized among the "difficult sayings of Jesus" because it has Jesus characterizing a Gentile woman as a dog (a typical epithet of his day when referring to Gentiles) and refusing to extend healing to her daughter because HIS mission is first of all to the lost of Israel, not to the Gentiles. And so, the woman, who has already silenced Jesus with a terrific act of faith, "Have pity on me, Lord, Son of David," answers Jesus' instruction on this point with a bit of instruction of her own: [[ Yes, but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from the Master's table!]] Jesus, already silenced and now thoughtful, seems even to reconsider and expand the scope of his own ministry in light of it. If Jesus' can grow in grace and stature in this way, through the mediation of a completely disenfranchised woman, then is anyone in the Church really beyond being instructed by the women standing (at best) on the margins of power and authority or the Christ standing as their Master? I don't think so.

What happens to Jesus is as instructive for the contem-porary Church as all of Jesus' words, all his parables, dis-courses, instructions, imprecations, and remonstrances. For (again) in today's gospel story Jesus hears and is silent! He is stopped, arrested by a woman's compelling act of faith. It is a pregnant silence because it is the result of truly listening and leads both to further listening and to a fundamental shift or variation in Jesus' ministry from the lost sheep of Israel to the lost of all the nations. It is the silence of a teacher who is truly effective not because he has all the answers but because he is willing to listen, reconsider the answer and ministry God has given him, and learn! It is the silence of a docile teacher who truly hears the commission of God coming from the least and the lost; it is the silence of one who can change his mind and even the direction of his ministry as a result of an encounter with the truth a woman and outsider carries! Certainly that is precisely the kind of teacher the Church itself is called to be! After all, the Church is not greater than her Master; instead she is called to embody and mediate him. In light of today's Gospel lection the challenge to embody and mediate the DOCILITY of Christ seems compelling!

All kinds of situations reduce us to silence but only sometimes do we really listen therein, only sometimes are we genuinely obedient. Ordinarily today silence is something that occurs momentarily while we plug in a different device or while we take a breath during a conversation in order to "let someone else have a turn". Rather than listening to that other person in the profound way Jesus listens in today's Gospel, too often our silences tend to be filled with mental machinations as we gauge where and how we can reenter the "conversation" and continue our own discourse or argument! Conversations with Church leaders can sometimes give us the sense that we are speaking to a clerically-clad wall. Nothing, especially the living God, is truly heard in these conversations, no minds or hearts are changed, connections and bonds of charity are not made, aliens do not become neighbors, neighbors do not become brothers and sisters, and brothers and sisters especially do not become colleagues in the service of the Gospel!

But Jesus' example condemns such an approach. In this lection one of the lowest and the least becomes the One by which Jesus truly hears the voice of his Father and comes to modify his own understanding of his mission. After his silence at her first words to him Jesus rehearses the standard Jewish arguments for her and for his disciples, arguments that make sense in THIS worldly terms and in terms of an Israel threatened by outsiders, but not in terms of the Kingdom of God: "I was sent only to the children of Israel; It is not just (right or fair) to take the food from the children (Israel) and throw it to the dogs (Gentiles)." (We might hear common arguments for excluding folks from Eucharist today --- arguments that make good sense in worldly terms: "We cannot pretend there is a unity that doesn't really exist. We cannot defile the Eucharist by giving it to public and obstinate sinners. It wouldn't be just to do these things!") But in Matthew's telling of the Gospel story, Jesus has already fed the five thousand (apparently mainly Jews) and found there was plenty left over. He has also just preached that it is what comes out of us that defiles, but to eat with unwashed hands does NOT defile. . . The Canaanite women's response is a reminder of Jesus' great Eucharistic miracle as well as the infinite value and power to heal of even the smallest crumb that comes to the most unworthy from God.

But it reminds us of much more as well. For those, for instance, who object that women cannot teach, we have an example of a Gentile woman teaching Jesus about the will of God and helping to reshape his mission. In so doing she reminds Jesus of a different "justice" in which all are therefore welcome at Christ's table; similarly she reveals that the way Israel is first may not be precisely the way the world (or Israel herself) sees or has seen such matters. Israel is to be first in including, ministering to, and serving the outsider and the unworthy, not in excluding them until some other day of the Lord is at hand. That day is here, NOW, and, with the Canaanite woman's intervention, Jesus too comes to see this more clearly and embrace it more fully. In some ways this shift in vision, a shift the Church herself is called upon to make, parallels the two different ways we have of understanding the term Catholic: the Latin sense of universalis which means universal but leaves some outside the circle however large it is drawn, and the Greek sense of Katholicos which is universal in the sense of leaven in bread where no one and nothing is left excluded or untouched and unfed.

For women, and especially for women religious in the Church this Gospel comes at a significant time. The LCWR has just concluded their annual meeting, this year in Nashville. What will the result be? Do we have a teaching Church that is also a docile Church? Can Bishops and Roman Dicasteries truly listen to and learn from women of genuine faith who ask that ideas of mission and ways of communicating truth be stretched in ways perhaps Jesus himself could not have seen becoming necessary? Were the silences that occurred in the meetings truly contemplative silences where all may be changed, or were they only one-sided respites allowed as an interlocutor planned his or her next intervention in what had, at best, ceased to be a true dialogue? My own prayer is that both the LCWR and the hierarchy reflected long and hard in the spirit of Jesus' own docility on this Gospel lection at some point; further I pray that they and the Vatican dicasteries involved in the oversight of the LCWR especially spend time with it in that same spirit in the next weeks and months.

New Secretary of CICLSAL: Story and Blog Comment

by Gerard O’Connell
Rome
LA STAMPA

In his first significant appointment to the Roman Curia, Pope Francis has taken the highly unusual step of naming the actual head of a religious order, Father Jose Rodriguez Carballo, as Secretary of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Institutes of Consecrated life and the Societies of Apostolic Life (formerly known as ‘The Congregation for Religious’).

When the Pope chose him, the 59-year old Spanish priest was Minister General or head of the largest group of the Franciscan family – the Order of Friars Minor (OFM), which has some 15,000 friars in 113 countries. He was first elected to that post in 2003, and re-elected for another six-year term in 2009 as head of an order that is contracting in Western Europe and North America, holding steady in Latin America, and gaining vocations in Asia, Africa and Eastern Europe.

The Vatican broke the news of Father Carballo’s appointment on April 6, and said Pope Francis has raised him to the rank of archbishop. Born in Lodoselo, Spain in 1953, Carballo did his early studies in schools run by the Franciscans in that country and, in 1973, was sent to do biblical studies in Jerusalem. After being ordained priest in Jerusalem in 1977, he gained degrees in Biblical Theology in the Holy City and a further degree in Sacred Scripture from Rome’s Biblical Institute. In the following years he held increasingly high posts of responsibility in the Franciscan order in Spain and, in 2003, was elected Master General of the worldwide order.

He was one of the main concelebrants, together with the Father General of the Jesuits, Fr. Adolfo Nicolas, at the mass for the inauguration of the Petrine Ministry of Pope Francis on March 19. He succeeds the American Archbishop Joseph Tobin who had also been head of a religious order – the Redemptorists. Unlike Carballo, however, the American had already finished his term as head of his order more than a year before Benedict XVI appointed him to the Vatican Congregation in August 2010. Two years later, however, in October 2012, the Pope took the surprising decision to reassign him to the USA as archbishop of Indianapolis.

In his new role as the second highest official in the Vatican congregation that oversees the life and work of some 900,000 consecrated men and women in religious orders and communities worldwide, Fr Carballo will work closely with the Brazilian Cardinal Joao Braz de Aviz, who has led this important office since 4 January 2011.

The Spaniard will bring his rich international experience as head of a major religious order to his new post of responsibility. Together with Cardinal Braz de Aviz, he is expected to play a key role in working to overcome and heal the tensions between the Vatican, and in particular the Congregation for the Doctrine for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), and the leadership of the umbrella organization of some 59,000 American women religious – the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR).

In April 2012, the CDF issued a highly critical doctrinal assessment of the situation of the LCWR, accusing them of taking positions that undermine Catholic teaching on the priesthood and homosexuality and of promoting “certain radical feminist themes incompatible with the Catholic faith.” In the light of that report, Pope Benedict appointed the US Archbishop Peter Sartain of Seattle to supervise the reform of the LCWR within five years. . . .
_________________________________________________________

Blog Comment: 

Of course it goes without saying that women Religious in the US are hopeful for a more honest hearing from (and more transparent discussion with)  the CDF than seems to have been accorded the LCWR thus far. One of the central problems has been communication. The LCWR sends representatives each year to the Vatican to meet with various Offices and also meet with the US Nuncio in the US. Despite repeated assurances that Rome had no questions or required no clarifications the highly critical doctrinal assessment was actually released during the time of one of these meetings in Rome.

At least as proble-matical is the fact that the Leadership Conference is neither a theological nor catechetical organization and does NOT take stances which are contrary to church teaching; at the same time however, it is not the LCWR's place to do the work of teaching the faith, either to member congregations, or to the Church and world more generally. That task is more rightly reserved to the Bishops. For this reason some of the reform being outlined seems to run contrary to the very nature of LCWR while other criticisms are simply too vague to be meaningful. (Please see Sister Mary Hughes' talk to the US Press Club, also in this blog for a more detailed discussion of this. Check label "Sister Mary Hughes, OP")

At this point no one can say what will happen to the doctrinal assessment and the mandate given to ABp Peter Sartain or Bishops Blair and Paprocki to oversee the reform of the group. However, it probably DOES bode well for eventual effective resolution that Francis has appointed a Religious who understands Religious life intimately from within, but who is also is the General Superior of the provinces of  Franciscan men in the US who publicly supported the LCWR (cf post under label, LCWR). Whatever happens with the LCWR situation it remains a good thing to have another Religious succeed Fr Tobin's too-short tenure in this role. Women Religious continue to pray for a just resolution to the situation while they move forward in their ministries. Meanwhile, Francis begins by appointing a man who clearly had no curial ambitions. That in itself is a refreshing shift in Roman appointments.

Moyers and Company: Nuns, Faith and Politics

Excellent presentation not only of the Nuns on the Bus trip --- views you have not seen up until now, but with a discussion between Bill Moyers, Sister Simone Campbell, and Robert Royal. If the story Sister Corita Ambro tells of coming to a place where she could hug Jimmy at the St Augustine Hunger Center doesn't touch you profoundly with what the presence of ministerial religious means to the marginalized (and remind you of St Francis and the Leper) I will be very surprised. Wonderful for it's honesty (humility), its pathos, and as a clear picture of what such Sisters are doing every single day, it provides a key to the perspective they uniquely hold in the discussions and debates about social justice and the focus of Sisters belonging to the LCWR, for instance.

Sister Mary Hughes, OP Addresses the National Press Club

A very comprehensive report on the nature of the LCWR and the Assessment of the CDF with regard to the LCWR on doctrinal matters. Sister Mary Hughes, OP tells the story of the discussion and concerns which have been raised from the perspective of the LCWR. Especially important is the affirmation of the commitment of the LCWR to the well-being of the Church and the need to find a way of fostering genuine dialogue in the Church. Sister notes with gratitude the listening Archbishop Sartain did and expresses a commitment on the part of all members and leadership of the LCWR to continued contemplative listening, to prophetic presence, to presence and ministry to the marginalized, and to modeling community which speaks to a polarized world and church. Sister Hughes emphasized the possibilties this crisis (moment of decision) raises for the church as a whole and the LCWR's commitment to hopeful participation in the process set forth by the Vatican. Very much worth listening to.

On reforming or disbanding: Does this principle apply to the Curia as well as to the LCWR?

[[Dear Sister O'Neal, you write positively about the LCWR. Yet these Sisters have been asked to reform themselves and seem resistant to doing so. They are not openly rebellious but instead are resisting reform by pretending to be involved in discernment. Cardinal Burke has said if they cannot reform themselves they should not continue to exist. I think the LCWR is in open conflict with the very Church that called for their existence. Why shouldn't the hierarchy just disband them?]]

In answering your question I would like to point out a much more far-reaching, fundamental, and critical contradiction I think you should consider. Please bear with me; it is not exactly a direct answer but bears my answer within it. As you point out, near the end of the LCWR assembly last week Cardinal Raymond Burke stated in an interview for EWTN, "“If it can’t be reformed, then it doesn’t have a right to continue.” I want to note two things. First Cardinal Burke speaks of reformation as something other than a Divinely empowered process which requires dialogue, prayer, and significant discernment. He thinks of reform as a top down process, a simple submission to a Curial agenda rooted in the sense that the curia knows the truth, including what religious life is all about, while those consecrated women living the life in the US are somehow 1) left out of the Holy Spirit's inspiration, and 2) have no input in the church's understanding of the nature of religious life. Is this really credible? Is it theologically sound? Secondly, I wonder if the principle "reform or be disbanded" applies to all levels of the church. For instance, does it apply to the Roman Curia?

Fifty years ago Vatican II raised the imperative issue of the reform of the Curia in its Decree on the Pastoral Office of Bishops. Pope Paul VI affirmed the need if the ecumenical goal of the Council was to be achieved but took the issue off the table making it clear that the curia would reform itself. His successor John Paul I is said to have been grappling with the issue of curial reform when he died. Thirty years after Vatican II John Paul II raised the issue again in 1995 when he asked for assistance in reforming the papacy in his encyclical, Ut unum sint. In fact, he asked for the Church's Bishops to engage in a "patient and fraternal dialogue" about this reform in order to achieve what Scripture and Vatican II set forth as a goal: "That they might all be one". In what Abp Quinn characterizes as an astonishing request, John Paul II also spoke of his own need for conversion and asked the entire church to pray for it: [[The Bishop of Rome himself must fervently make his own Christ's prayer for that conversion which is indispensible for "Peter" to be able to serve his brethren. I earnestly invite the faithful of the Catholic Church and all Christians to share in this prayer. May all join me in praying for this conversion! UUS #4]]

Archbishop John Quinn took up the issue of reform which meant especially reform of the politics, policies, and praxis of the Roman curia as essential to "The costly call to Christian Unity," in his own contribution to the dialogue JPII had requested. (The papacy and curia are not completely separable and reform of one involves reform of the other.) He explained that Christian unity is not simply a matter of doctrinal convergence, but a matter of changes in the way authority is understood and leadership is exercised. The goal of Christian unity demands reform (as Vatican II made very clear) of all of the faithful and the structures of the church; only then can we go out to other Christians seeking unity. The requirements of reform were spelled out clearly in his 1999 book The Reform of the Papacy, The Costly Call to Christian Unity. Significant chapters included one on "Reform and Criticism in the Church" another on "The Papacy and Collegiality in the Church," as well as chapters on the College of Cardinals, the appointment of Bishops, and the reform of the Roman curia. Throughout, the problem of increased centralization was pointed out as an obstacle to ecumenism and even to the church's own essential well-being.

A second volume called, The Exercise of the Primacy, Continuing the Dialogue which contained Abp John Quinn's Oxford Lecture and responses by a number of theologians was published in 1998. One of the essays included was "Searching for God's Will Together" which reflected on the nature and place of discernment in the life of the whole church. Most important in this essay is the recognition that discernment and obedience to authority are not the same thing --- though often they are taken in overly-centralized structures to be the same thing. That is, it is not the case "that the Spirit's promptings are simply and unerringly perceived at the top of the pyramid of the church's hierarchy" and that for those below this level discernment means unquestioning submission. Instead, discernment more traditionally requires listening to the will of God as expressed by authority and as heard in the everyday circumstances of life at all levels of the church. (The text refers at some length to the theology of discernment of St Francis de Sales at this point.)

A course between uncritical submission to ecclesiastical authority and merely acting on personal whim must be charted in discerning and responding to the will of God. Unfortunately a highly centralized, monarchical church tends to make true discernment and the charting of such a course impossible. Discernment is something we do together as peers in Christ (Gal 3:28)! The search for truth is something we engage in together. Our commitment to the will of God is something we can only accomplish together. And all of this means if the church is to be the one, holy, and catholic church God wills, reform must be accomplished within the papacy and curia as well as in every organization and person. Unless this reform is achieved the very mission of the Church is jeopardized. As a result of this conversation and John Paul's call for assistance with this reform, countless books and articles were spawned --- all of which pointed to the essential nature of the Church, the ecumenical goal of Vatican II, the ministry of reconciliation central to the NT, and the critical need for reform of the Curia and Papacy in achieving these things.

And yet, the Church has a papacy and curia today which are more extremely centralized and isolated from the whole People of God than when 1) Archbishop John Quinn offered his analysis 17 years ago 2) when Vatican II called for Unity and the necessary reform, or 3) when John Paul II asked for assistance in realizing this critical goal. It is a hierarchy which still confuses submission to authority with authentic discernment. In fact we see this notion of submission being made the whole meaning of religious obedience in discussions regarding the LCWR when instead the New Testament idea of obedience as attentive hearkening to the will of God mediated in innumerable ways is the broader and more accurate sense of the term. It is a papacy and curia which show no sign of taking seriously the call to reform which has been their charge for more than 50 years, but besides engaging in a backwards looking self-protective retrenchment which includes the rejection of authentic episcopal collegiality, actually opposes groups like the LCWR of US apostolic women religious who, mistakes and missteps notwithstanding, have clearly taken Vatican II's challenge to reform seriously and continue to do so.

So, Cardinal Burke's comment prompts me to ask you, shouldn't this principle also apply to the papacy and curia? If, after 50+ years of extensive reflection on the need for reform, theological analysis of the avenues to be taken, and explanation of the requirement by council and popes, the curia cannot reform itself, but instead shows itself intransigent and resistant to the will of God revealed in all these ways, shouldn't it be disbanded? Is there a more Christian, more traditional way of achieving what needs to be done here? I believe the LCWR is showing us that there is and it is here especially that their insistence on patient, prayerful, dialogue and discernment represents an edifying service to the whole Church. They are not pretending to anything; they are acting as disciples of Christ in faithfulness to their profession and vows, to Vatican II and the NT ecclesiology accenting collegiality, subsidiarity, and servanthood affirmed there. Further, in what strikes me as a significant act of kenosis (self-emptying), they are doing so in a way which has the credibility and welfare of the church itself as well as it's mission in promoting Jesus' ministry of reconciliation uppermost in their hearts and minds.

LCWR Assembly: An Example of Waiting on the Lord

In reflecting on what was achieved at the LCWR assembly this last week I was reminded of a piece I wrote some time ago on the parable of the foolish (and wise!) virgins. In that piece I noted that the foolish virgins had failed, but they had failed because they had ceased being women who actively waited for the future coming of the Bridegroom. I noted: [[If I am correct about this it opens the way to understanding "waiting" -- and particularly waiting for the Lord -- as something tremendously active and demanding, not passive or lacking in challenge. I suspect it is also something most of us are not very good at, especially in terms of the coming of the Lord! So what does waiting mean and involve? According to today's parable waiting involves the orientation of our whole selves towards a reality which is still to be fulfilled in some way. It means the ordering of our lives in terms of promise, not merely of possibility, and it means the constant reordering of our lives accordingly as time goes on. Waiting involves the acceptance of both presence and absence, reality and unreality, already and not yet, and the subordination of our lives to the dynamics these poles point to or define.]]

Recently we have seen a striking example of women religious who epitomize the capacity to wait on the Lord and who show us what a challenging, active, prayerful, demanding reality it is. There is very little pure passivity or "quietism" about it (obedience is never merely passive), but it is a non-violent way of approaching reality, a way which takes responsibility for both present and future without attempting to coerce or control them. These women's lamps are full of oil because over the past decades they have filled and refilled them with their eyes on the one who is present and who is also to come in fullness. They have learned to act in the awareness and patience brought by hope, in a consciousness of the promise present within reality, and oriented towards the future while remaining fully committed to (not enmeshed in) the present.

Media expected a clash between the condemnation of the CDF and the pain, disappointment, confusion, and strength of the LCWR this last week. It did not come. They expected either an act of rebellion or of submissive and demeaning capitulation. Neither of these came, nor would they have been appropriate in Christ's own Church. Instead the LCWR prayed, discussed, and acted in precisely the way they have been formed to do from decades of prayer and the practice of non-violent communication. Some commentators described what they saw as similar to a judo encounter where one uses the force of one's opponent against them. Others spoke of the Sisters absorbing the force of the action taken against them and transforming it into something more positive.

Both images are good, though I prefer the second. Both demonstrate a kind of counter-intuitive, counter-cultural way of dealing with force or coercion. Jesus' knew this way intimately and referred to it when he asked his followers to 1) willingly take up the gear of the Roman soldier trying to commandeer them and 2) walk an extra mile with him. In such a scenario the Roman soldier would have ceased to hold a superior position and been required to ask his "servant" to cease his activity --- unless, of course, the two walked on together as equals in a mutual journey. (Roman soldiers could not require a person to go more than a mile and would have been guilty of breaking the law had he done so. The one being pressed into service assumes the role of equal or even superior in freely "going the extra mile.") And of course, we know that acting freely, generously, even in situations we would not have chosen transforms the entire situation from one of bondage and oppression to one of freedom and empowerment.

As I have written before, a similar dynamic is at work in Jesus' request of the one struck (backhanded) on one cheek --- as inferiors were always struck in Jesus' day --- to turn the other cheek to the one assaulting them. This meant requiring the one who had struck out to strike again with the front of their hand ---- something only done to equals. The alternative, of course, was for the one who had struck "his inferior" to refuse to strike again and to walk away. In either case the one struck assumes the place of an equal and demonstrates that justice is not accomplished by force. Jesus' asks us to do justice, but to do it in ways which are counter-cultural and invites those who would use force to simply walk in brotherhood with the other. The same is true when Jesus asks us to accept our part in his ministry of reconciliation, to be simple as doves and shrewd as serpents in this work, to commit to the kinds of death real life requires of us, and to participate in his passion so that our world may be transformed by him.

Waiting, especially waiting on the Lord, does not mean doing nothing. It means acting in ways which give the Lord a chance to act in power. It means acting in ways which allows life to grow where only death is seen to be operative. Waiting on the Lord means cultivating a mode and mood of listening, of openness and of hope (not wishfulness!). It really does mean being gentle as doves and shrewd as serpents --- because as we all know, real strength is gentle and demands the simplicity of a cultivated intelligence. It can disarm those who desire instead to control and overpower and certainly it will confound those who only expect a worldly way of handling conflict and disagreement. Finally, it will help transform structures of inequity and coercion into a reality more nearly that of the Kingdom of God.

The LCWR was told that they were to be involved in a collaborative process with the CDF. At the same time they are being required to submit to certain demands in order to achieve reforms, some of which have yet to be clarified by the CDF. The tension between these two elements, collaboration and constraint, can only be maintained without surrendering one's integrity if both sides are genuinely open to the other and to God in a way which models Jesus' own openness and obedience. If both can do this the reform involved will affect the entire church, not just the LCWR. If both can really allow this process to be the collaborative process the CDF called for we will see a hierarchy whose authority is made more credible than an authority of coercion and control can ever be except in entirely worldly terms. The LCWR has begun well and with the wisdom of the wise virgins in Jesus' parable.  We pray they will continue in the same way. Archbishop Peter Sartain has responded in ways which indicate his own commitment to a process which is radically Christian, profoundly Catholic, truly authoritative, and which therefore respects the time, patience, and collaboration "waiting on the Lord" requires. Let us hope that indication continues to be true of his part in this process over time.

NPR Interview with Sister Pat Farrell, OSF

The video represents a 40 minute interview with Sister Pat Farrell, OSF, president of the LCWR. In this interview Sister Pat explains LCWR positions, adds often-missing nuance from common understandings of what is happening between the CDF and the LCWR, clarifies important distortions of the truth (e.g. what Dominican Sister Laurie Brink's keynote speech actually said), points to the broader ramifications of the CDF's actions with regard to the LCWR, and paints an accurate portrait of the life-supporting ministry of women religious and the choices they have made regarding what they will speak to with their lives and otherwise.

Personally I think it is a wonderful interview for these reasons and because it demonstrates the tone of genuine discussion in the church modeling for us all what this needs to look like. When Sister speaks she does so credibly, whether or not one agrees with individual assessments, and with a palpable integrity. I highly recommend listening.

Responding to Questions Critical of the Sisters of the LCWR

[[Dear Sister, I have read your blog for some time and have admired a lot of what you have written. You pursue a hermit life of holiness and prayer in separation from the world but how can you speak of the Sisters of the LCWR and Network as though their lives are also about holiness and prayer? They are too immersed in the world. They are too involved in social justice. When the Church talks about "consecration" she means "set apart for God". These sisters are consecrated but who can tell? They don't dress like it, act like it, or live like it.]] (Redacted)

Thanks for your comments and questions. I assume these are in response to my post about Holiness as a Love that does Justice so I would prefer not to repeat what I already wrote there. Let me just say that the active, effective love of God that reconciles, heals, and therefore does justice (sets everything to rights) always spills over into ministry. Reconciliation is not only about our own souls, but about our entire lives, the lives of everyone around us, and in fact, our entire world. It always impels us to reach out to others and work for their own dignity and welfare, their own human wholeness and holiness. It compels us to work for the Kingdom of God --- that realm in which God is truly sovereign and so, that realm marked by a covenantal love that makes completely just. For a very very few of us that means a solitary life of prayer and penance, a life of the silence of solitude. We believe such a life signals to the whole church that there is a foundational relationship which is the source and ground of our lives, identities, and integrity. The very nature of human life is dialogical, and in fact, covenantal; hermits call attention in an especially vivid way to one dimension of this truth in particular.

But the rest of the Church calls attention to this truth in other ways, focusing on different facets of it. In Baptism all of us are consecrated into this truth and commissioned to discern how it is God calls us to make it real in our society and world. But note that consecration here has two interrelated senses. First it means set apart in and for holiness BY God --- for only God who is the Holy One consecrates. Secondly it means set apart for God, for his will, for all that he holds precious. For the majority of people this means vocations which are secular. As leaven in bread most express their consecration in the world. They do so in the world they are immersed in, the world of family, business, politics, economics, academia, etc. As Vatican II emphasized, ALL are called to an exhaustive holiness no matter the context of their lives and mission.

Men and Women Religious are also called to this SAME exhaustive holiness. However, their own call means letting go of various possibilities so that they may live out this call to holiness in a life which is more clearly countercultural and more explicitly set apart by and for God. Through their profession of the evangelical counsels they forego some ways of living which may mitigate or distort this countercultural stance. They do not build themselves into their worlds by having families, pursuing wealth, creating business empires, and the like. They live compassionate lives of prayer focused on their call to live a holiness where God's love does justice. These two dimensions of their lives allow them to address the world which God loves with an everlasting love with greater vision and generosity than THEY might otherwise be capable of --- NOT necessarily with greater generosity than others who are called to a different vocation are capable of. They are not, as you say, immersed in the world yet neither are they uninvolved in it nor ignorant or uncaring of it; neither are they called to live apart from it in the same way a hermit or cloistered religious is. They are called, again, to live countercultural lives which summon the world to become the Kingdom God wills it to be --- the Kingdom where the Divine completely interpenetrates reality and all of us live as brothers and sisters in God. Afterall, this incarnational way of working for the Kingdom is precisely the way Jesus lived it and summoned his disciples to do.

Remember that "separation from the world" can have a number of meanings and expressions. While some treat this term as meaning separation from anything except a convent, monastery, or hermitage environment and life, in canon law it means separation from that which is resistant to Christ and NOT from the whole of God's good creation. Given this latter sense women religious who live more radically countercultural lives rooted in prayer and commitment to a love that does justice can be said to be every bit as faithful to this element of their lives as anyone else. In fact, to the extent they really are grounded in the countercultural values and vision of Christ, they may be more sincerely faithful to it than the so-called hermit who closes the door of her hermitage out of selfishness or individualism and does whatever she wants, or the Sister who lives comfortably in her convent pursuing personal holiness but who cannot or will not muster the compassion or real concern she should have for those living in poverty and/or in separation from love that makes whole.

You complain that the Sisters whose congregations belong to the LCWR are too involved in social justice to the detriment of any personal pursuit of prayer and holiness. But remember that Jesus spoke often about things like feeding the poor, visiting prisoners, etc, and one of the Gospel counsels we have is, "Whatsoever you do for the least of my brothers and sisters, that you do for/to me." Apart from what I have already mentioned above about commitment to a love that does justice and flows from personal holiness, what seems to be critical for the Sisters we have been speaking of is the reason they are engaged in social justice. Sister Simone Campbell, who was featured in the video I posted, once noted that early on in the days of the civil rights movement she scanned the room in which a lot of fellow demonstrators were clustered and realized that while they all agreed on the action taken, no one else there was there on behalf of the Gospel of Christ. The Sisters who are involved in social justice activities are involved not only because of a holiness which issues in a love that does justice, but precisely because they take the Gospel counsels seriously --- including the counsels about the poor and least. I would suggest to you that this may not be maintained UNLESS the person is deeply grounded in prayer.

The life of women and men religious is a large and vital reality. It is composed of many streams and tributaries. We mustn't make the mistake of identifying one stream or current as the sole representative of a religious life of holiness and prayer, nor one as the only cogent expression of separation from the world. At the same time we cannot draw an absolute dichotomy between social justice and concern with individual holiness and lives of prayer. To do so is to call Jesus and the Gospel of Jesus liars. I hope this answers most of your objections and questions. The question of garb is one I will write about separately if you don't mind.

Personal Holiness is driven by a Love that does Justice: Reflecting on Nuns on the Bus

I have read a lot of comments in response to the Sisters of LCWR and Network being too political, not sufficiently concerned with holiness or grounded in prayer. I have to say that my own understanding of the Gospel supports the clear connection between concern with social justice (which implies political engagement), holiness, and the prayer that is the source of both. Even hermits whose lives are focused in the ways of solitary prayer and the silence of solitude know that genuine holiness stems from prayer and issues in compassion while compassion issues in ministry and ministry is a form of love doing justice. We see this dynamic clearly from the remarks of Sister Simone Campbell as she and a group of Sisters begin their Nuns on the Bus trip.



I am reminded in Sister Simone's emphases (social justice and prayer) and the way they dovetail so well that one of the truly wonderful renderings of the NT's term "righteousness" is "covenant behavior". This is a translation that NT Wright uses. What this means is that we are righteous when we act out of the fact that God is actively and truly our God and we (together) are actively and truly God's People. Both words in this translation are critical: covenant, which points to the dialogical or communal nature of our existence, and "behavior" which focuses us on the living, compelling, and effective nature of the love which stands at the heart of this covenantal reality and also issues from it. Another word for the righteousness that results when God's reconciling love does justice within us and within our world, is "holiness". Unless there is a "love that does justice" at the heart of our being, and therefore, a love which impels us beyond ourselves to extend this justice-making love to our brothers and sisters, our society, and our world, we are not dealing with that "covenant behavior" --- that holiness --- which Jesus' life, death, and resurrection made real in our world. Genuine holiness does justice; the two simply cannot be separated from one another, and they certainly cannot be separated from one another in the lives of ministerial or apostolic religious.

It is not always easy to be transparent about one's prayer. Neither is it easy to make it clear that for Sisters involved in either apostolic or ministerial religious life a passion for social justice stems from prayer, is supported by prayer, and leads back to prayer. (Too often in discussions and debates critics arbitrarily draw lines between faith and political action, for instance, and we are left with a truncated and inadequate perspective on what it means to be a person of faith, a person committed to holiness, to covenant behavior in our contemporary world.) But Sister Simone managed all this in her comments above. My thanks to her for so clearly revealing the heart of this vital form of religious life.

Franciscan Men Write Open Letter to LCWR and Members

Until recently there was a notable silence from amongst all the various expressions of support for the LCWR. That silence was among men religious (and, with a handful of notable exceptions, clergy in the church), and precisely because these men share essentially the same commitments and vision, it was a painful silence. (I recognize that men religious often have added difficulties because they are often also priests. Still, the silence was painful.) The following represents the first breach in this silence and I personally hope it will not be the last. I also personally believe these men got it just right.

They appreciate not only what the Sisters do but the way they do it. They acknowledge the prayerful, thoughtful silence that preceded the LCWR's initial response to the CDF's charges and which sets the tone for the way they will proceed in this matter; they refer to official documents which call not only for dialogue but for leaving the responsibility for ultimate decision making in the hands of councils and conferences. They rightly distinguish between "remaining silent" on issues (as for instance, I often do in this blog) and questioning church teaching, as well as between moral principles which must be held, and the application of such principles where disagreement is completely legitimate. Most importantly, they recognize that the LCWR and member congregations are carrying out the mandate of Vatican II to attend to the signs of the times and proclaim the Gospel in response, as well as that they are doing so in a responsible and faithful manner.

One key sentence, it seems to me, (and the place this document differs from the CDF's) is that the Franciscans recognize and are grateful not simply for the service women religious' give but for their discernment. They affirm they are edified by this. One of the more superficial weaknesses of the CDF's assessment was that it began with a statement of gratitude for the women's service but then proceeded to denigrate and curtail any activity which suggested adult discernment and application of that to complex problems even as it criticized the nature of their service. Statements of appreciation and gratitude sound hollow at best and disingenuous or hypocritical at worst when they are undercut by criticism which is so broad and pervasive. But the Franciscan men got it right here and their example is edifying.

It takes courage for groups of men religious to write such an affirmation of those under fire by the CDF. Unfortunately, that is also a sign that there is something terribly wrong in our church. It should NOT need to involve courage to affirms one's sisters or brothers in this way in a church which is a communion in Christ. One should not need to fear reprisals ("canonical actions" or censure), for instance, nor even consider that perhaps we will fall foul of the CDF, CICLSAL, the USCCB, et al, for speaking the truth in such a way.

The Letter

May 31, 2012

Open Letter to the United States Catholic Sisters

We, the Leadership of the Friars Minor of the United States, write today as your brothers in the vowed religious life who, like you, have great love for our Church and for the people whom we are privileged to serve. We write at a time of heightened polarization and even animosity in our nation and Church, with deep concern that the recent Vatican Doctrinal Assessment of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) may inadvertently fuel the current climate of division and confusion. We write, too, as a public sign of our solidarity with you as you endure this very difficult moment. We are privileged to share with you the journey of religious life. Like you, we strive in all that we do to build up the People of God.

As religious brothers in the Franciscan tradition, we are rooted in a stance of gratitude that flows from awareness of the myriad ways that God is disclosed and made manifest in the world. For us, there can be no dispute that God has been and continues to be revealed through the faithful (and often unsung) witness of religious women in the United States. Thus we note with appreciation that the Congregation for the Defense of the Faith (CDF) “acknowledges with gratitude the great contributions of women Religious to the Church of the United States as seen particularly in the many schools, hospitals, and institutions of support for the poor which have been founded and staffed by Religious over the years.” We certainly know how much our service has been enriched by the many gifts you bring to these ministries.

However, your gift to the Church is not only one of service, but also one of courageous discernment. The late 20th century and the beginning of this century have been times of great social, political and cultural upheaval and change. Such contextual changes require us, as faithful members of the Church, to pose questions that at first may appear to be controversial or even unfaithful, but in fact are asked precisely so that we might live authentically the charisms we have received, even as we respond to the “signs of the times.” This is the charge that we as religious have received through the “Decree on the Renewal of Religious Life” from the Second Vatican Council and subsequent statements of the Church on religious life. We believe that your willingness to reflect on many of the questions faced by contemporary society is an expression of your determination to be faithful to the Gospel, the Church, the invitation from Vatican II and your own religious charisms. We remain thankful for and edified by your courage to engage in such reflection despite the ever-present risk of misunderstanding.

Moreover, we are concerned that the tone and direction set forth in the Doctrinal Assessment of LCWR are excessive, given the evidence raised. The efforts of LCWR to facilitate honest and faithful dialogue on critical issues of our times must not result in a level of ecclesial oversight that could, in effect, quash all further discernment. Further, questioning your adherence to Church teaching by your “remaining silent” on certain ethical issues seems to us a charge that could be leveled against many groups in the Church, and fails to appreciate both the larger cultural context and the particular parameters of expertise within which we all operate. Finally, when there appears to be honest disagreement on the application of moral principles to public policy, it is not equivalent to questioning the authority of the Church’s magisterium. Although the Catholic moral tradition speaks of agreement regarding moral principles, it also – from the Middle Ages through today – speaks of appropriate disagreement regarding specific application of these principles. Unfortunately, the public communications media in the U.S. may not recognize this distinction. Rather than excessive oversight of LCWR, perhaps a better service to the people of God might be a renewed effort to articulate the nuances of our complex moral tradition. This can be a teaching moment rather than a moment of regulation -- an opportunity to bring our faith to bear on the complexity of public policy particularly in the midst of our quadrennial elections.

Finally, we realize and appreciate, as we are sure do you, the proper and right role of the bishops as it is set out in Mutuae Relationes to provide leadership and guidance to religious institutions.[i] However, the same document clearly states: since it is of utmost importance that the council of major superiors collaborate diligently and in a spirit of trust with episcopal conferences, ‘it is desirable that questions having reference to both bishops and religious should be dealt with by mixed commissions consisting of bishops and major religious superiors, men or women. …Such a mixed commission should be structured in such a way that even if the right of ultimate decision making is to be always left to councils or conferences, according to the respective competencies, it can, as an organism of mutual counsel, liaison, communication, study and reflection, achieve its purpose. (#63)

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. We hope that our bishops will take particular care to see that the way they take action is as important as the actions themselves in serving the People of God. Otherwise, their efforts will surely be misunderstood and polarizing.

Lastly, we appreciate the approach that you at LCWR have taken to enter into a time of discernment, rather than immediately making public statements that could be construed as “opposing the bishops” after the release of the Doctrinal Assessment. The rancor and incivility of public conversation in the United States at this time make the possibility of productive dialogue more difficult to achieve. We pray that the future conversation between LCWR and CDF might provide an example to the larger world of respectful, civil dialog. Such dialog will require a degree of mutuality, trust and honesty that is absent from much of our world. We trust that you will continue your efforts to live out this principle, and we trust and pray that our bishops will do the same.

Please be assured of our on-going support, prayers, respect, and gratitude for your living example of the following of Christ in our times.

Fraternally,

Leadership of Franciscan (O.F.M.) Provinces of the United States

Assumption BVM Province
Franklin, WI, U.S.A.

Holy Name Province
New York, NY, U.S.A.

Immaculate Conception Province
New York, NY, U.S.A.

Our Lady of Guadalupe Province
Albuquerque, NM, U.S.A.

Sacred Heart Province
St. Louis, MO, U.S.A.

Saint Barbara Province
Oakland, CA, U.S.A.

Saint John the Baptist Province
Cincinnati, OH, U.S.A.


[1]Sacred Congregation for Religious and for Secular Institutes, Directives for the Mutual Relations Between Bishops and Religious in the Church, Rome, May 14, 1978

LCWR's Initial Response to the CDF Assessment

The following is the initial response of the LCWR board to the CDF's doctrinal assessment of the group which was released this morning. I am posting it here in full. My own belief is that every step of this process will need to be made as public and transparent as possible if the Church is to be truly served and further damage prevented.

For those wondering how they could support the LCWR, two things come immediately to mind besides suggestions which have been made in the past month:

1) support the travel expenses of the Sisters to Rome. Ordinarily the Sisters travel there once a year, sometimes twice, and travel expenses are (appropriately) paid for by the member congregations. Rome does not assist with such expenses. In this case, however, the whole Church needs to assist the Sisters, for it seems to me that the whole Church has much at stake here.

2) Continue to speak up for and demand transparency and clarity. If Rome understands the nature and basis of the charges against the LCWR, demand that they explain them not only to the LCWR, but to the Church at large both specifically and in sufficient detail to be convincing. If the Sisters are guilty of what the CDF has accused them (radical feminism incompatible with the Catholic faith, not spending enough time on one form of or focus in ministry when we are busy with others, loss of Christological focus, etc) I am afraid most of us (including those clerics whose ministries and lives are in Rome!) are guilty of the same or at least similar things without even knowing that is the case! If Rome feels the sanctions brought against the conference are proportionate and just, then ask --- and continue asking --- that they explain the reasons for these specific sanctions and their proportionality.

In addition, as has already been suggested a number of places, folks need to:

3) Continue to write to the Papal Nuncio in Washington DC, to the CDF (Prefect, William Cardinal Levada), to the Congregation for Religious (CICLSAL), and to ABp Peter Sartain, and Bishops Blair and Paprocki with your concerns, support, questions, and respectful disagreement or agreement. If Rome is clear that this is to be a collaborative process, then by all means, let's do whatever we can to make collaboration a reality which assists Rome to reform the church itself from top to bottom! Let us all be equally obedient and subject to God in his Word and Spirit! If Rome is clear that this process is to bring healing and greater Christian witness across the board, then let's participate in ways which help ensure that is realized.

4) Continue committing to regular prayer in support of the Sisters and the Church as a whole as we all find ways to respond adequately in this crisis. Mark specific dates (e.g., June 12th, the date when two Sisters fly back to Rome for the first time and the days which follow, etc) for special prayer periods, vigil, etc.

The Statement:

[Washington, DC] The national board of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) held a special meeting in Washington, DC from May 29-31 to review, and plan a response to, the report issued to LCWR by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

The board members raised concerns about both the content of the doctrinal assessment and the process by which it was prepared. Board members concluded that the assessment was based on unsubstantiated accusations and the result of a flawed process that lacked transparency. Moreover, the sanctions imposed were disproportionate to the concerns raised and could compromise their ability to fulfill their mission. The report has furthermore caused scandal and pain throughout the church community, and created greater polarization.

On June 12 the LCWR president and executive director will return to Rome to meet with CDF prefect Cardinal William Levada and the apostolic delegate Archbishop Peter Sartain to raise and discuss the board’s concerns. Following the discussions in Rome, the conference will gather its members both in regional meetings and in its August assembly to determine its response to the CDF report.

The board recognizes this matter has deeply touched Catholics and non-Catholics throughout the world as evidenced by the thousands of messages of support as well as the dozens of prayer vigils held in numerous parts of the country. It believes that the matters of faith and justice that capture the hearts of Catholic sisters are clearly shared by many people around the world. As the church and society face tumultuous times, the board believes it is imperative that these matters be addressed by the entire church community in an atmosphere of openness, honesty, and integrity.

Follow up Questions: CMSWR and LCWR

[[Hi Sister Laurel, you wrote about the CMSWR and said.[[. . . they are not pushing the envelope in any way and are more typical of the form of religious life the Vatican approved in 1900 with Conditae a Christo and made canonical in 1917. It is a form of religious life which is definitely less prophetically oriented and more supportive of the institutional status quo. They are involved in corporate apostolates, but generally not on the margins of society with ministries to the disenfranchised where Sisters of the LCWR are often found. This allows them to live community in the sense most of us recognize as common in the early to mid 1900's but in the main not to live where the poorest of the poor actually reside and require help.]] Are you saying that such congregations are not prophetic? Are you saying that only LCWR communities ARE prophetic? Can you clarify this for me because I could not agree if you were drawing such a black and white distinction?]]

Thanks for your questions. I received several of emails on this matter. Yours was the only one that asked me to clarify what I actually said, or, in fact, actually quoted or characterized what I said accurately. For that reason, if you don't mind, I will use your questions to answer all of these. Note well that I used the phrase "less prophetically oriented". I did not say, "not prophetic", "less prophetic", nor did I say they were unfruitful or unimportant for the proclamation of the Gospel. I tried pretty hard NOT to draw things in black and white or either/or terms, and I stayed away from "conservative/ liberal" or "traditionalist/progressive" kinds of distinctions (dichotomies) and labels. That was ONE of the reasons I used only CMSWR and LCWR as designations. (The other was that the questioner used those in his/her question.)

There is no doubt that I find the LCWR group more diverse than the CMSWR, but that is, as I noted in the post you quoted, because the CMSWR itself only recognizes ONE expression of non strictly-cloistered religious life as valid while LCWR does not. Thus, LCWR has Sisters who wear habits and those who do not; they have Sisters in corporate apostolates, and those who are not, Sisters living community in corporate settings, and those who live community in other ways. The CMSWR does not. I do think the LCWR is more helpful in reflecting the nature of ministerial religious life in the US than the CMSWR, because they are more diverse and have adopted a less narrow view of religious life and view of the nature of the church which is more in line with the image emphasized by Vatican II. On the other hand, I noted very explicitly that BOTH leadership conferences are necessary for a complete picture of religious life. I did not say x is right, y is wrong, for instance. (More about this below, however.)

Now, for your specific questions. What do I mean when I say that one leadership conference is more prophetically oriented than another? I mean, as has always been the case with prophets, that they work to proclaim the Gospel or will of God in season and out, whether it is opportune or not, and whether it conflicts with the religious institutions and state which hold power at the time or not. I mean that they stand on the margins, not only with regard to those they minister to, but in terms of the institution precisely because they seek to proclaim a Gospel which threatens those in power and gets real disciples crucified by the religious and political status quo. They proclaim a Gospel which is principally concerned with the Kingdom of God, and therefore, less so with partial and proleptic expressions of that Kingdom or with simple preservation of the status quo. Wherever the Kingdom of God is truly proclaimed, as Mary's Magnificat recounts, religious and political systems are overturned along with the security, power, and insularity they necessarily foster and protect.

I mean too that such groups work for portions of the Gospel that have been forgotten or even forsaken. For instance, one comment I have heard recently decries women religious working for the good of the earth. But in fact, our own stewardship of the earth is part of the most original commission to humanity; it is, simply put, the will of God. In the New Testament, as Paul makes very clear, the message celebrated is that regarding a new Creation, a new heaven and a new earth --- not, pie in the sky by and by, but the re-making of God's creation so that heaven and earth completely interpenetrate one another and God is "All in all." Commitment to follow a God who becomes enfleshed will necessarily mean treating all that he has assumed as holy --- and that does mean the dust of the earth as well as the stuff of heaven. Literally and figuratively it is ALL star stuff.

It will mean recovering ministries and a way of doing ministry which reach(es) the marginalized --- those truly on the margins both politically and ecclesially. This in turn will mean less emphasis on large corporate apostolates and smaller targeted ministries with fewer Sisters -- and those living right with those they serve. To some extent it requires "becoming all things to all people" as Paul himself claimed was necessary to truly follow Christ, and at the same time it will mean, "having no place to lay one's head" in the sense of insulated religious preserves marked by enclosure and some sort of "convent mystique." (Habits might fit here as well.) In other words, it means searching for, finding and proclaiming God right in the midst of the situation in which the person finds him/herself and in the terms the person really NEED to hear because this is CENTRAL to a Gospel which says God came to ALL and made ALL holy in that coming.

These are SOME of the things I mean by being prophetic, and a prophetic orientation means adopting and sacrificing for the sake of this prophetic activity and identity BECAUSE it is what one discerns God is calling one to. Those who do not adopt such a perspective may simply not be called to it. They may (like Jonah) even believe it is wrong-headed and so go the other way. And in this they may be right or wrong. They may still find themselves acting as prophets in other ways, but for them it is not a full-time or overarching perspective to which other things and ways of living are subordinated. So, yes, I am saying that in general, CMSWR institutes are not prophetically oriented, nor can they be given the nature of the ecclesiology and theology of the vows they have adopted. (Other ecclesiologies and/or theologies allow for the prophetic better and sometimes even require it.) But then, there were relatively few Prophets in the OT, and relatively few exercising a formal prophetic role in the NT and subsequent Church history. There are other vocations after all.

I hope this helps. Again, thanks for the questions.