So How Is That Apostolic Visitation of Women Religious Going, Anyway? #Catholic

I haven't heard much about the results of the apostolic visitation of women but caught an article about it yesterday. (How Is It Going? From Catholic World Report)

There doesn't seem to be any clear results given, yet, but then again, the on-site visitation phase was just completed in December 2010.

The article, written by Ann Carey who is the author of Sisters in Crisis: The Tragic Unraveling of Women’s Religious Communities, shows that there is still distrust on the side of the women religious. I found the question of confidentiality particularly interesting.

Evidently, some of the women religious superiors were grilling the sisters after the visitation group had left. (emphasis mine):

Nevertheless, sisters from various orders report that their leadership approached the visitation with a fear that was fed in part by the LCWR and other outspoken women religious, as well as misinformation in the media. This fear, in turn, caused anxiety among many grassroots sisters. So, too, did pre-visitation “informational meetings” that seemed more like indoctrination sessions; some sisters say they felt intimidated by their leadership, who warned sisters not to answer certain questions from the visitors, not to say anything negative about the order, and not to tell anyone about the visitation, even as their leaders continued to disparage the visitation publicly.

Likewise, some orders who received on-site visits also scheduled post-visit meetings for sisters to report what they said and heard during their appointments with visitors and to discuss how they felt about the visitation experience. One sister told this writer that these post-visit meetings, which were announced before her order’s visit, made her feel that sisters’ conversations with the visitors would not really be confidential if sisters were expected to report on them to their superiors.

Sister Elizabeth confirmed that a number of sisters from various institutes throughout the US contacted her for advice about whether they were free to absent themselves from pre- and post-visitation meetings scheduled by superiors and presented as mandatory. She said she had explained to these sisters the basic information on privacy and non-manifestation of conscience and suggested that if sisters felt they might face intimidation for not participating in the meetings, then it might be better for them to attend and to speak if it seemed truly necessary. If they did so, she told sisters to inform the apostolic visitation office confidentially about what had actually transpired.

The privacy of sisters who wished to talk to a visitor also was problematic for some sisters. The visitation office tried to ensure confidentiality for sisters, and feedback from those experiencing a visit has been overwhelmingly positive. However, in some instances, sisters reported that the identity of some sisters requesting an interview with a visitor was inadvertently revealed to an order’s leadership. Additionally, the other confidential methods for speaking with a visitor—via telephone or webcam or at an off-site interview—were not feasible for some sisters, particularly the elderly in nursing care or retirement facilities. The visitation office did, however, encourage letters from sisters, and many sisters took advantage of that method when they wanted to be absolutely certain their identity would not be revealed to superiors.

That, is very troubling.

If there are issues that need to be addressed, then truth must be told. The only thing these superiors accomplished was to guarantee that they looked guilty by trying to squelch the voices of some of their fellow sisters.

I can only imagine the inner turmoil some of these sisters must have experienced. Could you imagine being a part of a community that was going in some wacky direction, but you had no one to turn to? And finally, when someone from the Vatican was listening, you're told to not say anything incriminating?

Seriously, it makes me feel as though some of those women religious are like battered women. I know that may seem harsh, but think of the controlling factors that go into an abusive relationship. I wouldn't doubt that some of those sisters felt similar emotions to a woman who wanted to escape an unhealthy relationship.

This is where the ugly side of women emerges. It is not what God intended for women, but certainly is the strategy of the enemy. Gossiping, slander, control, intimidation -- all of these have been used by then enemy to wreak havoc in the sisterhood of women.

Why would a superior need to know what was talked about confidentially with an apostolic visitor? To control the outcome.

Plain and simple. And unfortunate. Continue to keep this whole process in prayer. Pray that the apostolic team is given grace and wisdom. Pray for hardened hearts to soften. And pray that the truth is revealed and that the Balm of Gilead would heal all wounds.

The Superiority of Christ Over "Personal Liberation" #Catholic

KKollwitz provided a link in his last comment that was further commentary on the Sisters of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. It is a very long article, but well worth the read if you have time. ("Carl Rogers and the IHM Nuns: Sensitivity Training, Psychological Warfare and the 'Catholic Problem'" by Dr. E. Michael Jones) It presents a fascinating (albeit, sad) tale of psychotherapy in the sixties and even how some of the groundwork for it was laid in the 1940's. After reading the article, there is no doubt in my mind that what was done to those nuns in the sixties was nothing less than psychological warfare with the objective as destroying the Catholic Church and overall, Christianity.

I have had my concerns about psychotherapy for some time. I am not completely against it and have had a few therapy sessions, myself. But my concern has been with those who practice it and are anti-Christian, who look to psychotherapy as a way to be "liberated" without acknowledging that there is such a thing as sin and sin keeps us in bondage. If a therapist claims that a person is being "repressed," the obvious question would be: repressed by whom? And usually the answer to such a question is: repressed by rigid belief systems such as religion, that only seek to control an individual.

But really, who is trying to control whom? When the psychotherapists got a hold of those nuns, they knowingly sought to control them by leading them away from the Catholic Church. By claiming they were introducing the nuns to "personal liberation," they placed them in another type of bondage -- one where they were trapped within endless self-reflection and worldviews that had only their voice and the voice of their fellow therapy participants as their point of reference. Soon after the psychotherapy experiment began, the sisters were released from attending daily Mass, which before was mandatory. Consistent prayer and meditation, which occurs during Mass, was removed. It's not a surprise that the nuns began to look to one another and their therapists as their guides.

I have an apology. In my previous post, I made a judgemental comment about the Bishop at the time and questioned the leadership that would allow such experimentation to take place. Lo and behold, it was Cardinal James McIntyre, who was cast in an uncharitable light with National Catholic Reporter's article, "Vatican, U.S. Women Religious Tensions Go Back Decades": (emphasis mine)

1968 –Cardinal James McIntyre of Los Angeles demands that the Immaculate Heart of Mary sisters back down from the changes in dress, work and living arrangements approved by the community’s chapter – and submit to his control instead -- or be forced out of the order. In what became a national scandal, the great majority of sisters refused to give in, and left to form a community separate from hierarchical control.

Well, no wonder His Eminence had issues with what was going on. It was obviously clear to him that the changes at the IHM seminary were not good ones and could only lead to chaos. History has proven him right. As a matter of fact, the more I learn about Cardinal James McIntyre, the more I like him. I may be highlighting him more in my blog because I suspect this man's good character and devout Catholicism has been misrepresented in print and I'd like to honor him. Anyone who sends his priests to John Birch Society meetings to be educated about the evils of communism, is a good guy in my book.

Any type of evaluation of oneself cannot address the root source of the problem -- which is sin; apart from a thorough examination of the claims of Jesus Christ. Only by renouncing self (as opposed to elevating it), will bring the peace that is sought. In renouncing, is a beautiful and joyful embracing of who we were created to be -- in Christ. "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me." (Phil. 4:13 NKJV) If that's not an "empowerment" statement, I don't know what is. But the key component of that statement is the dependence and surrender we have with God through His Son, Jesus Christ and by the grace and power of His Holy Spirit.

Too often, people place their trust in humanistic philosophies when in fact, placing their trust in God through Christ is exactly what they need and what will bring them health, healing, and a right mind and heart. Approaching God in humility will result in an abundance of grace, which brings peace and wholeness. Apart for Christ, there simply is no peace.

Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called the uncircumcision by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands-- remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near in the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who has made us both one, and has broken down the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby bringing the hostility to an end. (Eph. 2:11-16 RSV)

National #Catholic Reporter's Series on Women Religious - Who Doesn't "Get It?"

I was unaware of this series until today. Sr. Sandra Schneiders from the Immaculate Heart of Mary, reflects on the meaning of religious life today. Schneiders, professor of New Testament Studies and Christian Spirituality at the Jesuit School of Theology at Berkeley, sets the context for “Religious Life as Prophetic Life Form.” The installments run from Jan. 4 through Jan. 8.

I read the first installment and was completely flummoxed. Just astonished. Below is an excerpt and my comments are in red, emphasis mine.

Little by little pressure from a variety of sources seems to have uncovered the answers to those two questions. The “charges” are that LCWR (Leadership Conference of Women Religious)-type Congregations (the vast majority of Religious in the country) have implemented in their lives and in their ministries changes called for by Vatican II to the detriment (manifested in the decline in numbers of vocations) of religious life itself. (First, I don't agree with the approach Sr. Schneiders is taking. To frame this investigation as "criminal" misses the point. The Vatican is concerned about declining numbers of women religious. They want to evaluate the situation. How anyone can deny the fact that these communities are not receiving new vocations as a valid concern, is beyond me. It seems as though some women religious are looking at the issue from only one perspective. Is it because the Vatican is backward or hasn't allowed women to be priests? But if that is the case, how is it that the more traditional communities are increasing?) Cardinal Rodé (the highest officer in Rome on religious life) believes, in his own words, that the council precipitated the first “world-wide crisis” in the history of the church and women religious, in his view, are primary promoters of that crisis in the United States.

The “accusers” are a small group of extremely conservative women religious who, in September 2008, held a conference at Stonehill College in Massachusetts on consecrated life as they understand it, to which they invited Cardinal Rodé. (From everything I've read, this does not seem to be true. There are many Catholics who have been concerned.) At this conference, which included no presentation of positions at variance with their own, they put contemporary ministerial religious Life on trial in absentia, found it seriously wanting, and raised the cry, “Investigate them!”

Cardinal Rodé, having heard what he apparently thought was a widely held consensus that U.S. women’s apostolic religious life was in serious decline concluded, (Again, numbers do not lie. Losing 49% of women religious within 30 years obviously is going to send up a red flag.) “We have no further need of witnesses.” (Does anyone read statistics?) Unfortunately, he failed to consult the many thousands of Catholic laity who have received from women religious their formation in the faith, ongoing spiritual support, pastoral care in times of need, and colleagueship in ministry and who are now expressing their solidarity with the sisters by petitions and personal letters of protest to the Cardinal, the Visitator, the Apostolic Delegate, and local ordinaries as well as by individual and collective testimonies to and about the sisters (see, e.g., U.S. Catholic, “Entered into Evidence [75:1, Jan. 2010]).

He failed to consult moderate bishops, like those in California, who have publicly testified that without women religious their dioceses would not have become what they are and would not be functioning as well as they are today. (I could be really snarky here, but I'll refrain. Proof is in the pudding.) He failed to consult significant groups of religious outside the United States, such as AMOR (conference of women Religious in Asia and Oceania) and UISG (International Union of Superiors General in Rome), which have expressed in public statements their appreciation of, support for, and solidarity with U.S. religious. (Wasn't this investigation about the communities within the U.S.? If so, how would it make any difference to consult with those overseas? Makes no sense unless she's angling for a defense team, which she is.) He failed to consult the sisters themselves who could have enlightened him on the size and ideological commitments of the one small group of religious he did consult and the few rightist bishops, in this country and in Rome, to whom he listened.

Many people, including many religious, think this investigation is an unprecedented assault on religious. ("Assault" - Here we go again with the criminal language. This is a sly tactic of the left. Frame an argument by using certain language and you can change someone's perspective in time. Her choice of comparative language only gets better, as you'll soon see.) Its scope may be unprecedented but its content certainly is not. Many, perhaps most, religious congregations in this country have in their archives documents and correspondence chronicling equally or even more serious confrontations between their order and the local ecclesiastical authorities. (Confrontation seems to be common with them. Is this the role of women religious?)

These records, going back decades or even centuries, tell of threats and intimidation to enforce conscience-violating policies or practices (such as racial discrimination) instigated by members of the hierarchy, drastic sanctions for non-subordination to clergy in matters over which the clerics had no jurisdiction, demotion and even permanent exile without due process of lawfully elected and even revered superiors (including founders), appointment without election of compliant puppet governments, interference in appointments of sisters, unilateral closing of institutions, forced acceptance of apostolates not appropriate to the congregation, and even outright theft of financial assets, to name only the most egregious examples. (I am not saying that the Catholic hierarchy has been 100% fair or perfect. I don't have all the facts. But Sr. Schneiders is trotting all this out as though not one circumstance of an investigation was warranted. So the hierarchy is painted as "The Big Bad Wolf" and the women religious were nothing more than Little Red Riding Hood on her way to her grandmother's house. Nice victimization zing. By the way, Sister - I don't know if you really want to go down the road of "outright theft of financial assets" when a small group of women religious effectively left the Catholic Church but managed to steal the property.)

Many sisters, until very recently, did not know this part of their congregational histories. These often protracted and traumatic struggles were dark pages that, like many abuse victims, (See how sly she was with this? Now the women religious are "abuse victims" because they were confronted. How is asking questions or calling someone into accountability, "abuse?" Note: feminists cannot have it both ways. If you want to say you're strong, fine. But you can't be "strong" and then claim that you're an "abuse victim.") the corporate victims (the congregations) tried to bury or forget. (Forget? Are you kidding me? Even as someone who has just returned to the Church has noticed a consistent call for justice regarding the sexual abuse cases. And I think that the National Catholic Reporter did its share of exposing this evil, which was right.) Even when the abused know rationally that they are not to blame for what happened to them there is often a sense of deep shame, of being somehow responsible for inciting the abuse, of being “damaged goods” because of what one has undergone (especially if there is wide disparity of power and/or status between abuser and abused), of just wanting it to go away in hopes it will never happen again. (Who is the abused? According to Sister, the women religious. How can there be a "sense of deep shame" when many of these women, according to Sister, were unaware of their past, full of what she claims were "traumatic struggles?")

Of course, it is still happening. The forced dispensation from vows of most of the members of the Los Angeles IHMs in the late 1960’s by a furious Cardinal James F. McIntyre, who could not force these women to submit to his will; (Big Bad Wolf, again. Although I am loathe to reference Wikipedia, in this case, it was the quickest sketch I could find of his Eminence. It was no surprise to find Cardinal McIntyre was a staunch conservative, a promoter of Pope Paul VI's re-emphasization of the Church's stance on contraception [Humanae Vitae], and warned about the ramifications of a liturgical free-for-all from Vatican II. I'm sure the liberal women religious couldn't stand this man.) the years of struggle by superiors who refused to violate the consciences of the twenty-four women Religious who, in 1984, signed a New York Times statement asking for honest discussion (not a change of doctrine or even practice) of the issue of abortion that was seriously dividing the country and the church; (Then why discuss it? The Catholic Church abhors abortion and rightly names it as evil. What's to discuss?) attempts, some successful and some not, to force the dismissal of Sisters legitimately appointed by their superiors to certain ministries, and so on, are within the memory of most religious alive today. In other words, there is nothing new (except perhaps the comprehensive scope of the present investigation) in the struggle between some elements of the hierarchy and women Religious. (Nothing new? So Rome shouldn't be concerned about a bunch of women religious who want "to discuss" abortion? Really?)

One of the most pernicious and characteristic aspects of these episodes is the pervasive appeal to a supposed obligation to “blind obedience to hierarchical authority” as the legitimation for clerical control, and even abuse, of women Religious. (Ah, geez. The "abuse" word, again. I'd also like to point out something. I have not capitalized "religious" as in "women religious" because I'm not sure this is proper. But I find it interesting that Sr. Schneiders capitalizes this word but yet cannot bring herself to capitalize the pronoun "he" for Jesus Christ.) This neuralgic (??) issue of the meaning of obedience is central to the current investigation and it is important to realize that it is not new, not precipitated by late 20th century developments in American society or the post-conciliar church, and not likely to be settled by heavy-handed exercises of coercive power. (The issue of obedience is now compared to Master/Slave. If I'm not mistaken, no women religious was kept in the dark about which Church had authority. It's not like someone put a blindfold on them and told them they were joining the Ladies Garden Club.) The issue goes back to the Gospel and the life of Jesus in his religious and social setting and it will only be clarified by faithful meditation on the Scriptures, prayer, and courageous action.

There is an instructive parallel between the questions religious are asking about the Vatican investigation (and which they have asked before, many times, in similar situations) and the questions scholars (and many ordinary believers) ask about the trial and execution of Jesus. There is a tendency to ask and to stop with, the questions “Who is responsible for the death of Jesus?” and “Why was Jesus executed?” (Like who is responsible for this investigation and what are the charges?)

(This next section is simply breathtaking.)

At one level the answers are fairly easily available to a careful study of the Gospel texts. Jesus was executed by the collusion of the political (Roman Empire) and religious (Jerusalem hierarchy) power elites in first century Palestine. He was executed because his ministry threatened to cause an uprising of the Palestinian peasantry. This would have been fatal to the career of Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor whose job was to keep the Jewish province under control. It would have been even more disastrous for the Jewish leadership who retained what little authority they had over their own religious affairs and population only as long as the Jewish populace did not become problematic for the Empire.

But this basically political-religious motivation is only a first level answer to the questions of “who” and “why”. It does not get at what we really need to know about Jesus and his mission if we want to understand the human predicament from which he came to save us and the radicality of the solution to that predicament that God offered us in Jesus. Until we realize that it is really the human race, including me/us, rather than a few historical figures in first century Palestine, who crucified Jesus we do not yet “get it.” Until we realize that the reason for his execution is anthropological, theological, soteriological, rather than merely regionally political or religious, and that those factors permeate the experience of the whole human race, we have not begun to plumb the real meaning of the paschal mystery or our own implication in it.

Jesus’ prophetic ministry of word and work was not merely a threat to the particular domination systems of Rome and Jerusalem. It was a fundamental subversion of domination itself as the demonic structure operative in human history. (Wow. I am almost speechless. Where is sin mentioned here? If any "demonic structure" exists, it is the one that holds mankind in the bondage of sin. If there is any domination, it is the Original Sin born in the Garden of Eden when the devil convinced Eve that she didn't need God and could figure out life without Him. The domination of the flesh is the most cunning type of domination and the devil excels at encouraging it.) The incarnation was God’s revelation in Jesus that God is not a supreme power controlling humanity through fear of damnation or extinction, (Does not the justice of God have a place within our faith?) nor the legitimator of human domination systems, (What exactly is she talking about? What is a "human domination system?" Political ideology? Or the Catholic Church?) but One who has chosen loving solidarity unto death with us to free us from all fear and bring us into the “liberty of the children of God.”

In this new creation those who held power, Rome and Jerusalem, males and masters, strong and rich, were finished. (If that's not a clear indictment of the Vatican, I don't know what is.) This is why he had to be killed. The historical reasons were real. But they were the local, even surface, manifestation of the deeper reason which involved the re-orientation of the entirety of human history. (Hoo, boy. Nothing said here about the punitive demand of sin. Nothing said about man being unable to save himself and never being able to meet the requirements for absolution. Redemption through the sacrificial blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and the sacrifice of our Blessed Mother, seem to have no place within this perspective.)

Analogously, it is not very complicated, or illuminating, to figure out that women’s religious Life is being used as a symbolic scapegoat in the power struggle in the contemporary church between the promoters of the renewal initiated by Vatican II and a program of tridentine restoration. (Guess she's referring to the Traditional Latin Mass. Oh, the humanity!) Nor is it difficult to identify who have vested interests in the outcome of that struggle. (This is not to suggest that the stakes in this struggle are not very high or that we should be naïve about the extent of damage that could result.) (Want to know who will benefit from the outcome? The future of our Bride, the Church of Jesus Christ. Our children will benefit when they are blessed to have women religious who love the Church, support the Magisterium, and yes, submit to the high calling of being Catholic. Praise God.)

As empire and temple were threatened by the growing sense of empowerment among the oppressed in Palestine, so the absolutist power structure of the institutional church is threatened by the growing consciousness of the People of God of their identity and mission as the Body of Christ. As Jesus was an agent of empowerment (I must have missed this title in the Bible. I keep thinking of Him as being my Lord and Messiah.) who had to be eliminated before he “stirred up the people” and brought down the wrath of the empire on the nation, so those in the church, lay leaders, pastors, bishops, or others -- but especially sisters -- who are fostering the conciliar renewal must be brought under control lest the “crisis” Cardinal Rodé has named explode and bring about a radical claiming of their identity as the People of God and their mission to and in solidarity with the world God so loved.

But why the sisters? We must not overlook the crushing of lay initiatives, the banning of progressive bishops from traditionalist bishops’ dioceses, the brandishing of excommunications, refusal of the sacraments or Christian burial, and public condemnations of Catholic politicians and theologians, etc. as we examine the investigation of Religious. (This really goes beyond the pale. Who is she kidding? I think it's the other way around. There has been a systematic purging from seminaries, dioceses, and Catholic institutions of traditional Catholics and it's been going on for decades. I have heard of Catholic instructors being fired from their positions at a Catholic school for being pro-life or attending the Traditional Latin Mass.) This is not a historically unique occurrence and Religious women are not alone as its objects.

But sisters are a particularly important target for several reasons. First, their sheer numbers and influence. (which Deo Gratias, are waning...) Women religious are not only people who are voluntarily engaged in the life they lead because they are passionately committed to its spiritual and ministerial goals and to Jesus Christ who called them to this life. They are also the largest, best organized, most geographically ubiquitous, most ministerially diversified, and therefore probably most effective promoters of the vision of Vatican II. In some eyes, of course, this means that, as so many lay Catholics have testified, religious are the greatest source of hope for the contemporary church. In other eyes, this means that they are the most serious danger to the “real (that is, pre-conciliar) Church” which these people are trying to restore.

Full Article

The rest of the article expresses the same whine: Vatican II meant we can do what we want. Big, Bad Rome won't let us become priests. Yada, yada, yada.

The bottom line is that liberalism's lie has been exposed. The interpretation of Vatican II by these "dissenters" has done more harm than good. Their communities are dying out and at least one generation left the Catholic Church over their divisive bickering and weak spiritual formation. But things are changing. How ironic that those who heralded the changes of Vatican II with a sharp "get over it" to the faithful who questioned it, are now resisting change because it wears a biretta.

I know, Sister. Change is hard.

Vatican Investigation of Women Religious Extends to LCWR #Catholic

From U.S. Catholic:

Just weeks after the visitation of American women religious congregations was announced, the Leadership Conference of Women's Religious (LCWR) learned that it would be the subject of a doctrinal assessment by the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF).

The 44-year-old LCWR has 1,500 members who represent about 95 percent of U.S. women religious. It is a resource to the leaders of congregations and it also provides a collective voice on issues of justice.

The CDF met with LCWR's leaders nine years ago to inquire how they were receiving and promoting church teaching in three areas: ordination of women, interfaith relations, and homosexuality. According to the National Catholic Reporter, the CDF prefect, Cardinal William Levada, informed LCWR leaders of the need for the current assessment in a 2009 letter: "Given both the tenor and the doctrinal content of various addresses given at the annual assemblies of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious in the intervening years, this dicastery can only conclude that the problems which had motivated its request in 2001 continue to be present."

Full Article

Whoa! Now that's being crystal-clear. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith met with these women nine years ago to discuss, yes - problems. When the Vatican appears and says it has a problem with your doctrine, wouldn't you think it wise to listen and perhaps mend your ways? I'm not getting that impression, here. In fact, I get the impression that the women religious who advocate the ordination of women as priests and acceptance of an active homosexual lifestyle are fighting the Vatican on all fronts. Gosh, that's so like Jesus. Oh, wait...

I can only imagine what the "interfaith" issue is about. (Blending a little Wiccan with your morning devotions, Dorothy?)

The LCWR Website

For a real eye-opener, visit the LCWR site and poke around. Prominently featured on their home page is "Social Justice." Check into the issues that they support and you'll see a list that suspiciously looks like the same list of a leftist. The usual suspects are there: Support for government-run healthcare, the old "global warming" issues, activism against the war in Iraq and any military action against Iran, the legalization of illegal immigrants, etc., etc. But what really amazed me was a downloadable paper on "systems thinking." Egads.

If you want to download it and read it in its entirety, go for it. I couldn't bear reading the entire piece of drivel. Here's a snippet to give you an idea of their approach. I've emphasized certain words and phrases that to me, are "red flags.":

With its precision, Western thinking also succeeded in separating science from religion, science from ethics, and theology from spirituality. Philosophy, theology, and scientific, political, and social theory continued to develop and reinforce the rightness of this way of interpreting life’s meaning. Theologians, for example, tried to deal with the dismissal of theological knowledge as less provable and therefore less important than scientific knowledge by attempting to design theological study along the lines of scientific “proofs.” Little by little, dualistic and hierarchical distinctions grew from being descriptive of the physical world to being definitive not only of the physical world but of social relationships as well.

The ultimate result was a learned inability to think in any other than linear, dualistic, and hierarchical ways when dealing with problems, organizing ideas or work, and in structuring society, church, or our religious congregations.

This way of seeing reality thus became an unconscious filter for the Western mind, a filter that made it easy to judge immediately what fit or did not fit a particular situation, to distinguish and define what was good, true, and right from what was bad, false, and wrong. The world was stable and sure, a machine-like structure of predetermined and fixed relationships. The human mind could comprehend the universe in its entirety. (Oh, brother. Who has ever claimed to comprehend the universe?) People accepted this explanation of the order they could see in the physical universe and in the natural structures of family and community. They designed other organizations on the basis of this same “rightful order.”

Furthermore, people of faith saw in this “rightful order” the will of God. In this world, the sacred and the secular, the church and the state, science and religion, lived consciously at odds with each other. But it was this worldview unconsciously held in common which gave both the sacred and the secular spheres the rationale for their respective interpretations of life, and at the same time fostered their mutual sense of hostility. (!!)

Pretty amazing, no?

As for me, I've studied my share of philosophical writings while in college. As I read and half-skimmed parts of this document, I kept looking for Jesus. Where is Jesus in all of this? Where is His commandments and teachings that He gave us? Yes, we're to love one another and this loving is expressed in many different ways; such as feeding the poor and caring for the needy. But this "Opportunity to Act for Systemic Change" is to me no more than an attempt to cloak the desire to rebel against the Church and embrace what - chaos? Anarchy? As far as "systems" go, what is the alternative to the hierarchy of the Catholic Church? A good alternative, I should say. I think none. God is a God of order. We see it in nature and know that order brings peace and security. In Scripture, as the newly formed Church began its mission, it was clear that Jesus Christ Himself had instilled in it God's divine order. There were twelve Apostles who were given authority to teach and preach the Gospel.

Then there were deacons and bishops who were added to the structure in order to help define leadership and allow the Church to communicate and work together. This "system," if you will, has lasted over a thousand years. But have no fear - this "systemic thinking" is going to 'correct' that which never was broken! It's ridiculous. God made His message clear and simple. Not easy, but easy to understand. One does not need a Ph.D to read the Bible, pray, and respond to the world according to their faith.

Here's their statement on social justice:

Working for a more just and peaceful world is an integral component of LCWR's vision and goals. While many member congregations are actively engaged in efforts promoting social, economic, and earth justice, LCWR provides opportunities for addressing issues of concern with a corporate voice by taking action on resolutions approved at the national assembly. Resolutions are kept before the members through the work of the Global Concerns Committee and periodic publications of Resolutions to Action.

Marxist, Much?

Yes, it reminds me of Marxism. Whenever anyone tries to pit one side of anything - be it a group or structure - against another, know that they are setting up the scenario of class struggle. There is always a conflict and it must, in the eyes of a Marxist, be defeated by destroying the "oppressor" or oppressing structure. This is going on in America right now with the attacks on capitalism and insistence on universal healthcare. It is tragic that women who entered into the religious life have been duped into thinking that their life is to be given to "causes" and activism instead of promoting the doctrine of our faith. When I think of my childhood, I remember the nuns who obviously loved Jesus Christ, their Spouse. They passed along that beautiful curiosity and desire for spiritual intimacy. It was from them that I understood there was something deeper to life than getting all the toys I wanted or to be popular.

I am not sure what the CDF will accomplish. As far as "systems" go, all I can see is a complete dismantling of the LCWR and a reconstruction from the ground up in order to get it back on track. If these women want to be Marxists, then leave the religious communities and do so. Don't try to fool the Catholic Church into thinking you're religious when in truth you're not.

Women Religious Dissenters Show True Colors to Vatican #Catholic

From LifeSite News, emphasis mine:

December 8, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Some groups of American Catholic sisters are continuing to defy the Vatican's attempts to assess their lifestyles and choice of mission. Many say they are simply refusing to fill out the questionnaire for the Vatican's Apostolic Visitation, an investigation into the lives and work of the remaining US religious orders.

Others have complained that the Vatican has not been forthcoming about the reason for the investigation and say they fear being forced back into more traditional patterns of religious life.

Sister Elizabeth Ohmann, a Franciscan nun who works for Humane Borders, an immigration lobby group, noted that the investigation is focusing on active sisters rather than those cloistered in monasteries. She told the Arizona Daily Star that she believes the Visitation is targeting those communities that dissent from Catholic teaching, especially on sexuality.

"I think - and this is my opinion - that they are saying they believe it's the active communities that are really encouraging, say, women priests and are also upholding the rights of homosexuals and even homosexual marriage," she said.

Ohmann admitted that she and some of her fellow sisters were among these, saying, "Are we going contrary to Rome's teachings? I say, 'Yes, it is contrary to Rome's teachings.' But it is not contrary to my own conscience."

Full Article

I am certain these women religious are aware of the investigation's purpose. It's already been shown that vocations in the United States have suffered a decline since 1965. It also has been made clear that the older communities who abandoned tradition and embraced feminism and Marxism are shutting down. The religious communities that are flourishing are the ones who live in community and wear the habit.

My point about this article is that it raises several questions I have that I'd like to pose to my Catholic readers: When is it time to question one's decisions made with a "Catholic conscience?" When is it right to disagree with the Magisterium? From the Catholic Church Catechism:

In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path, we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord’s Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church. (Catechism, Part Three, Article Six no. 1785)

I ask because these sisters seem to think that going against the Church teaching of homosexuals living chaste lives is wrong. They also misunderstand the role of the masculine within the priesthood, instead embracing a philosophy of "equality" that has as much to do with it as an apple with an orange.

I am glad for this investigation because the women religious who are dissenters are now showing their true colors to the Vatican. They don't care about their dwindling numbers and the very justifiable reasons that the Vatican should be concerned. They aren't looking at this investigation as an opportunity to explore together what they might do to improve vocations. No. Instead, they are banging the "Me-Me" drum. It's all about them. Not about the future of vocations and the continuity of our faith in the world - but them and their radicalism.

This, more than anything, should show the women religious an important lesson. If they have truly died to their own desires in order to fully serve Jesus Christ, would they be putting up such a fight? If they examined their own conscience "before the Lord's Cross," meditating upon what He has sacrificed and what was given to us as a gift, would there be any change in their hearts?

I wonder. Because it's obvious they have no intention of being "guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church." It seems they've already placed themselves as the higher authority, answering to no one.

Vatican Apostolic Visitation to Women Religious: We're Not Going Anywhere

Well. Although some women religious have not met the deadline for their response, and some have sent in incomplete responses, the Apostolic Visitation Office says they are moving ahead as planned.

Washington D.C., Dec 4, 2009 / 03:54 pm (CNA).- Responding to a report which claimed that the majority of women religious are not complying with the apostolic visitation, the Apostolic Visitation Office has said that “some congregations” have sent incomplete responses but the effort is moving ahead as planned. The National Catholic Reporter in a Nov. 24 article cited unnamed sources who claimed a significant number of religious congregations were not cooperating with the Apostolic Visitation.

The Apostolic Visitation’s assistant for communications, Sr. Kieran Foley, FSE, responded to a CNA inquiry about the reported boycott.

She said the office continues to receive responses from major superiors to the questionnaires and has not yet completed its review of these responses.

“In a spirit of confidentiality, as I am sure you will understand, we are not at liberty to disclose how many we have received or from whom,” Sr. Foley told CNA. “While some of the congregations did send incomplete answers to the questionnaire, the Apostolic Visitation will be moving ahead as planned with the phases as described on the Apostolic Visitation web site, that is, at the completion of the data collection from the questionnaires (Phase 2), we will proceed to Phase 3, conducting selected on-site visits to congregations.”

Read the article

So get your No. 2 pencils sharpened, New Age crystal-mamas. You're not getting a pass with this one.

Women Religious Tell Vatican To Pound Sand: They're "Breaking the cycle of violence" #Catholic

This entire article is simply breathtaking in its arrogance and level of outright rebellion. Below are snippets from the article and my comments in red. From the National Catholic Reporter:

Women Religious Not Complying With Vatican Study

"There's been almost universal resistance, we are saying 'enough'"

The vast majority of U.S. women religious are not complying with a Vatican request to answer questions in a document of inquiry that is part of a three-year study of the congregations. Leaders of congregations, instead, are leaving questions unanswered or sending in letters or copies of their communities' constitutions.

"There's been almost universal resistance," said one women religious familiar with the responses compiled by the congregation leaders. "We are saying 'enough!' In my 40 years in religious life I have never seen such unanimity.

Many women, instead of filling out the forms, replied by sending in copies of their Vatican -approved orders' religious constitutions. A religious order's constitution states its rationale, purpose and mission. (Because after all, that's what the Vatican needs as the yardstick of measurement. Forget about Catholic identity - these women religious constitutions trump everything, such as loyalty to the Magisterium or the the Catechism of the Catholic Church.)

The Vatican initiated the study in January, saying its purpose is to determine the quality of life in religious communities, given the decline in vocations in recent decades. From the outset, the women have complained they were never consulted before Vatican officials announced the investigation and there is no transparency in the process. Some have called the effort demeaning and intrusive. (And I'm sure if they were consulted, they would have responded with kindness and full cooperation. I suppose somewhere along the way to their "communities," they forgot that they were accountable to a higher authority. And besides, if individual women religious communities were contacted while others weren't, we would have been hearing the high screech of outrage from those who were targeted. It's obviously a better choice to do an 'across-the-board' evaluation of all women religious. Nothing like fairness!)

By contrast, according to the source, congregations representing, by far, the greater majority of women religious decided not to comply and answered only a few, or none, of the questions. Many of the 340 U.S. apostolic congregation heads instead sent letters to Millea stating that what they were sending was what the Vatican was looking for. (Um. No. The Vatican is looking for answers to their questions. All the questions. Otherwise, they wouldn't have asked.)

"Cover letters [to Millea] have been respectful and kind," one woman, familiar with the responses, told NCR. "Many of the letters have essentially said that what we have to say about ourselves has already been said in our religious constitutions." (Back to their constitutions. Get the feeling that they have some issues with the Magisterium?)

The Vatican questionnaire is divided into three parts. Part A attempts to collect quantifiable information about such things as membership, numbers, living arrangements, health, and retirement conditions. Part B and Part C (bottom of Part B) aim to gather detailed information about community governance practices, vocation efforts, spiritual and liturgical practices, ministry and finances. (An interesting side note: The Vatican withdrew several questions from Part C that asked for individual ages of the women, assets belonging to the congregation and recent financial statements. In light of this situation, I think that's not a good idea. [mantilla nod to Cathy of Alex and Vincenzo] Now, looking at Part B, I'm wondering if they're constitutions fully cover the areas of vocation efforts, and spiritual and liturgical practices. Somehow, I doubt it.)

Several women religious said that, in discerning their responses to the questionnaire which they felt were intrusive, there emerged a new sense of identity and resolve. One said that for years women religious have focused on the needs of others. This time they had to focus on themselves. (Let me see - the Vatican asks questions, which if one were faithful to the Magisterium, should prove to be no problem, why would you feel those questions are intrusive?)

She said women religious have been virtually unanimous in spirit that they have been living out their missions, as directed by the gospels and by the Second Vatican Council, which called upon religious communities to go out in the world to work among the poor and to build more just and peaceful structures. (Whew. This is where I have to start to put duct-tape over my head to keep it from exploding. "Build more just and peaceful structures" raises several questions: 1) Is not the Vatican a 'just and peaceful structure?' 2) Did Vatican II specifically issue a mandate for the Roman Catholic Church to go out and build new structures? and 3) Who has defined what a 'just and peaceful structure' is to be? The Vatican? Marxism? Hinduism? Marianne Williamson?)

She explained that in the process church prelates lost the control over women religious congregations they once had. She said many women religious believe the investigation is part of an effort to regain that control. (Alright. This is just getting downright funny. "Lost control?" Let me see if I can explain it in their terms. You have a commune. Everyone shares everything. Then there's a small group of people who want to move away to Gary, Indiana because they feel "called" to serve there. The commune sends them there with their blessing, expecting to still maintain a relationship. Team Gary-Indy group takes the commune manifesto with them, promising to stay true to it. Years go by. Suddenly, the commune realizes that Team Gary-Indy has gone off the deep end and became a training ground for clown terrorists. They are concerned. They send out an investigative team who promptly gets pummeled by water balloons. Is it an issue of "lost control" or rather, staying true to the commune's manifesto, which is the identifying image to the rest of the world? You make the call.)

"Vatican II took us out of the ghettos and into ecology, feminism and justice in the world," she said. "The Vatican still has a difficult time accepting that." (I think the Vatican has a difficult time accepting that women religious have become Marxists. Social justice, class and gender warfare, and now the "new kid on the block," ecology - are all tools of Marxism to change our society, which is founded upon free choice. It's also important to note that Marxism also slams religious institutions and that Marxism is an atheist view of human liberation, which sounds more and more like what these women religious want.)

Some of the women interviewed by NCR cite an irony involved in the investigation. One said that it is "unlikely the Vatican wanted us to come out of this being more confident of our identity as self-defining religious agents, but that is exactly what has happened."

Another said: "At first, many women were asking, 'How do we respond? Then we were asking, 'How do we respond faithfully in keeping with our identity?' And soon we were asking, 'What is that identity?' " (Notice that no one is talking about Catholic identity?)

Several women said canon lawyers told the women they were not required to answer all the questions. Religious, unlike bishops, priests and deacons, who make up the clergy, are not officially part of the church's hierarchical structure. According to this reasoning, women religious are responsible to their congregation leadership and to their constitutions. (Okay. I admit this is an area that I do not understand. If women religious are not officially part of the church's hierarchical structure, what is the justification for jurisdiction over them? The Vatican must have some level of jurisdiction, otherwise they couldn't conduct the investigation. Somehow, though, I'm suspecting the Vatican has more authority over them than they want to admit.)

NCR contacted several canon lawyers consulted by women religious communities. These canon lawyers declined to be interviewed for this story. (Gee. A lawyer who doesn't want to talk to the press. Who'd have thunk it?)

All along, said one woman religious, the challenge has been to respond to the Vatican in a way that breaks a cycle of violence. (Are you kidding me? Violence?!) She said that the women religious communities have attempted to respond by using a language "devoid of the violence" they found in the Vatican questionnaire and within the wider study. She characterized the congregation responses as "creative and affirming," and part of an effort to set a positive example in "nonviolent resistance." (Oh. My. Gosh. This is that awful, convoluted pseudo-intellectual-speak they teach in universities. All the Vatican is doing is asking questions. Obviously, these women don't like being asked questions, but it's a huge stretch to say that the asking is "violent." That is just crazy-talk and I refuse to accept the premise.)

"On the one hand we didn't want to roll over and play dead," she said. "So the question was, "How do you step outside a violent framework and do something new?' That was the challenge that emerged." One congregation, she said, cited a U.S. bishops' statement concerning domestic abuse in its response letter to Millea. "The point is, there have to be more than two choices: Take the abuse and offer it up, or kill the abuser." (!!!!!)

Women religious, she said, are asking if there is a "Ghandian or Martin Luther King way" to deal with violence they felt is being one to them. (Ladies, the questions aren't violent. I'm sure they're straightforward. From Part B, question 1.F. "What are your hopes and concerns about the future of your religious institute in living its charism in the Church?" Wow. Get out the human chain protests. That question is just over the top.)

At issue, according to several women religious, is the role women religious are to play in the world today. As much as any other element in the church, women religious claim Vatican II's documents as a call go out in the world, loved and blessed by God, and to serve within it.

During the pontificates of Pope John Paul II and Benedict the XVI the hierarchy, many church observers say, has pulled back from these directives, seeing the world as a more hostile environment. They view the church as a bastion of light and love within this world and want the women religious to work more directly from within church structures. (The world is a more hostile place. If people can't see that, they're blind. With Islamofascists wanting to kill us, labor unions wanting to destroy nationalism and dismantle capitalist societies, and radical liberalism seeking to undermine traditional values in schools, universities, and institutions - I'd say yes, we're under attack. "We" being those who love freedom and God. So if the Vatican isn't peachy with a bunch of aging hippie-women marching to the drumbeat of those hostile groups, I say rock on, Papa Ben & Company. As far as I'm concerned, these women don't deserve to be affiliated in any way whatsoever with the Catholic Church. In fact, I think kicking them to the nearest multi-culti, diversity spiritual enterprise, like say, oh - I don't know, it's a stretch but let's just say the Unitarians - would really be a great idea and save the Vatican and us a lot of time and money.)

Full Article

Well, I'm spent. I need to break for dinner but feel free to add your own thoughts. This investigation is revealing more and more how absolutely out-of-control these women are when it comes to being Catholic. I may add more thoughts later about the issue of submission, which I'm sure is a favorite topic for these types.