The LCWR’s response to the CDF

I wish I could say the recent press release from the LCWR - Leadership Conference of Women Religious Decides Next Steps in Responding to CDF Report - reflected a positive tone, one of real cooperation with the Vatican, but I’m sorry to say that it doesn’t really appear that way. The statement employs some good buzz words that sound positive, but it doesn’t take too deep a reading to get the message the LCWR is really trying to convey.

Here are some quotations taken from the release with my comments underneath:

• “As the meeting took place, participants were reminded of the thousands of people throughout the country, and the world, who had been communicating with LCWR since the CDF report was issued on April 18, urging that the response be one that helps reconcile the differences that exist within the Catholic Church and creates spaces for honest and open conversations on the critical moral and ethical questions that face the global community.”
  • My thoughts – That is not the job of the LCWR nor is that what is at the heart of the issue between the group and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF). Those who see the CDF’s attempt at correcting doctrinal errors within the LCWR as an opportunity to create space for dialogue obviously don’t understand the relationship between religious organizations (male or female), the local bishop, and the global Church.

• “Utilizing a three day process of sustained prayer and dialogue, the assembly participants considered various responses to the CDF report, with the goal of deciding together on the next best steps for the conference following the assembly”
  • My thoughts – What step, other than following the Church Christ established on the Rock of Peter (Mt 16:18), could possibly be a better (best) step? These women obviously heard and answered the call to follow the Lord. How does one do that in today’s culture that offers so many confusing and conflicting ideas about spirituality? One does it, in large part, by following his representative on earth – the pope. Any other possible decisions, based on worldly cares, desires or possessions, is a decision for the lesser portion (cf. Mt 8:21, Lk 10:41-42)

• “…the members proclaimed their intention to use this opportunity to explain to church leaders LCWR’s mission, values, and operating principles.”
  • My thoughts – Wow! So imagine this. Your boss leaves a copy of your annual performance review on your desk with a note attached saying, “Let’s meet after lunch to discuss.” You read it and disagree with his assessment of your performance. Do you think that after lunch meeting is really an opportunity for you to explain to the boss how he erred in reviewing your performance? Is it the time for you to explain to the boss that while his way of running the company is good, yours is better? Is it really the time for you to tell him the standards by which he is evaluating you are unfair, unjust, or don’t mesh with what you feel you should be evaluated on? Is it the time to tell him that his business, which has been handed down for generations, would do much better with a make over? Well, I suppose you could do all those things in that meeting. But, do you really think you’d keep your job if you did? The idea that the LCWR is going to “explain to church leaders” (small ‘c’?) their take on religious life is arrogant and displays an unwillingness to come and receive the corrective instruction the LCWR desperately needs in order to be considered “Catholic.”

• “Their expectation [the LCWR's] is that open and honest dialogue may lead not only to increasing understanding between church leadership and women religious, but also to creating more possibilities for the laity and, particularly for women, to have a voice in the church.”
  • My thoughts – The laity have a voice. Women have a voice. I have a voice. What is it we are saying when we use it? If we use our “church voice” to advance our own agenda then we are doing it wrong. To me, and I bet to many bishops, this last quote sounds like code for women’s ordination. Take a minute to go through some of the articles on websites like womenpriests.org and the same language (e.g. a forum for open and honest dialogue) is employed.

• “The assembly articulate its belief that religious life, as it is lived by the women religious who comprise the LCWR, is an authentic expression of this life that must not be compromised.”
  • My thoughts – It sounds to me as if they sisters are drawing a line in the sand and telling the CDF not to cross it. Who is it that should determine what is an authentic expression of Catholicism? I always thought it should be the divinely appointment leadership of the Church. Seems to me, they are the ones with the necessary qualifications, not me and not the LCWR.

• “The theology, ecclesiology, and spirituality of the Second Vatican Council serve as the foundation of this form of religious life – and while those who live it must always be open to conversation – this life form should not be discounted.”
  • My thoughts – There isn’t an exception clause to conversion, at least not real conversion. There is no, “I’ll follow, but…” Jesus tells the young man in the story of the rich young ruler looking for eternal life (Mt 19:16-22), to surrender everything and follow him. The young man was unable to let go of his possessions and “he went away sorrowful.” I would submit the focus of LCWR is on itself and not on Jesus; its intent is on maintaining the organization they have created and not on following the Lord. Why would I make such a claim? In this press release statement I am reviewing, there are no mentions of God, Jesus, Holy Spirit, Father, or anything else that might lead you to believe this was an organization focused on following God’s will in the context of the Catholic faith. How does an organization representing 57,000+ Catholic nuns not mention Jesus once?!? By contrast the word “assembly,” as in: “this assembly,” or “the assembly” (i.e. the LCWR) is mentioned 14 times. So I ask you: where is their focus? The sisters focus should be on following Jesus, not in arguing their form of “religious life” is “authentic.”

• “The officers [of the LCWR] will proceed with these discussions [with Archbishop Sartain] as long as possible, but will reconsider if LCWR is forced to compromise the integrity of its mission.”
  • My thoughts – Man, this is bold! In other words, ‘As long as things are going our way, we’ll play along, but the moment we don’t like how things are going, we will take our ball and go home.” Remember what I said earlier? True conversion doesn’t have an exception clause. This is their exception clause, their way out. This is the way they get to play the victim card because they were being told to “compromise their integrity.” The LCWR is sure their lifestyle “must not be compromised” and will reconsider its participation in talks with the CDF’s representative if asked to do so.

• “The members [of LCWR]…urged the officers not to allow the work with the CDF to absorb the time, energy, and recourses of the conference nor to let it distract the conference from the work its mission requires.”
  • My thoughts – I translated this as: “Don’t waste too much time talking to the Vatican, they won’t compromise and neither will we.” Now tell me: who really wins in that scenario? No one! The people the LCWR ministers to will feel the largest negative effect but the whole church will be wounded by another schismatic event. There is nothing good that can come from these nuns obstinately insisting on their version of Catholic religious life over the one espoused by the Church.

• “…Barbara Marx Hubbard, a futurist and author, spoke on consciousness evolution…[requiring] a higher level of ethical, shared commitment and social synergy to realize positive change. {Hubbard] observed that the crises are potential signals driving the world toward more cocreative, coevolving humanity, where people become more fully aware of their potential for healing and evolving the world in new ways….”
  • My thoughts - Does that even remotely sound like Catholicism? Not even close!! Remember I said, there was no mention of God, Jesus, etc. in this whole document. Those things have been replaced by ideas that we as a “cocreative, coevolving humanity” have all the answers. And then the sisters want to know why the CDF is coming down on them for espousing new age themes. Seriously?

We need to sincerely pray that the LCWR will have a true conversion, one without conditions attached to it, and return to the Church. Yes, I said “return.” They may not have left it formally, and I pray they never do, but they have left it many other ways and branches detached from Christ the vine can do nothing (cf. Jn 15:5).

Print PDF

Like it? Share it!

• 

Related posts: