Apr 182012

There has been some very interesting developments lately concerning two 4-letter organizations. The SSPX (Society of Saint Piux X) and the LCWR (Leadership Conference of Women Religious).

I have watched with interest the latest news concerning Vatican dialog with the SSPX and that concerning the CDF’s “Doctrinal Preamble” that “steps forward have been taken, that is to say, that the response, the new response, is rather encouraging. But there are still developments that will be made, and examined, and decisions which should be taken in the next few weeks.”

This is advancing much better than I had suspected it would. Really I was quite pessimistic about any real progress concerning the leadership of the SSPX.  Now I am much more optimistic that something substantive  will occur and I pray that it does.

The news concerning the  Doctrinal Assessment of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious is also very interesting.  This statement from the CDF is the result of the visitation they made to the LCWR in 2009. I remember some thinking this would result in a total white wash with the Vatican effectively doing nothing about the problem.  For myself I have learned some patience in regard to how the Vatican and especially the CDF reacts.  Well really I have realized I need patience on being patient since the CDF really must act slowly and deliberately out of charity for those being investigated.  Really what I would wish for is special Vatican S.W.A.T. Teams that repel out of helicopters onto dissident institutions with specially trained prayer warriors.

Regardless, the CDF is certainly taking the dissent of the LCWR seriously and are acting accordingly.

The overarching concern of the doctrinal Assessment is, therefore, to assist the Leadership Conference of Women Religious in the United States in implementing an ecclesiology of communion founded on faith in Jesus Christ and the Church as the essential foundation for its important service to religious Communities and to all those in consecrated life.

It looks like the LCWR did their Captain Renault impersonation with “I’m shocked, shocked to find that dissent is going on in here!”

In its response, the Presidency of the LCWR maintained that it does not knowingly invite speakers who take a stand against a teaching of the Church “when it has been declared as authoritative teaching.” Further, the Presidency maintains that the assertions made by speakers are their own and do not imply intent on the part of the LCWR. Given the facts examined, however, this response is inadequate. The Second Vatican Council clearly indicates that an authentic teaching of the Church calls for the religious submission of intellect and will, and is not limited to defined dogmas or ex cathedra statements (cf. Lumen gentium, 25). For example, the LCWR publicly expressed in 1977 its refusal to assent to the teaching of Inter insigniores on the reservation of priestly ordination to men. This public refusal has never been corrected. Beyond this, the CDF understands that speakers at conferences or general assemblies do not submit their texts for prior review by the LCWR Presidency. But, as the Assessment demonstrated, the sum of those talks over the years is a matter of serious concern.

The CDF’s plan is a serious plan of guidance and overview. The short version to quote “Animal House” the CDF has declared that “Well, as of this moment, they’re on DOUBLE SECRET PROBATION!” Well maybe not.

The actual steps the CDF is undertaking with their “5 year plan” is available in the doctrinal assessment itself.

The members of the CDF, SSPX, and LCWR are certainly in need of our prayers as this is not going to be an easy process. Though as pessimistic as I was for the full unification with the SSPX, I have pessimism-squared in regards to the LCWR and it’s members. Regardless I will rejoice for each person that does indeed return.

  9 Responses to “Two sides of a coin”

  1. The folks who tend to dissent from the Church, define authoritative teaching very narrowly. If the Pope doesn’t actually sit in The Chair and say “This is Ex-Cathedra” they say it’s not mandatory to believe. I guess Pope John Paul II’s words “in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.” just wasn’t clear enough.

  2. […] Two Sides of a Coin – Jeffrey Miller, The Curt Jester […]

    It’s good that the SSPX has responded positively to the Doctoral Preamble and removed the threat of immediate excommunication. They now have time to reflect on there being only one interpretation of Vatican Council II possible since we do not know of any non Catholics saved in the present time in invincible ignorance,a good conscience, seeds of the Word etc.
    So SSPX, keep rejecting the Jewish Left interpretation of Vatican Council II.
    The liberals cannot support their interpretation with any quotation from Vatican Council II. LG 16 does not support them.
    Whereas the SSPX can cite AG 7 as being in accord with the defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and there are no known exceptions.Once it is understood that Vatican Council II embraces the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus we realize that the SSPX traditional position on ecumenism and inter religious dialogue is in agreement with Vatican Council II.
    So we have the religious freedom according to Vatican Council II (DH) to say other religions are false paths to salvation and they do not have a moral right to profess their faith even though defacto they can and we do not force them to stop.
    -Lionel Andrades

  4. Well he said brethren not brethren and (?) sistren (?) so you see it is not really clear.

  5. Dear Jeff,

    Although, “I’ve” close down my blog, “IT” does not mean that “I’M” not going to share some of “The ?”Spiritual Secrets” that sinner vic tells me, myself and i, NOW and then but whatever you do don’t tell sinner vic that these comments of Victor are not “gospel” cause as we cells and others who have been following Victor’s blogs know that sinner vic is a god and he takes orders from his various alien masters and the last thing we human flesh want to do is call those aliens liars if you know what “I” mean cause as far as they are concerned they’ve got me, me and me on their side so don’t worry be happy…

    Hold “IT” right there sinner vic cause you can’t go around implying that ‘I’m’ an American cause you know that “I’M” a “Canadian” and as a Canadian I believe that Christ married a “Woman” and this woman is “The Church” and that is very simple and for those who find “IT” hard to understand only need to talk to “Christ’ Angels” and they’ll be glad to explain “IT’ to your spiritual reality cells but you want like “IT” cause “IT” is Oat meal for horses. “I” think that humans should just let the dead take care of the dead and quietly go look at movies and let your spiritual reality cells play “Hunger Games” until Christ’ Returns in Glory.

    I better stop NOW Jeff before, me, myself and i decide to start preaching! 🙁


    P.S. This comment was approved by sinner vic and is imaginary friends. 🙂


  6. Re ” Really what I would wish for is special Vatican S.W.A.T. Teams that repel out of helicopters onto dissident institutions with specially trained prayer warriors.”

    I’m not a big fan of Dan Brown and his novels, but having a group of homicidal albino monks a la daVinci Code always struck me as an idea with a lot of potential value.

  7. Can someone please give the smackdown to Jim Martin?


    He is somehow very confused, thinking that the LCWAR is..all nuns. That the CDF told ALL NUNS that they will be evaluated. Typical overreaction.

  8. Dear Mr. Jester:

    You might want to watch your grammar. The first sentence should read, “There have been some very interesting developments…” Developments, being the subject, requires a plural verb form.

    In the culture wars, good grammar is a valuable asset.

  9. My view about the problem with the whole issue of disobedience and dissent is this. While any Catholic may DISAGREE with a Church teaching one does not have any right to DISOBEY that teaching. This is what separates Catholics from Protestants.

 Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>