Punditry

The defense of the actions of the LCWR seem to me to have some interesting parallels.  Especially concerning the defense of the good works they do and the heritage of women religious in the United States.

First lets make some distinctions.  While on paper the LCWR represent 80% of women religious in the U.S., this does not mean that the leadership’s views are perfectly attributable to the religious they represent.  I have seen examples in even the most dissenting of orders of sisters and nuns totally orthodox in their faith who have quite a difficult time of it in the climate of their orders.   The points I will be making apply mainly to the leadership of the LCWR and those who follow in their false footsteps.  I also think it is not right for them or others to claim the mantle of all the good that vowed women religious have done historically.  No doubt some of these women would be quite appalled at the actions of the leadership of the LCWR.

One of the talking points that came out of the Protestant “Reformation” was that Catholics believed in salvation by works alone.  There is the famous example of Martin Luther inserting the word “alone” after faith in his translation and taking a dim view of the Book of James when that word combination actually occurs, but is preceded by “Not by”. The Catholic view follows the standard template of “both/and” of works informed by faith.  As St. James puts it “Yea, a man will say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith apart from thy works, and I by my works will show thee my faith.”

So in the proper understanding there is no divorce or chasm between faith and works.  Though in practice there can certainly be a chasm between the two.  The practice of good works can be done by those with no faith at all and as an act of love to some extent.  The motives for doing good works can be quite mixed as evidenced by Jesus’s example of the Pharisee’s bragging about their contributions publicly in contrast to the widow’s mite.

The problem with the leadership of the LCWR is that while they can certainly point to good works, what is the faith they point to?  When you have talks about going “beyond Jesus” and have a new age keynote speaker at your conference exactly what faith are they proclaiming?  You can visit the websites of many vowed religious women in the U.S. and look at their “About” page or “Mission Statement” and find no reference to Jesus at all. The Virgin Mary also seems to have gone missing.  In most cases you are more likely to find a link to the United Nations than to the Vatican.  You are also more likely to find out information about Reiki than the Rosary.  It was not glitch they had a new age keynote speaker as new age practices are fairly common, though disguised behind such things as centering prayer and the Enneagram.  A Franciscan convent offers “enlightenment” classes that include Wicca (witchcraft), I Ching (Chinese fortune-telling), and Oriental meditation. The sisters staff “The Christine Center for Meditation,” teaching yoga, astrology, and Tarot card readings.  These may or may not be isolated examples, but they are indicative of what you will find. The masters of the contemplative life such as Doctors of the Church St. John of the Cross and St. Teresa of Avila strangely do not have the same presence as regards to classes.

Jesus told the Apostles “He who hears you, hears me” and the leadership of the LCWR seems to be a bit hard-of-hearing.  Repeatedly they have been in opposition to the Vatican, not just on prudential matters, but dogmatic ones. The Resource Center for Religious Institutes, an arm of the LCWR actually helped some Benedictine women set up a non-canonical order outside the Church  and keep all the property.  They actually held a workshop later for helping other orders go non-canonical. Sr. Joan Chittister a past president of the LCWR actually recommends that the LCWR also goes non-canonical to escape Vatican interference.  Really non-Canonical seems to be code words for non-Catholic.  The Gospel has become a limited set of social work and not the Good News of Jesus Christ.  There are many that confused Blessed Mother Teresa as just a prominent social worker or a social or social activist. Yet all that she did flowed out of her love for Jesus and his Church.  That same accusation towards the LCWR leadership seems to me to have more weight.

Blessed Mother Teresa’s love for the poor and work for them also led to many conversions to the faith.  This is not a claim I believe the LCWR can make.  Not only can they not bring others to the faith, the orders they represent are shrinking  giving proof to the adage that dissent is akin to spiritual mules unable to reproduce.  From a pragmatic point of view you could almost just wait for the LCWR to die out rather than having the CDF intervene.  But pragmatic points of view ignore the human person and the good that correction brings to conformity to truth – truth himself Jesus Christ. It is quite easy to take the point of view that really that the actions and policies of the LCWR are indistinguishable from modern-day Anglicanism and really they should just leave and quit the pretense of being Catholic.  That point of view also quits the  pretense of being Catholic.  Though the CDF working with the LCWR is almost a form a ecumenical outreach.

What will come of LCWR under the guidance of the CDF is hard to tell.  There are competing factions within the LCWR and some that will welcome what others call an intrusion.  Jimmy Akin’s interview with Ann Carey is quite interesting considering the research she has done on the LCWR and vowed religious women in the United States.  She also does not predict what is going to happen here.  Taking the pessimistic view is the easy route for me, praying for them, which I must do, comes less easily — as most worthwhile things tend to be.

Notes: Transcript of Jimmy Akin Podcast “Sisters in Crisis” with Ann Carey 

An article with the laughable name “Return of the Rottweiler: Pope Benedict Cracks Down on Women’s Rights” has the typical verbiage about the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith concerning the LCWR. Interesting that women’s rights now include to be a dissenting nun/sister as if error has rights. Another example of rights without corresponding responsibilities.

The article contains the typical boilerplate.

• Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith use to be called the  Inquisition  – Check.
• LCWR does nothing but good works and the Vatican is just being mean for no good reason – Check.
• Lively debate about abortion and euthanasia in the United States – Check.
• “Conservative” bishops on the attack – Check.
• Priest-pedophilia scandal mentioned for no discernible reason – Check.
• The Pope was once a Hitler Youth – What they forgot that one?  They are slipping.

The language of the article is as funny as the title.

• “God’s Rottweiler”—has made a startling comeback. And he’s taking a bite out of a major organization of American Catholic women.”
• “eliminating those that offend Catholic doctrine, and chivvying these incorrigible liberals back onto the straight and narrow.”
•  “But the tone of purring approval is quickly replaced by the flashing of naked claws, as the Vatican takes a swipe at the organization’s attitude …”

But there is some positive balance in the article “So far Pope Benedict has not been as ferocious a pope as many liberal Catholics feared.”  Well balance meaning one sentence not being totally condemning.

Oh and one more “Check” the tag of devout used to refer to a Catholic whose devoutness does not included fidelity to the faith.

One devout woman expressed her reaction in the form of a prayer: “Please give me bigger blindfolds and larger earplugs or tell me how to belong to a group that constantly tries to discourage my participation.”

What no prayer for the conversion of the eviiilllll all-male hierarchy? Though it is hard to imagine even bigger blindfolds and earplugs when it comes to dissenting Catholics. Seems they already have that covered. But as far as participations goes, the opposite is true. The Church always wants fuller participation in the faith and the removals and anything that blocks that. Full engagement requires apprehension of the truth.

While most of the coverage is pretty awful, surprisingly NPR ran a fairly decent piece. A The Anchoress wrote:

…a three-way interview on the LCWR story with Journalist John Allen, Christendom College’s Donna Bethell and Sister Simone Campbell of NETWORK. All three are considerably more thoughtful and balanced on the issue than some print-media reports and Catholic analysts would suggest.

VATICAN CITY (CNS) — Meeting a group of major U.S. donors to Catholic charitable works, Pope Benedict XVI asked them to pray “for the freedom of Christians to proclaim the Gospel and bring its light to the urgent moral issues of our time.”

The pope met April 21 with about 80 members of the Papal Foundation, who presented him with an $8.5-million donation that will be used to fund scholarships and 105 Catholic projects in close to 50 countries.

The projects include the construction of five schools in Egypt, where Christian leaders and human rights activists have been concerned about ensuring religious freedom as the country transitions to a democratic government.

While the pope did not refer to any specific conflicts involving religious freedom, his remarks to the American group also may have alluded to current tensions in the United States over the right of Catholic bishops and institutions to act according to Catholic teaching in matters of adoption and health insurance coverage.

Pope Benedict also paid tribute to the “historic role played by women in building up the church in America,” as exemplified by Blessed Kateri Tekakwitha and Blessed Marianne Cope, two North Americans who will be canonized in October.

The pope spoke just three days after the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith announced that it had ordered the reform of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, the main U.S. organization of heads of religious congregations. In the announcement, the congregation said, “the Holy See acknowledges with gratitude the great contributions of women religious to the church in the United States as seen particularly in the many schools, hospitals, and institutions of support for the poor which have been founded and staffed by religious over the years.”

Pope Benedict thanked members of the Papal Foundation for their support for the church’s work in evangelization, education and development.

Bishop Joseph A. Pepe of Las Vegas, secretary of the foundation’s executive board, told Catholic News Service that the idea behind the foundation, which was established in 1988, was to help the pope in his support of Catholics in poor countries. “Every year the pope gives a list of what he’d be interested in” and the foundation evaluates requests it receives in accordance with that list.

Most of the foundation members are “leaders in their communities,” and give generously to their parishes and dioceses, but they also want to assist with the universal work of the church, he said.

Bishop Kevin J. Farrell of Dallas, a member of the board of trustees, said the foundation’s Stewards of St. Peter each pledge $1 million to the foundation and promise to pay it within 10 years.

“It is admirable to see how many people are involved in this, helping the church promote programs of evangelization all over the world. I do believe it is one of the great unwritten stories of charity in our day, especially in the United States,” Bishop Farrell said. [Source]

In other news on the religious freedom front – Todd Starnes of Fox News reports:

The Hutchinson City Council will consider adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the protected classes in the city’s human relations code. They are expected to vote on the changes next month.

According to the Hutchinson Human Relations Commission, churches that rent out their buildings to the general public would not be allowed to discriminate “against a gay couple who want to rent the building for a party.”

Meryl Dye, a spokesperson for the Human Relations Commission confirmed to Fox News that churches would be subjected to portions of the proposed law.

“They would not be able to discriminate against gay and lesbian or transgender individuals,” Dye said. “That type of protection parallels to what you find in race discrimination. If a church provides lodging or rents a facility they could not discriminate based on race. It’s along that kind of thinking.”

Matthew Staver, chairman of the Liberty Counsel Action, told Fox News the proposed law is “un-American.”

“It is a collision course between religious freedom and the LGBT agenda,” Staver said. “This proposed legislation will ultimately override the religious freedom that is protected under the First Amendment.”

He argued that churches cannot be forced by the government to set aside their religious convictions and their mission. And, he warned, some churches could even be forced to rent their buildings for drag parties.

While the LCWR whines about unfair treatment, Thomas L. McDonald posts a speech from the site  of an LCWR keynote speaker and introduces it with:

The keynote speaker for the annual conference of the LCWR is New Age quack Barbara Marx Hubbard. If you’ve never heard of her, just try to imagine a combination of Deepak Chopra and Ray Kurzweil with an extra helping of crazy. Her big thing is Conscious Evolution, which is the latest repackaging of “est” with an added transhumanist/post-humanist subtext. Here she is explaining Conscious Evolution, which sounds like a combination of X-Men comics, techno-fetishizing, narcissism, New Age nonsense, paganism, trite bromides, bad grammar, Gnosticism, and good old heresy.

Read the speech here which really is full-on crazy where we learn what the Resurrection really was (well not really). That this was the keynote speech for even dissident nuns is rather surprising. But when you leave the Magisterium behind you become open to even the most irrational of theology. I think of Frank Sheed’s brilliant book “Theology and Sanity” and really the Magisterium  (guided by the Holy Spirit) keeps us sane as heterodoxy is really a form of insanity in not seeing reality as it really is.

The sympathetic news stories in support of these dissident nuns is to be expected. Though it is funny that members of the LCWR didn’t seem to see this coming considering how many times they talk about being prophetic. Though I am annoyed about the stories scoping all American nuns as coming under this. For them faithful American nuns should be ignored.

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.

A surprisingly respectful article from the Washington Post, also amazingly sneer-free.

Ashley McGuire fell in love with the Catholic Church five years ago, after reading its teaching against artificial birth control.

McGuire, then a skeptical Protestant college student, initially saw the ban as a mandatory march to “domestic slavery.” But the more she read, the more she was blown away by the idea that sex — and women’s bodies — must be about more than physical pleasure.

Yet the images the church uses to promote its own method of birth control freaked her out. Pamphlets for what the church calls natural family planning feature photos of babies galore. A church-sponsored class on the method uses a book with a woman on the cover, smiling as she balances a grocery bag on one hip, a baby on the other.

“My guess is 99 out of 100 21st-century women trying to navigate the decision about contraception would see that cover and run for the hills,” McGuire wrote in a post on her blog, Altcatholicah, which is aimed at Catholic women.

McGuire, 26, of Alexandria is part of a movement of younger, religiously conservative Catholic women who are trying to rebrand an often-ignored church teaching: its ban on birth control methods such as the Pill. Arguing that church theology has been poorly explained and encouraged, they want to shift the image of a traditional Catholic woman from one at home with children to one with a great, communicative sex life, a chemical-free body and babies only when the parents think the time is right.

The article does not really get the nuances concerning Serious motives, just reasons, proportionately serious reasons in regards to the spacing of children. Despite that, quite a positive article considering the author Michelle Boorstein is not exactly known for friendly articles regarding the Church.

I finally got around to watch the Cardinal Pell/Richard Dawkins debate which is about an hour long.

Quite an interesting debate that was fairly civil.  I already knew Cardinal Pell was one sharp cookie, though did not know about his sense of humor and wit.  I also knew Richard Dawkins was not a serious philosophical student and he proved it here in spades.  He also seemed to be quite humorless and multiple times had to ask why people were laughing.  I guess he got the selfish gene, but not the humor one.  I did find Dawkins to be rather charming.

Though like many debates no doubt atheists will think Dawkins got the upper hand and other will think the same of Cardinal Pell.  It was not a perfect debate performance by Cardinal Pell, but it was pretty excellent – though he went off point a couple of times in reply.  Once when the Cardinal was talking about Darwin and his theism, Dawkins called him a liar and the Cardinal replied citing the page number in Darwin’s autobiography.  There were other exchanges like that.

Dawkins referred to “Lawrence Krauss’  book A Universe From Nothing: Why There is Something Rather Than Nothing.” a couple of times – a book the Cardinal had also read.  It is a rather a shell-game of a book where nothing is really something – but a much simpler state.  The Cardinal brought up the critical review of the book from what should have been the sympathetic New York Times.

My opinion of Dawkins is that he is really unequipped for such debates.  His understanding of Christian theology is totally undeveloped and distorted as if it was frozen at a grade school level.  That understanding opposing arguments is not a worthwhile use of his time and thus he would jump in with painfully silly questions for the Cardinal.  For example when the Cardinal explained the creation account and it’s literary form. That a truth was being told in poetical form, not in modern historical writing.  But Dawkins oblivious to the the Cardinal was saying, responded by asking that since Adam and Eve were not real than where did original sin come from?. I felt embarrassed for Dawkins at this point.  As Mark Shea sometimes says “Scratch an Atheist, find a Fundamentalist”.

In a related post Marc at Bad Catholic in his post ReligiON, ReligiOFF wrote in part “It hurts to even mutter the heresy, but Science didn’t spring forth from Richard Dawkins’ ass.”  His post is quite brilliant, especially characterizing the atheist culture at Reddit.