The Anchoress posts at the First Things blog about Sr. Sandra M. Schneiders and what she had previously written in an email that got published in regards to the recently announced apostolic visitation of women’s communities in America.

I saw this yesterday at the National Catholic Reporter and Sr. Schneiders email quite irked me, though I figured it would be good not to post on it while “irked.”

I am not inclined to get into too much of a panic about this investigation–which is what it is . . . I do not put any credence at all in the claim that this is friendly, transparent, aimed to be helpful, etc. It is a hostile move and the conclusions are already in. It is meant to be intimidating. But I think if we believe in what we are doing (and I definitely do) we just have to be peacefully about our business, which is announcing the Gospel of Jesus Christ, fostering the Reign of God in this world. We cannot, of course, keep them from investigating. But we can receive them, politely and kindly, for what they are, uninvited guests who should be received in the parlor, not given the run of the house. When people ask questions they shouldn’t ask, the questions should be answered accordingly.

So read what The Anchoress has to say on this first since she puts it quite well. But to give a taste:

Sister and her associates seem to have birthed a form of Religious Life that no longer receives “everyone as Christ” but parcels out the hospitality like upper-crust dames who will nod at the social climbers (and even condescend to having them to tea, if it will dispense with an obligation) but who will have the place fumigated once the undeserving have finally been shown the door. Sounds like she’ll count the teaspoons, too.

Can you hear the obedience and humility from the tone of this letter. If you can you have much better hearing than myself. I do wonder what are the questions they shouldn’t ask. My guess would be “Don’t ask us about faithfulness to the Magisterium.” Though I do have to remind myself not to think of these communities as whole blocks because there are faithful Catholics living in these communities where what has happened has been a major cross for them.

I remember when I first read the sisters piece I had quite a good laugh at the following.

I have come to the conclusion that Congregations like ours [the kind represented by the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) in this country] have, in fact, birthed a new form of Religious Life.

Yes a form of Religious Life that does not reproduce itself (thankfully). Progressives have sometimes been called mules because of the fact that there way of life is quite sterile and attracts so few vocations to their way of religious life. When religious life becomes just social work then why take vows? just become a social worker. Blessed Mother Teresa quite disliked when people thought of her work with the poor as just social work.

Well, that’s where I am on this. I refuse to go into a panic over it. There are better things to do. Always glad to hear from any of you on any of this.

What an attitude to take concerning an Apostolic Visitation. Guilty conscience? Surely they realize they have become hotbeds of dissent. If the Democratic Party has monastic life it would be identical to most of these communities. Or maybe it would be more accurate to say if the U.N. had monastic communities since their websites always have links to the U.N. and almost never to the Vatican and I am not just being snide here.

Jesus said “By their fruits you will know them.” Dissent and shrinking communities has been the fruit. They have been pavers of good intentions. That being said, we should pray for Mother Clare Millea, who is leading the visitation project and for the religious communities. I have to admit that when I first read of the apostolic visitation of women’s communities in America I was thinking “Smack down!”, which is not the right attitude for a follower of Christ. So I will go with “Thy will be done” in regards to the visitation instead.

Diogenes has some good questions in response to a Newsweek/Washington Post article by Aloysious Mowe, SJ calling the Church’s theology and discipline sexist and misogynist.

Here’s what I don’t understand. An agnostic or atheist or radical libertarian treats the Church’s claims with skepticism because he has declared himself immune from her authority. Fine. On its own terms that makes sense. But how can a Catholic — and still more a Catholic priest — make use of this skepticism? More to the point: having picked up the tool of skepticism to undercut doctrine A and doctrine B, how does he put it down again to accept as valid doctrines C through Z? If I claim the Church is wrong about, say, the sacrament of Orders — whereas the common opinion of my own social class in my own time has it right — how can I know the Church is a reliable teacher regarding those doctrines I cherish, such as the duty of charity, or the universal destination of goods, or the Resurrection? How can I know these doctrines won’t themselves be exposed as frauds twenty years from now? How can I acquit myself of that self-serving arbitariness I impute to the apostles and the Church fathers?

I have often wondered the same thing. They dig out the foundation of the Catholic faith and then want to stand on empty air proclaiming themselves Catholics. If the Church can get foundational things wrong then only a fool would follow her. The only reason to be Catholic is because it is true – that’s it. I just don’t understand what their ecclesiology can possibly mean other than just being a form of Catholic tribalism. If I believed what they believed of the Church I would denounce the Church as evil and would want no part of it. The Protestant so-called Reformers were at least honest in realizing their theology of the Church was quite at odds with the Church.

Mrs Blair also revealed that every time she did not use contraception, “I seemed to have a baby” in a discussion about the Church’s attitude to birth control and abortion.

She said: “How could I have done all the things I have done if I hadn’t used contraception?”

Yeah, how could she have raised money for Planned Parenthood and all of her other efforts for the culture of death if she didn’t use contraception? We are not wonderfully made you know after all. God didn’t include a fertility off/off switch on our foreheads. Gee didn’t our creator know about careers? You can read all throughout scripture where people brag about careers and not their children. Raising up children for the Kingdom of Heaven just does not compare to a career. All of those executives when they get older lament that they did not spend more time at work instead of their family. Carl Olson has a nice quip to add

Indeed, how could she go about telling people what the Church must do to survive and grow if she hadn’t been busy ignoring the teachings of the same Church? Whatever the intentions, the logic is sterile, although apparently not purposely so.

Cherie Blair also managed to express some other silliness.

The Catholic Church is losing congregations by alienating women and failing to give them a public role, Cherie Blair said last night.

Church leaders must modernise the role of women in order to halt the decline in church attendance, she said. Mrs Blair, herself a Catholic, said: “One of the fundamental weaknesses of modern Christianity is its ambivalence to women, and particularly for Catholicism.

“Until the traditional churches fully resolve their relationship with the female half of the population, how can they expect Christianity to have a future in the modern world?

“Traditionally, it was women who passed religion on to their children and who kept the Church going through good times and bad, but when it comes to the public face of Christianity, women are virtually invisible.

You have to wonder if she has ever been to daily Mass or attended any groups meeting in a church where women are the large majority of people involved. There have been plenty of articles out there complaining about the lack of men being involved in a parish – but for Mrs. Blair facts don’t matter when it comes to feminist gripes. I guess Blessed Mother Teresa was not part of the “public face of Christianity” or the fact that Catholic churches are filled with the examples of great women saints. I guess she must of got tired of saying all those “Hail Joseph’s” – oh wait.

According to Cardinal Mahony

According to the calendar, Ash Wednesday occurs this week and we begin another Lent.

Except for this year.

Lent actually began in 2007 for many thousands of families all across the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, and we have been in a long and protracted season of Lent ever since. In what sense? The annual Lenten season calls us to reflect more deeply into our lives with God, to re-order our personal priorities according to the Gospel, and to live out increased personal sacrifice in our daily living.

Now no doubt for many families the downturn of the economy has lead to sacrifice and part of the Cardinal Message is to take that suffering and to unite it with Christ. Bishop Fulton Sheen said “the biggest waste in the world is wasted suffering” and that is certainly true. Though if we are going to mark the start of Lent as when suffering began I say Lent for L.A. started in 1985 when he was appointed Cardinal. He had a birthday yesterday so for L.A. Lent will only be another 2 years. Now that is pretty snarky for Lent or for anytime of the year really, but considering the state of the seminary and the lack of authentic Catholic teaching in the diocese I think appropriate.