Tuesday, May 01, 2012

Crisis between U.S. nuns and Vatican has been a long time coming

The doctrinal rebuff which the LCWR received from the Holy See, has its roots back in 1971, when the U.S.’s women religious rewrote their statute.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, led by U.S. Cardinal William Levada, has asked for a deep reform of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR), the organisation which represents the majority of religious women’s orders in the United States. 

The request for the reform came after the conclusions of an inquiry showed that ““the current doctrinal and pastoral situation of the LCWR is grave and a matter of serious concern.” 

The Congregation concluded that an intervention from the Vatican was necessary to reform the group. 

The Archbishop of Seattle, Peter Sartain, was chosen as the Vatican delegate to supervise the reform process. 

The leader of the LCWR will have to assist in reviewing the group’s statutes, plan programmes, review liturgical texts and reconsider the group’s affiliations to other organisations.
 
The Congregation’s declaration based on the results of an apostolic visit by the Bishop of Toledo, Ohio, Leonard Blaire, revealed "serious doctrinal problems which affect many in consecrated life." 

According to the Congregation of the Doctrine for the Faith, many American nuns have drifted away from “the fundamental Christological centre and focus of religious consecration.” 

One of the more serious accusations was that nuns had challenged the teachings of the Catholic Church on subjects such as homosexuality and the priesthood and that they had promoted “radical feminist themes incompatible with the Catholic faith.” 

The organisation was also criticised for making public statements that “disagree with or challenge positions taken by the bishops, who are the church's authentic teachers of faith and morals.” 

American bishops are critical of some aspects of Obama’s health care reform and yet dozens of nuns signed a document in support of it, detaching themselves from the stance taken by the Holy See on the issue. 

On its website, the LCWR says it has 1500 members and represents 80% of women religious in the U.S.

But this crisis goes back a long way.

“After having studied this for many years, I think it was 40 years in the making,” Ann Carey, author of Sisters in crisis: the tragic Uraveling of Women religious communities said. 

Relations between the LCWR and the Vatican have been stormy since 1971, when the LCWR rewrote its statutes. 

“The Vatican was patient, trying to give the sisters some guidelines to modify the direction they were taking, and they resisted that.” 

The changes made were so drastic that some nuns actually left the LCWR and formed a separate group, known as the Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious (CMSWR). 

But - and this is probably one of the many reasons that have driven the Holy See and particularly the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, while the Congregation for religious life has taken a much softer line – it is this minority that has the largest number of vocations. Indeed, numbers of women religious in the U.S. have dropped from 179.954 in 1965 to 55.000 today.

After their initial reaction to the inquiry’s conclusions, the leaders of the LCWR are now saying they are cautiously open to dialogue with the commission of American Bishops set up by Rome and led by the Archbishop of Seattle, J. Peter Sartain. 

“We will engage in dialogue where possible and be open to the movement of the Holy Spirit: We ask your prayers for us and for the Church at this critical time," the Archbishop said in a statement. Mgr. Sartain said he was committed to “help[ing] the sisters and the LCWR recognize that we are all in this together.” 

He went on to speak about his “personal appreciation for the role of religious women in the United States” and all the “all the extraordinary things they have done.” Sartain is aiming for a soft approach. Others, however, are less diplomatic. For example, Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke, head of the Vatican Supreme Tribunal, who some time ago denounced the "public and obstinate betrayal of religious life by certain religious."

Of course, the secular press immediately sided with the nuns against the Vatican. But there are others who are asking themselves whether certain kinds of behaviour and attitudes should be tolerated in the Church. George Weigel, a Church historian, writes that in most cases, as far as the LCWR is concerned, “their spiritual life is more likely to be influenced by the Enneagram and Deepak Chopra than by Teresa of Avila and Edith Stein; their notions of orthodoxy are, to put it gently, innovative; and their relationship to Church authority is best described as one of barely concealed contempt.”

In some communities of nuns belonging to the LCWR, many do not attend the Eucharist regularly because - Weigel says - they cannot abide the “patriarchy” of a male priest presiding at mass. Some churches allegedly celebrate fake Eucharistic services. In others, liturgical rules are said to bend the liturgical norms to the breaking point in order to radically minimize the role of the male priest. 

And as Weigel mercilessly adds, “The other fact to be noted about the LCWR congregations — largely unremarked in the Gadarene rush to pit plucky nuns against Neanderthal prelates — is that they're dying.” 

Faced with the theological, spiritual and behavioural meltdown of many congregations, “young Catholic women have quite sensibly decided that, if they wish to do good works or be political activists while dressing like middle-class professionals and living in apartments, there is little reason to bind themselves, even in an attenuated way, to the classic vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience.” According to Weigel, without a radical overhaul, it is a matter of a decade or so before these orders, which are becoming “greyer and greyer”, disappear.

According to Marjorie Murphy Campbell, the LCWR’s main slipup was on the abortion question: “Sadly, in my opinion, many Catholic feminists, including the religious leadership of the LCWR, opted to ignore the fundamental conflict between the Church’s teaching on abortion and the foundational nature of abortion to the radical feminist agenda.”