Vatican Lays a Cunning Trap for American Nuns

By Mary Johnson

Author of An Unquenchable Thirst: Following Mother Teresa in Search of Love, Service, and an Authentic Life

At the end of this month, the Leadership Conference of Women Religious will meet to formulate a response to a Vatican trap whose cunning is best appreciated within the long tradition of religious authorities who craft impossible dilemmas for those they perceive as threats.

Two millennia ago, the chief priests sent someone to ask Jesus, "Should we pay taxes?" If Jesus said yes, he would pit himself against Jewish resistance to Roman occupation and therefore, in Jewish eyes, against God. If he said no, the Romans could execute him for sedition. Instead, Jesus famously replied, "Render to Ceaser what is Ceaser's and to God what is God's."

In the fifteenth century, Joan of Arc's ecclesiastical inquisitors asked her, "Do you know yourself to be in God's grace?" If Joan answered yes, she would commit heresy because the Church had long taught that no one could be certain of being in God's grace; if no, they could interpret her answer as an admission of guilt. Joan looked them in the eyes and replied, "If I am not in God's grace, may God put me there; if I am, may God so keep me."

Today, the Vatican tells the women of the LCWR, "Submit to our oversight and control of your every action for the next five years." The Vatican's official "or else" clause remains unstated but clear to all involved. "Submit to our authority, or call yourselves Catholic no longer."

The Vatican has cited the LCWR, which represents over 80% of America's Catholic sisters, for what they call "policies of corporate dissent" on issues including the Church's teaching on human sexuality and women's ordination, and for "radical feminism." The Vatican has appointed Seattle archbishop Peter Sartain to revise LCWR's statutes and create new LCWR programs designed to seep sisters in Catholic dogma. Sartain has veto power over speakers at LCWR assemblies and will review LCWR's affiliations. In short, the Vatican has grounded the sisters and Sartain is the official babysitter.

Any reply the sisters choose to make will have consequences far beyond the keynote speaker at the next annual meeting.

In the fifty years following the Second Vatican Council, the American sisters represented by the LCWR have engaged in discernment and renewal, a process initiated by decree of the popes and bishops at the Council. Not without controversy from Catholics nostalgic for long habits and authoritarian discipline, LCWR Sisters have abandoned traditions that infantilized their members. They've educated themselves, many earning advanced degrees. Inspired by the examples of Jesus and the founders of their religious communities, they moved into ministries with people on the margins: prisoners, the homeless, women, gay and lesbian people, immigrants.

And yes, some of them have occasionally spoken to advocate for gay rights, for women's ordination, for a healthcare plan the bishops opposed. Throughout the process, the LCWR has sought "to develop leadership, promote collaboration within church and society, and serve as a voice for systemic change." The Vatican hasn't been happy to see women blossom as real leaders and they especially don't like that "systemic change" stuff.

Though today's sisters watched two-thirds of their companions in religious life leave the convent after Vatican II -- some unsettled by the changes, others impatient that change didn't happen fast enough -- the American sisters represented by the LCWR have clung to their religious vows and their life with each other in the Church. Baptized in Catholic parishes, raised in Catholic families, educated in Catholic schools, these women experienced what each of them believed to be a call from God to dedicate themselves to him in the Church. They've labored within the Church, often without significant financial compensation, rendering retirement difficult for many. These women have often served as missionaries and some of their companions have given their lives as martyrs. The median age of an LCWR sister today is 74.

Now the Vatican is telling these women they're not Catholic enough.

If the LCWR submits to Sartain's oversight, they assent to being treated as ecclesiastic children who don't know what's best for them; they relinquish the haven they've created to challenge and support each other. As Sister Jeannnine Grammick, founder of New Ways Ministry, a group that works with gay and lesbian Catholics and has been cited in the Vatican assessment, told The New Republic, "If we comply, if we submit to what is being asked by the Vatican, it would be a repudiation of all the renewal that we've done in religious life. I don't believe that nuns will say we can do that."

If they don't submit, if the sisters disband the LCWR and regroup in a configuration beyond Church control, then the official Church will claim that they aren't really Catholic any more. If the Vatican would declare any group of sisters to be outside the Catholic Church, then those sisters might risk losing anything their communities had accrued over the years -- housing, savings, medical care.

Even more significantly for many, sisters who have never considered themselves anything but Catholic would find themselves banished.

The sisters of the LCWR face two basic choices: submission or exile.

Like Jesus, like Joan of Arc, the sisters may find a way to reframe the discussion -- or they may choose not to respond at all. I'm afraid that ultimately it won't matter. The religious authorities of their days didn't really care how Jesus and Joan responded; in the end, they had Jesus crucified and Joan burned at the stake. In service of Vatican power and the moral authority the bishops claim is theirs alone, what harm is there in inconveniencing a few old nuns?

As the sisters gather to formulate their response, their years of prayer and discernment will serve them well. These are strong, centered women placed in an impossible position by powerful men who feel threatened. May Jesus and Joan show them the way.

© 2012 Mary Johnson, author of An Unquenchable Thirst: Following Mother Teresa in Search of Love, Service, and an Authentic Life

Author Bio
Mary Johnson, author of An Unquenchable Thirst: Following Mother Teresa in Search of Love, Service, and an Authentic Life, for twenty years, as Sister Donata, she was a Missionary of Charity, a nun in Mother Teresa's order, until she left in 1997. A respected teacher and public speaker, she has been named a Fellow of the MacDowell Colony and is on the board of the A Room of Her Own Foundation. She lives in New Hampshire.

For more information please visit http://www.maryjohnson.co, and follow the author on Facebook and Twitter

Comments

[R.J. Godlewski]

Being "Roman Catholic" means believing in Church doctrine as defined by the Vatican. It's about damn time that the Vatican stepped in to keep American "Catholics" Catholic.

Too many religious are endorsing gay rights, female ordination, etc. Too many Catholic universities are teaching Liberation Theology, etc.

If anyone cannot pick up a Catechism and understand PRECISELY what being Roman Catholic is, then, by all means, leave. There are plenty of Christian denominations that are glad to accept people.

The Church remains in apostolic succession -- meaning that the Pope holds the keys to the kingdom of Heaven (authenticated by Peter being the first Pope).

"Vatican Lays a Cunning Trap for American Nuns." How so? The nuns apparently backed themselves into a trap by deviating from Vatican authority. If they want to be "American Catholics", there IS an American Catholic Church in California that endorses gay marriages, women priestesses, and divorce.

On the other hand, if ANYONE wants to call themselves Roman Catholic, then they must believe in the tradition of the Church as established by Christ, the Mass as largely unchanged since the first century, and the Vatican as the bearer of Catholic doctrine and dogma.

Inasmuch as simply 'believing' in Christ does not make oneself Christian, simply calling oneself "Catholic" does not mean that one is in union with the universal Catholic Church.

This speaks more of feminism than "powerful men who feel threatened."

[Debbie]

R.J. I knew you would have something to say about this, glad you commented. You sum it up with this one sentence "The nuns apparently backed themselves into a trap by deviating from Vatican authority".

That was my original thought also, but I'm not Catholic so I wanted to hear from you, and others, on their thoughts.

Thanks

[R.J. Godlewski]

Debbie,

You are most welcome. I just thought that the whole story held an ulterior motive inconsistent with either Catholic (specifically) or Christian (generally) teaching.

I am reminded of a news story from many years ago when the Church, largely through priests, etc., brought up as a pertinent example, a lawsuit filed, I believe, by a Delta Airlines flight attendant who was fired for being overweight.

Many could not understand how any "religious" figures could support the airline over the employee. The argument was, however, that the flight attendant had agreed to the conditions of employment and only when they no longer suited her, did she decide that they were invalid.

This represents pretty much the same situation here. Nuns -- even modern ones who no longer want to wear habits, etc. -- serve the Church, not themselves (which is, you'll correct me if I am in error, how Lucifer and his minions got chucked out of Heaven's suburbs). Every item they have, if not purchased with their own money (the salary coming from the Vatican, by the way), belongs to the Church. Their title, belongs to the Church. The wedding band they wear signifies that they are married to Christ, henceforth the Church.

If they do not want to abide by the rules they agreed to, then they can leave and use whatever funds they can raise to create thteir own church.

What many American catholics do not realize is that "someday" there will no longer be any America. Someday, there will be no more planet Earth. If the Bible is correct -- and it is -- all things created come to an end. However, Christ's Church will reign forever.

As I recently wrote, "Eternity" pales everything else... :o)

R.J.

[Susan Benton]

R.J. you essential said everything that needs to be said. After all if you don't agree with an organization you are free to leave - esp. in the USA. There are plenty of ways to do good without being an RC nun - so if you don't like it leave or shut up. While still fairly loyal, I no longer am a part of my faith group - I like where they were 50-100 years ago, so I go my own way. I don't expect them to come to my way of thinking. It is that simple really.

[R.J. Godlewski]

@Susan,

Thank you. I did not mean to go off on a tangent there, but the whole story seems prefabricated for a reason. As if nuns are somehow granted more rights than either the Church or the Vatican, which is, many people are surprised to know, a nation-state of its own right.

People simply do not change God. When Vatican II made Mass more accessible by facing the priest towards the congregation, using local languages instead of Latin, etc. it was meant to make God more comprehensible for us mere humans. Instead, we "mere humans" tried to complicate things for God by demanding -- yes, demanding -- that Christ's Church be redefined to suit our silly needs.

Church history goes back ~1,500 years before even the Bible was made readily available. Every issue conceivable had been debated and authenticated LONG before there was even a United States. Progressives want to change all of this simply because their lives are more important than the billions upon billions upon billions of people impacted by the Church.

Boy, Satan sure does have his filthy claws into their souls... :o)

Regards,

R.J.

[Lionel Andrades]

Tuesday, June 19, 2012
When the LCWR invites Curran, Hubbard and Schneiders they are saying the Catholic Church is not the one true Church (UR 3) and every one does not need faith and baptism for salvation (AG 7)
The Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) is rejecting Vatican Council II (AG 7) and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.They are saying that the Catholic Church is not the sole moral authority.

Statutes are approved of a religious organization which does not believe in exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church and the literal interpretation of the dogma ? The LCWR is Catholic even when it says invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are explicit exceptions to the dogma ? Are these 'exceptions' not always implicit for the SSPX?

I have mentioned on a blog that if you invite Charles Curran to speak you are telling us all what you believe. If you openly promote New Age you are telling us what you believe. In the case of the LCWR, they represent the Church and so they are saying that this is what the Church teaches. They are also saying that there is no exclusive salvation in only the Catholic Church. When you invite Barbara Marx Hubbard your message is clear. You are saying that the Catholic Church is not the one true Church (UR 3, Vatican Council II) and all people do not need Catholic faith and the baptism of water for salvation (AG 7).Your also saying that there can be an interpretation of Vatican Council II which negates AG 7.

If a Mother Superior of a community affiliated with the LCWR inquired if their community could hold the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus along with implicit baptism of desire and invincible ignorance etc in accord with Vatican Council II (AG 7), would the LCWR approve?

They would be saying that all non Catholics in 2012 need to enter the Catholic Church for salvation and if there are any exceptions,' who have not had the Gospel preached to them’ it would be known only to God.

This is not the ecclesiology of the LCWR which is centered on Jesus and excludes the Church. So an LCWR member can believe in Jesus, according to the Jehovah Witnesses, distribute sacred pictures of Jesus as they do in Rome, and teach according to their religion and still consider oneself in the Catholic Church. This would be Jesus without the Catholic Church which the Bible tells us is His Mystical Body.The LCWR rejects exclusive ecclesiocentrism.
The CDF could help the sisters by announcing that those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptisms of desire are implicit for us and only explicit for God.

It is true that only those who know about Jesus and the Church and yet do not enter are oriented to Hell (LG 14) however we cannot judge that someone is really in invincible ignorance or someone is not. This judgement is left to God.The dogma and AG 7 says all need to convert into the Church for salvation.

If anyone says Fr. Leonard Feeney was wrong for rejecting the baptism of desire they are making a mistake. The baptism of desire is not a known exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma.-Lionel Andrades
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/06/when-lcwr-invites-curran-hubbard-and.html#links