A Response to Dave, a Subversive Thomist

Over at Subversive Thomist (a blog everyone should follow) Dave posted a serious of questions about the Vatican's visitation of American Religious Sisters and the proposed reform of LCWR. What follows is a response on my part to his eight questions/concerns.

Hopefully what I wrote (instead of reading Ricoeur for class) is coherent and helpful.

1.   It is important to remember that conferences of religious superiors are formed only with the consent of the Pope, and operate under his supervision. So LCWR has a particular relationship with the Holy See, and therefore they have responsibilities to as an organization adhere closely to the Holy See. This is why there is no explicit charge. As you read the document from CDF there is a general concern about LCWR’s problematic Christological and Ecclesiological standings. One has to remember this is not a condemnation of an individual or even a specific congregation of sisters, but an assessment of a “trade group” for over 60,000 religious women. 

 

Overall I think that the real reasons behind this assessment and reform are such: Frist of all since Vatican II the number of nuns in the United States has dropped from over 200,000 to around 70,000. Why? Partially because there was a vocations boom in the 50’s likely driven as much by sociological factors (WWII, Cold War, etc.) as spiritual reasons. But the fall off has been much greater then would be expected, and the average age of nuns in the US is 69. This is not as true of male orders. This situation is not unique to the US, but it is the most prominent in the US. Part of the reason for the investigation (not just of LCWR, but also CMSWR) is too see what role doctrinal issues have in the weakening of religious life in the US. A reasonable question I would think. 

2.    I don’t think this issues is really an issue. The reason being is that conferences of religious, male or female, are not the place for academic speculation rather they are places to coordinate ministry, compare notes on practices etc. The Church has been very encouraging of female religious seeking positions in universities, in Chanceries, and in the Vatican itself; remember Church institutions change slowly so don’t make the perfect the enemy of the good. Plenty of men and women, lay and religious make controversial claims, that is not so much the issue, the issue is more of time and place. 

3.   There is a little bit of follow the leader at play here. The Bishops are the pastors, and thus take the lead on which Catholic institutions ought to follow. I don’t think the Vatican here is calling for LCWR to focus on these issues even to the level of what the USCCB is doing, but they need to at least make is something of a priority, which the document claims they are not.

4.    This one is the most spurious claim you make. In response to the sexual abuse scandal one of the first things the Vatican did was begin an investigation into seminaries in the US and begin a series of reforms to improve seminaries. While the Church is still moping up the mess from previous generations the reform of the seminaries seems to be bearing many good fruits. Numbers are up; seminaries have more uniform ways of screening out potentially unstable or otherwise questionable figures, etc. One of the major things brought up in the CDF document was the primary need for reformation of the formation programs of LCWR congregations as well as the need for greater continuing formation (this also is partially an answer to your question number eight). I see this project of reform in a very similar light to the one with the seminaries.

5.     Achbp. Sartin does need to work with the sisters very collaboratively and include on his advisory team a lot of women for this to work out well, ‘nuff said.

6.     In the Catholic world, condemnations usually come first, then one answer charges against them making either a defense or recant. Its like impeachment. For example William of Ockham had ideas of his condemned; he went and defended them, some he backed off of others he sold as legitimate positions to the Pope. The case of Sister Johnson aside, there are plenty of women contributing to the intellectual life of the church, it is only the “more out there” stuff that ends up getting questioned. Books by priests and lay people have received similar treatment to Sr. Johnson. The involvement of women in theological circles is growing. The Vatican’s International Theological Commission has one woman on their main board and one woman on a secondary list. But that is a change from even fifteen years ago. On this give it time. Church institutions change slowly, which is both good and bad. Personally I think Rome is populated by Ents.

7&8.   Well LCWR is established by the Papacy and thus clearly owes its obedience directly to Rome, but the individual congregations that make up LCWR have the question to ask in a broader way. But the institution that is LCWR as an canonical institution set up with the permission of Rome operates at his discretion. Obedience for individual Christians and for congregations of sisters is for sure a more complex question. Remember at the root of obedience is the word “to hear” and in the Christian context “to hear the call of Christ.” Institutions like LCWR are set up by Rome to be supporters of religious women in this project, of how to answer that call of Christ, instead of heavy-handedly micromanaging religious life (as has been done in previous generations) the guiding influence of bodies like LCWR are meant to create a rich and fertile soil out of which religious life grows and is supported. By ensuring that LCWR is doctrinally sound it is in a way the effort of Rome to build walls on a Cliffside meadow (you know the metaphor of the life of faith being like the meadow on the cliff and dogma/doctrine being like the walls surrounding the meadow that allows everyone to play and live freely without fear of going over the edge). This is not to say that some sisters should never explore over the edge of the wall, perhaps in hopes of surveying new ground to expand the walls on. The purpose of the LCWR is to create a positive environment in which religious life can flourish.

This reform is at its heart an attempt to help the sisters in their mission and spirituality. The hierarchy is trying to make the point that the LCWR should build the congregations of sisters up in their mission and spirituality and that does not seem to be happening now. Academic exploration is good, but the LCWR ought to be building up their member congregations up, to better follow their rule, better love Christ, and better serve those they have a mission towards. The goal of the LCWR ought to be the help their member congregations better think and act with the heart of the Church (by church I mean both institutional and people of God). This doctrinal review in the end is ultimately about building a spiritually fruitful ground on which to revitalize religious life for women in the United States.