Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Catholic News

Home

Home
Catholic
Religion News
LCWR may not be open to reform, commentator worries

LCWR may not be open to reform, commentator worries

Last updated on: August 20, 2014 at 1:50 pm by CNA Daily News

LCWR may not be open to reform, commentator worries 2014-08-20T13:50:00+00:00 CNA Daily News

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Nashville, Tenn., Aug 20, 2014 / 07:50 am (CNA/EWTN News).- Actions by the Leadership Conference of Women Religious at its latest annual assembly suggest that it may be closed to the possibility of reform, one writer on Catholic religious life has said.

“These are educated women, and certainly they have the intellectual ability to understand the doctrinal teachings of the church,” Ann Carey told CNA Aug. 19.

“However, the LCWR leaders seem to be so convinced that they have taken the correct path that I think many of them have closed their minds to the possibility that they may have made some mistakes and need to rethink their positions.”

“Rather than actually engaging some of the doctrinal issues involved, they tend to bring in speakers who reinforce their own views and even propose unproven theories such as ‘conscious evolution’ and ‘new cosmology’,” said Carey, the author of the 1997 book “Sisters in Crisis” and its 2013 edition “Sisters in Crisis Revisited.”

Carey suggested that the conference leadership’s mindset means it will be “very difficult” to have a dialogue with Archbishop J. Peter Sartain of Seattle, who is overseeing the conference’s reform after the Vatican found a doctrinal crisis within the canonically-recognized group of U.S. women religious superiors.

With some 1,500 members, the LCWR constitutes about three percent of the 57,000 women religious in the United States. However, the group says it represents 80 percent of American sisters since its members are leaders of their respective religious communities.

In April 2012, the Vatican released the findings of a multi-year doctrinal assessment of the women's conference, which raised concerns of dissent from Church teaching on topics including homosexuality, the sacramental priesthood and the divinity of Christ.

Among the assessment’s key findings were serious theological and doctrinal errors in presentations at the conference's recent annual assemblies. Some presentations depicted a vision of religious life incompatible with the Catholic faith, or attempted to justify dissent from Church doctrine and showed “scant regard for the role of the Magisterium,” the assessment found.

The Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith granted Archbishop Sartain a mandate of up to five years to help lead reform efforts by working to review and revise the group’s statues, formation materials, presentations, events and links with affiliated organizations.

The LCWR held its 2014 annual assembly in Nashville, Tenn., Aug. 12-16. After the assembly, the conference’s 21-member national board met for three days. Their meeting included a one-hour session with Archbishop Sartain.

The national board then issued a statement voicing their “deepest hope to resolve the situation between LCWR and (the) CDF in a way that fully honors our commitment to fulfill the LCWR mission as well as protect the integrity of the organization.”

The board members said they wanted to continue in conversation with Archbishop Sartain in order “that new ways may be created within the church for healthy discussion of differences.”

“We know that thousands of persons throughout the country and around the world long for places where they can raise questions and explore ideas on matters of faith in an atmosphere of freedom and respect,” the statement continued.

Carey said she was not surprised by the board’s statement.

“LCWR leaders realize the organization would lose many of its members if its canonical status were revoked, so they don’t want that to happen. On the other hand, they do not want to implement the mandate, either. So Plan A seems to be just to keep talking,” she said.

However, she observed, this plan may have to change, given new requirements that assembly speakers be approved by the archbishop.

Carey said the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has a responsibility to protect the faith, especially when “a high profile entity” like the religious sisters’ leadership conference “expresses doctrinal errors.”

“Many ordinary Catholics do not follow news of the LCWR, but most ordinary Catholics do recognize the importance of adhering to the doctrines of the faith if one is to be a practicing Catholic,” she said.

At the annual assembly, the LCWR presented the conference’s Outstanding Leadership Award to Sister Elizabeth Johnson, C.S.J., a theologian whom the U.S. bishops have criticized for serious doctrinal errors, including misrepresentations of Church teaching on God.

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith head Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Muller said in an April 2014 speech that the selection of Sr. Johnson for the award would be seen “as a rather open provocation against the Holy See and the doctrinal assessment.” The decision “further alienates the LCWR from the bishops as well,” he added.

Sr. Johnson used her acceptance speech to strike back at her critics, claiming that the U.S. bishops’ assessment of her book misrepresented it. She said Cardinal Muller and his staff appear not to have read her book or her response to the concerns about it.

She contended that both her book and the LCWR were the objects of “institutionalized negativity.” She suggested that criticism of the LCWR was the product of several factors, including centuries-old historical tensions between religious orders and the bishops and an alleged “patriarchal structure where authority is exercised in a top-down fashion” which prioritizes “obedience and loyalty to the system.”

Carey, however, did not agree. She said Sr. Johnson’s remarks “easily could be seen as gratuitous defiance of church authority, particularly in the setting of a canonically-erected conference of women religious.”

“I do not think the LCWR helped its cause by giving her that platform,” she said.

Carey suggested that the criticisms of Sr. Johnson’s book and of the leadership conference are examples not of “institutional negativity” but rather “institutional integrity.”

“The U.S. bishops and the CDF are taking seriously their responsibility to safeguard the integrity of Catholic doctrine,” she said.

In Carey’s view, the LCWR has three options: implement the reform the Holy See requires of it and remain a canonical conference of religious superiors; “go its own way as a professional organization of women who are in leadership positions in religious orders without any canonical status”; or disband.

While Carey hoped the leadership conference would choose reform, she suggested the conference is instead seeking another option that would allow it to go “its own way on doctrinal matters” while keeping canonical status.

“I don’t think the CDF will allow that fourth option, however.”

Previous Post

August 20, 2014

Franciscan friars in Pakistan celebrate 75 years of mission

Next Post

August 20, 2014 Memory, hope, witness are Korea trip’s import, Pope reflects

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Americas Asia - Pacific Europe Middle East - Africa Uncategorized US Vatican

Select a Month November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who was the king of Babylon during the exile of the Israelites?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Darius Nebuchadnezzar Belshazzar Cyrus