“Shocking” news for postmodern nuns

Last updated on: May 7, 2012 at 7:32 am by tmatt

“Shocking” news for postmodern nuns 2012-05-07T07:32:47-04:00 tmatt

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.

In the beginning there was the Conference of Major Religious Superiors of Women’s Institutes, which was established with the Vatican’s blessing in 1959 during an era of rapid growth for Catholic religious orders.

Then along came two cultural earthquakes, the Second Vatican Council and the Sexual Revolution. In 1971 the women’s conference changed its name — this time without the Vatican’s blessing — to become the Leadership Conference of Women Religious. Two leaders in this transformation later wrote that the goal was to become a “corporate force for systematic change in Church and society.”

The rest is a long story, ultimately leading to a blunt April 18 missive (.pdf) from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This long-expected Vatican broadside noted “serious doctrinal problems” in LCWR proclamations, characterized by a “diminution of the fundamental Christological center” and the prevalence of “radical feminist themes incompatible with the Catholic faith.”

Women’s conference leaders offered a terse response, saying they were “stunned by the conclusions of the doctrinal assessment” from Rome.

“Stunned” was the key word for legions of headline writers, whose work resembled this Washington Post offering: “American nuns stunned by Vatican accusation of ‘radical feminism,’ crackdown.” The Chicago Sun-Times went even further, proclaiming: “Vatican waging a war on nuns.”

Truth is, tensions have been building for decades between the LCWR leadership and Vatican leaders. Thus, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith missive stressed that its call for reform was built on a lengthy study of materials created by “a particular conference of major superiors and therefore does not intend to offer judgment on the faith and life of Women Religious in the member congregations.”

This particular investigation began in 2008 and Catholic leaders first discussed some of its findings two years later. The final “doctrinal assessment” document was completed in January of 2011. Some of the specific events criticized in the Vatican document took place during the 1970s and ’80s.

“It certainly didn’t help matters” that there has been so much publicity about liberal nuns supporting White House health-care policies and new Health and Human Services regulations that require most religious institutions to include free coverage of all FDA-approved contraceptives in their health-insurance plans, noted John L. Allen, Jr., of the National Catholic Reporter.

Nevertheless, “it doesn’t withstand scrutiny for anyone to say that this conflict is about the bishops and Rome being upset about the sisters, Obama and birth control,” said Allen, in a telephone interview from Rome. Also, “no one is upset about all the sisters have done to abolish the death penalty, stand up for immigrants, care for the sick and help the poor. Rome praised them for that. …

“Frankly, his report could have been written 20 years ago. The real issues in this case are that old.”

For example, the Vatican noted that in 1977 the LCWR leadership openly rejected Catholic teachings on the “reservation of priestly ordination to men.” The women’s conference later published a training book suggesting that it’s legitimate for sisters to debate whether celebrations of the Mass should be central to events in their communities, since this would require the presence of a male priest. In the ’80s, leaders in female orders backed the New Ways Ministry’s work to oppose Catholic teachings on homosexuality.

A pivotal moment came in 2007, when Dominican Sister Laurie Brink delivered the keynote address (.pdf) at a national LCWR assembly stating that it was time for some religious orders to enter an era of “sojourning” that for some would require “moving beyond the church, even beyond Jesus.”

With the emergence of the women’s movement and related forms of spirituality, many sisters would see “the divine within nature” and embrace an “emerging new cosmology” that would feed their souls, said Brink. For these sisters, the “Jesus narrative is not the only or the most important narrative. … Jesus is not the only son of God.”

A year later, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith opened its investigation of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious.

The Brink address, noted the resulting doctrinal assessment, “is a challenge not only to core Catholic beliefs; such a rejection of faith is also a serious source of scandal and is incompatible with religious life. … Some might see in Sr. Brink’s analysis a phenomenological snapshot of religious life today. But pastors of the Church should also see in it a cry for help.”

Previous Post

April 30, 2012

Why Chuck Colson spent Easter in prison

Next Post

May 14, 2012 Prof. Benedict addresses Catholic academia

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Academia Anglicanism Announcements books Catholics doctrine evangelicals family life First person Godbeat Islam Judaism Mainline churches Marriage mass media movies Orthodox Politics popular culture religion sex Social issues Uncategorized Web/tech World World religions worship young people

Select a Month 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 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 November 2002 October 2002 September 2002 August 2002 July 2002 June 2002 May 2002 April 2002 March 2002 February 2002 January 2002 December 2001 November 2001 October 2001 September 2001 August 2001 July 2001 June 2001 May 2001 April 2001 March 2001 February 2001 January 2001 December 2000 November 2000 October 2000 September 2000 August 2000 July 2000 June 2000 May 2000 April 2000 March 2000 February 2000 January 2000 December 1999 November 1999 October 1999 September 1999 August 1999 July 1999 June 1999 May 1999 April 1999 March 1999 February 1999 January 1999 December 1998 November 1998 October 1998 September 1998 August 1998 July 1998 June 1998 May 1998 April 1998 March 1998 February 1998 January 1998 December 1997 November 1997 October 1997 September 1997 August 1997 July 1997 June 1997 May 1997 April 1997 March 1997 February 1997 January 1997 December 1996 November 1996 October 1996 September 1996 August 1996 July 1996 June 1996 May 1996 April 1996 March 1996 February 1996 January 1996 December 1995 November 1995 October 1995 September 1995

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who is the Good Shepherd in Jesus' teaching?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Peter Jesus David Moses