November 23, 2014

April 18, 2012


Whoa!  Vatican takes aim (and acts) on feminist co-opted nuns

[Cardinal Raymond] Burke asked: “Who ever could have imagined that religious congregations of pontifical right would openly organize to resist and attempt to frustrate an apostolic visitation, that is, a visit to their congregations carried out under the authority of the Vicar of Christ on earth, to whom all religious are bound by the strongest bonds of loyalty and obedience?”

“Who could imagine that consecrated religious would openly, and in defiance of the bishops as successors of the Apostles, publicly endorse legislation containing provisions which violate the natural moral law in its most fundamental tenets, the safeguarding and promoting of innocent and defenseless life, and fail to safeguard the demands of free exercise of conscience for healthcare workers?” he added.

The article is here, but you really need to follow the link it provides to the stern Vatican “Doctrinal Assessment” of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR).

The Vatican document catalogs the LCWR’s active sabotage of and resistance to Roman Catholic teaching and church authority.  “The Assessment reveals serious doctrinal problems which affect many in Consecrated life…characterized by a diminution of the fundamental Christological center and focus of religious consecration.”  It faults “Radical Feminism” for “themes incompatible with the Catholic faith in some of the programs and presentations sponsored by the LCWR”  which “undermine the revealed doctrines of the Holy Trinity, the divinity of Christ, and the inspiration of Sacred Scripture.”

It also puts in place a remedial plan, to be overseen by several U.S. Bishops.  This includes specific correction of LCWR curricula for women religious and reasserting direct Papal authority over religious superiors.

h/t Kevin Curtis on fb.


Share this story:


Recent Related Posts

Comments

Facebook comments are closed.

13 comments

Whoa, indeed.  I just read the Lifesite piece and it had me raising my eyebrows and whistling.  These southpaw nuns have been used to running their little gen-fem cosa nostra under the radar, and now that someone’s taken notice of their little fiefdoms and pronounced them unsatisfactory, it’s got to sting.  Gotta love BXVI and Burke…they don’t run from these problems.

[1] Posted by Jeffersonian on 4-18-2012 at 04:14 PM · [top]

I’m sure the PB will gladly take them on.

[2] Posted by Bill2 on 4-18-2012 at 06:09 PM · [top]

Bill2 yes, probably - but she won’t be able to support them financially in communities or as individuals.  The overall decline of TEC is cutting into clergy compensation and these aging nuns will not be walking into anything like what they are used to.

[3] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 4-18-2012 at 06:31 PM · [top]

Return to the cloister, or show them the door.  Really, those pesky vows—who ever thought we would have to MEAN them.

[4] Posted by Summersnow on 4-18-2012 at 07:22 PM · [top]

While I’ve been a life long Anglican, I attended an RC high school.  On the positive side, had it not been for Sister Mary R. who actively encouraged me to explore Anglicanism I might never have discovered and appreciated some of its glories.  But I was very put off by the extremely pedestrian lives the religious at my school exhibited and used to wonder if I might have joined an Anglican community it I have had more spiritual role models. 

Of course today I wish I had left TEc long before now and I’m so happy that I never got mixed up in a TEc religious comunity.

[5] Posted by Nikolaus on 4-18-2012 at 08:03 PM · [top]

Nice to see them standing up for the Gospel.  God bless them!!

[6] Posted by B. Hunter on 4-19-2012 at 09:28 AM · [top]

Way, way past time!

[7] Posted by Connie Sandlin on 4-19-2012 at 05:57 PM · [top]

Frankly i am not sure this will work.  Sartrain I believe is a closet liberal and spineless.  He was one of the few bishops to allow his pastors and congregations whether or not they wanted to join the sane sex marriage fight or not.  And, for the past two weeks nearly every day in the Seattle papers are reports of yet another parish refusing to oppose same sex marriage and calling on the archbishop to “listen” to the voice of the laity and referring to it as divisive.  And total silence from the archbishop.  I don’t think the women religious could have asked for a more accommodating bishop as overseer.

[8] Posted by Matthew on 4-19-2012 at 11:25 PM · [top]

An example of what Seattle area RC priests are able to get away with because it is widely known there is very little discipline from the bishop.  This is typical.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2012/04/17/catholic-pastor-appluaded-for-shunning-anti-gay-marriage-drive/

[9] Posted by Matthew on 4-19-2012 at 11:30 PM · [top]

Matthew, thanks for the insight and link!

[10] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 4-20-2012 at 06:30 AM · [top]

This is somewhat odd. It has seemed lately that Benedict has been cracking down on quite a few things. He generally uses as his “enforcers” very orthodox bishops, like Cardinal Dolan. Putting this bishop, Sartrain, in charge looks like quite a slip-up in the Pope’s campaign against abuses.

[11] Posted by Nellie on 4-20-2012 at 12:46 PM · [top]

My thought is that this is gradualism at work.  Usually a very liberal diocese does not receive as its next bishop the most conservative orthodox one who can be found, who will make heads roll,  but someone middle of the road,  somewhat more orthodox than the one before.  His changes will anger some, but not to the point of driving too many folks to leave.  In 30 years,  another step in the right direction can be taken.  The intention is not to make these religious orders, or their members, decide to separate from the Church, but to begin their movement back towards its center.  So someone is chosen with whom the nuns can partially sympathize, and who can somewhat sympathize with them,  so that the changes he institutes may not seem to outrageous and may be accepted.  This is difficult to accept, when it seems obvious that some heads should roll,  and when one feels that the situation is so bad that it ought to be set completely to rights, right now.  I don’t know if this is the right way to do things or not,  but I think this is they way they are done.  We have the experience of too many hasty anathemas, and too many schisms lasting hundreds of years.  The feeling is, let’s not go there unless we must. 
Susan Peterson

[12] Posted by eulogos on 4-20-2012 at 09:27 PM · [top]

Eulogos is 100% correct.  And seattle had that famous and infamous pro-gay bishop hunthausen in the 1980’s.  Hunthausen did dignity masses for gays in the churches until then ratzinger forced it to stop.  So Seattle got a moderate bishop and so do the women religious.

[13] Posted by Matthew on 4-20-2012 at 10:40 PM · [top]

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.