Mirror of Justice

The Whole Fabric Regarding Same-Sex Marriages/unions etc.

 

I begin by thanking Robby George and Michael Perry for their spirited discussion on the matter of same-sex relations.

Tonight I respond to Michael’s argument that there is a “principal magisterial argument against...”

No, Michael, there is a whole fabric of argument that must be taken into consideration. I have been criticized for trying to say too much in my postings here at the Mirror of Justice, so tonight I’ll offer a number of non-exclusive points to counter Michael’s suggestion that there is only one principal magisterial argument. Let me counter with some of them:

If same-sex unions, whatever they are called [i.e., marriage, relation, etc.] are the norm or are normative, and they are not only the paradigm but also the definition of marital relations, from where will future generations of our species come?

If the answer is: existing and developing human reproductive technologies, then, what will become of the “spare” embryos? Will they be preserved indefinitely? Will some be discarded? Will no account be given to them? Who will bear them? Will they be entrusted to some artificial laboratory substitute for a womb? Who will claim them? Will there be an obligation/responsibility to claim them? I have more questions on this issue, but these will suffice for the time being.

The juridical argument for these same-sex relations was grounded in privacy. But now that the “privacy right” has been established, e.g., Lawrence v. Texas, In re Dudgeon v. United Kingdom, why is it necessary to make the issue of “privacy” a public matter? The Church has an answer, and it is not the one suggested by those upon whom Michael relies in his contention.

Michael further relies on the work of Sister Margaret Farley, but I look forward to the Mirror of Justice discussion that has been long-awaiting regarding her work to which Michael refers. Let it suffice for me to suggest for the time being that Margaret Farley has many interesting views on “sexual ethics”, but, they are most problematic, to say the least. However, let me lift just one of her other quotations from the work that Michael relies upon to put my concern into perspective: “despite what I have said about official positions in the Roman Catholic church [sic], there are changes that should not be underestimated. Although homosexual genital actions are still judged to be intrinsically disordered, and hence ‘objectively’ immoral, they can be ‘subjectively’ moral depending on the state of mind and intentions of an individual person.” To borrow from Sister Farley, this is the tip of her “iceberg”. But much more lurks below the depths of the attraction of her superficial rationalization. I wonder what she is trying to make absolute? I think I know especially after having re-read her book to which Michael kindly directs our attention.

I also know Michael views the issue as a matter of justice. So does Sister Farley. Equality is key to how people are treated and what justice demands, so I must ask the fundamental question: how is the same-sex relation the precise equal of the heterosexual one? I, for one, do not think that it can be. See here [Download Equality and Same Sex Marriage] for my fuller response to this matter.

One issue that advocates for same-sex unions dismiss but do not counter is the complementarity-of-the-sexes question. Michael has not addressed this, but it is clear that this is an important argument to the Church’s teachings. I, for one, would like to hear what Michael has to say about this issue involving complementarity and how it is absence from same-sex relations.

For the time being, I present one more problem for Michael to consider which his last posting has teased from me. If same-sex and opposite-sex unions are the “same,” what is to prevent advocates for other kinds of unions that may involve multiple members from relying on the argument he presents? If same-sex unions are “found” to be equal, won’t it be long before advocates for other unions will be presenting their claims with “convincing” argument?

 

RJA sj

Policing the Church

 

 

I sincerely thank Steve Shiffrin for his post on Cardinal George’s opening address delivered at the annual meeting of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. I appreciate Steve’s comments, but I find it necessary to provide a complement to his thoughts.

First of all, I think most folks would agree that no one likes to be policed, especially by someone whose authority to do so is limited. Most should also agree that the media and the academic community have a pretty free reign in doing what they do: in the case of the media, it has two functions—to provide information in an objective fashion and to provide commentary offering its perspective on pressing issues. The first involves the search for truth and making it available objectively; the second may include this approach, but it need not. Universities are engaged in learning, and I am confident that this ultimately means a search for the truth about whatever is being studied. Yet experience with both institutions—the media and the academy—demonstrates that the search for the truth does not always prevail amongst all their elements. It is more than possible that components of the media and elements of the academy (which has the responsibility of the cause of truth if it claims to be Catholic) can and do offer opinions which are not necessarily the truth about the matter on which the opinion is offered. But this does not arrest the possibility that the opinion is presented as the truth when, in fact, it is not. And, when others attempt to offer helpful correction to those in the media or the academy who confuse opinion with truth by suggesting that the former is the latter, the correction is not always welcome—the rectification is often viewed as undue or as pressure.

Both of these groups as I have briefly defined them have made efforts in the past (and, I suspect will continue to do so in the future) to correct the Church, especially her teachers—the bishops—on issues with which elements of the media or the academy conclude that the bishops are in need of correction. When papers and electronic media issue opinions that disagree with or attack a bishop or several bishops or the bishops’ conference, they are putting pressure on these teachers whose responsibility it is to teach. Their teaching may not be welcome, but if must be clear that it is not their episcopal job to offer only those teachings which the media or members of the academy approve. In these two contexts involving the media and the academy, their efforts I have described can become a form of policing that is of questionable authority. Is it within the competence of the media or the academy to undermine those whom the Church—our Church—has designated as its principal teachers? No.  

This brings me to the second point I wish to make in response to Steve. The Second Vatican Council (Lumen Gentium) has given us relatively recent instruction on the roles and responsibilities of the Church’s members—the People of God, the Body of Christ—be they clerical, lay, or religious. Moreover, the principles and norms set forth by the Council have been further elaborated in more recent years, e.g., statements by the Pontifical Council for Social Communication or magisterial teachings such as John Paul II’s Veritatis Splendor, Fides et Ratio and Ex Corde Ecclesiae. As a bishop and as the Vicar of Christ, John Paul’s views were not just one set of views among other sets of opinions (of the media or members of the academy) but authoritative positions that those who abide by the Council are obliged to follow. It would be imprudent to think that one could still be Catholic but not have to take to heart what the magisterium teaches. I must add here that bishops act in conjunction with the pope as the Council has instructed us. This brings me to a third point.

What could the Bishop of Rome as the Vicar of Christ, what could any bishop, what could a conference of bishops do about those who claim to be Catholic but do not follow the Church’s teachings? It remains within the competence of the Church, through her teachers, to remove the title “Catholic” from the institution that wrongfully claims it. This does not require stripping the name from the building, or the teaching post, or the periodical. It will suffice to declare clearly and authoritatively that something that or someone who employs the modifier “Catholic” does so erroneously and, in fact, is not. An example would be the declarations made by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops that Frances Kissling’s Catholics for a Free Choice (now Catholics for Choice) was and is, in fact, not Catholic in spite of Ms. Kissling’s using the word “Catholic” to describe her organization. The organization persists in using the term “Catholic”; but those with the proper competence to declare so have stated emphatically that it is not.

Perhaps Steve or others would like to comment on this further, but let me conclude with this one thought from John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor to which I have already made reference:

Dissent, in the form of carefully orchestrated protests and polemics carried on in the media, is opposed to ecclesial communion and to a correct understanding of the hierarchical constitution of the People of God. Opposition to the teaching of the Church’s Pastors cannot be seen as a legitimate expression either of Christian freedom or of the diversity of the Spirit’s gifts. When this happens, the Church’s Pastors have the duty to act in conformity with their apostolic mission, insisting that the right of the faithful to receive Catholic doctrine in its purity and integrity must always be respected. “Never forgetting that he too is a member of the People of God, the theologian must be respectful of them, and be committed to offering them a teaching which in no way does harm to the doctrine of the faith”. (N 113)

 

I, for one, do not think that Cardinal George is going to take actions against elements of the media or the academy to make them “knuckle under.” However, I do think that there is evidence suggesting that elements of society that consider themselves Catholic have, on occasion, unduly and improperly attempted to put pressure on the Church’s teachers. To borrow from John Courtney Murray, S.J., the question is not whether the Church is safe for the media and the academy (she is); the question, rather, is whether the media and the academy are safe for the Church (and this sometimes is unclear).

RJA sj

 

The “Visitation” re-Revisited

 

Thanks to Michael P. for drawing out attention once again to this pressing issue about the visitation of the LCWR. I find Fr. Richard McBrien’s thoughts interesting, but I have read them before. I have also read and re-read Sandra Schneiders’ essay, as have a good number of my women religious colleagues, and we do not find her position to be “the best, most compact, and most significant study of the biblical and historical foundations of ministerial life available today” or, for that matter, of all times. I find Richard McBrien’s zeal all the more interesting when he attributes to Sandra Schneider’s claim that “too many critics of religious life in the United States ‘have no lived experience or academic competence’ to regard it.”

Unlike Richard McBrien, who is not a member of a religious community but a diocesan priest, I am a member of a religious community, as is Sandra Schneiders; moreover, I have a good number of friends who are members of women’s religious communities who join in me in having a different take from the Schneiderian-McBrienian perspective. I would call our experience “lived experience.” So, I think we are competent to offer an alternative perspective that is based on truth and “lived experience.” It is a pity that the media sources pushing the Schneiderian-McBrienian perspective are not interested in covering alternative views which rely on truth and “lived experience” of other religious who have asked the Holy See for this visitation.

With regard to academic competence, I will also challenge the Schneiderian-McBrienian perspective. I just wonder, though, if this element of the critique means that those who disagree with Sandra Schneiders or Richard McBrien must have their academic competence questioned not on substantive grounds but simply because they do not agree with Sandra Schneiders and Richard McBrien? They possess keen acumen and have respect in the religious and academic world; but so do others who do not share their interesting views. It is a tragedy and pity that these other perspectives that contrast theirs do not “merit” equal treatment in the press.

So Michael, not only have I read and re-read their articles but have also considered and re-considered their articles. I wish that both of them could have the opportunity to read the positions of others who write from “lived experience” and academic competence. I appreciate what they have to say, but I disagree respectfully with their contentions. I wonder if they have read alternative perspectives from responsible persons?

 

RJA sj

 

 

 

Apostolic Constitution and Complementary Norms

Moments ago the Holy See issued the Apostolic Constitution and Complementary Norms providing for personal ordinariates for Anglicans entering into full communion with the Catholic Church. [HERE] I am sure some of us may wish to discuss the legal and ecclesial implications of these texts after we have had an opportunity to study them.

RJA sj

Conscience and Fr. Ratzinger

 

 

Thanks to Rob for his joining me on the discussion on conscience and fidelity, a discussion we pursue frequently at the Mirror of Justice—and, I am confident, we will continue to discuss for some time to come. In view of Rob’s update regarding N. 16 of the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern Worlds, Gaudium et Spes, it would be helpful to know what this provision states in its entirety in the chapter on the dignity of the human person:

 

N. 16. In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience when necessary speaks to his heart: do this, shun that. For man has in his heart a law written by God; to obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged. Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, Whose voice echoes in his depths. In a wonderful manner conscience reveals that law which is fulfilled by love of God and neighbor. In fidelity to conscience, Christians are joined with the rest of men in the search for truth, and for the genuine solution to the numerous problems which arise in the life of individuals from social relationships. Hence the more right conscience holds sway, the more persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and strive to be guided by the objective norms of morality. Conscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without losing its dignity. The same cannot be said for a man who cares but little for truth and goodness, or for a conscience which by degrees grows practically sightless as a result of habitual sin.

 

The quotation offered by Rob in his update is not from Cardinal Ratzinger and his commentary on N. 16. It was by Father and Professor Joseph Ratzinger and written after the Council in the latter half of the 1960s. Substantively, Fr. Ratzinger developed the specific passage quoted in Rob’s update in his discussion of Cardinal Newman’s thoughts on the matter of conscience. But Fr. Ratzinger presented his own view of the conciliar text and went on to explain that, “Genuine ecclesiastical obedience is distinguished from any totalitarian claim which cannot accept any ultimate obligation of this kind beyond the reach of its dominating will.” Fr. Ratzinger continued by pointing out that this text from the Pastoral Constitution simply presents the general outline of the Christian doctrine regarding conscience. He, Ratzinger, took pains to emphasize in his discussion on this provision of the Council’s document that the text emphasizes the transcendent nature of conscience, its non-arbitrary character, and its objectivity—a point that I think is most important about the formation of conscience that is well-formed. I concur with Fr. Ratzinger’s assessment that conscience, in a Christian context and praxis, must not be subjectively determined—and I think this is precisely what the “Catholics for Marriage Equality” in Maine are doing—subjectively forming their consciences. Fr. Ratzinger stated, moreover, that,

 

The fathers [of the Council] were obviously anxious (as, of course, was repeatedly shown in the debate on religious freedom also) not to allow an ethics of conscience to be transformed into the domination of subjectivism, and not to canonize a limitless situation ethics under the guise of conscience. On the contrary, the conciliar text implies that obedience to conscience means an end to subjectivism, a turning aside from blind arbitrariness, and produces conformity with the objective norms of moral action.

 

A few lines later, Fr. Ratzinger penned that “the habit of sin can dull and practically blind the conscience.” Here, Fr. Ratzinger is critical of the conciliar text in that it fails to give a sufficient account of “the limits of conscience.” He further noted that the text offers an “evasive formula” regarding the “binding force of erroneous conscience.” Here, the good father who was a peritus at the Council notes his own concern about the erroneously formed conscience. This is why I often speak of the well-formed conscience rather than conscience, because I believe that there can be an erroneously formed conscience that some folks rely upon to justify the decisions they make in life. I turn to “Catholics for Marriage Equality” in the Maine referendum as a case in point. Fr. Ratzinger concluded his observations on the conciliar text that Rob has brought to our attention by stating:

 

The doctrine of the binding force of an erroneous conscience in the form in which it is propounded nowadays [the 1960s and, I would suggest, to the present day], belongs entirely to the thought of modern times.

 

Because of what I have presented here, I do not join Rob in his assessment “that a person is only obligated to follow a well-formed conscience is in some tension with significant strands of the Catholic tradition...” I think Rob makes a good point, in which I concur, that much, but not all of the issue we have been discussing, emerges from poor formation of conscience. A person may be most sincere in his or her following a poorly formed conscience, but that conscience remains poorly formed. That is a concern for me, and it was a concern for Fr. Ratzinger.

 

Rob concludes his last entry by arguing that framing the Catholic voter’s obligation as “a duty to disregard her own conscience in the voting booth, rather than a duty to prayerfully and intentionally seek to form her conscience in the light of Church teaching, also raises tensions with democratic notions of citizenship.” I am inclined to disagree. Folks rarely form their views in a vacuum. They turn to opinions they trust or that they like or that they hear all the time, etc. I think the Church and Her teachings can be such a source; for the person who declares to be a “faithful Catholic,” then they ought to turn to Her teachings and the wisdom on which they are based. This should not generate tension with democratic notions of citizenship. If some view the Maine group “Catholics for Marriage Equality” as one source of information for forming their views, the Church must be viewed as an alternative source, particularly for the “faithful Catholic.”

 

RJA sj

 

As goes Maine...

 

Tomorrow voters in Maine will cast their individual ballots on the proposal to determine the meaning of marriage—the Question 1 initiative. A “yes” is a vote for the defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Sound familiar? There are strong parallels between this issue and the Proposition 8 question that California voters addressed a few months ago.

The matter in the Maine ballot clearly addresses the question of what a marriage is and what it is not. The current law and Catholic teaching on the matter run a parallel course. But, like in many states a strong, aggressive lobby wishes to change all this. Their success in litigation and ballot initiatives is mixed, but they have made remarkable and perilous headway in “redefining” marriage.

I write tonight to bring to the attention of the Mirror of Justice community the work of a group of individuals who claim to be “faithful Catholics” who believe that marriage ought to be between a man and a man or a woman and a woman in addition to the union of one man and one woman. They criticize their bishop, Bishop Richard Malone of Portland, Maine. They claim to offer a “Catholic case for same-sex marriage.” [HERE] Moreover, they allege that the bishop “has missed the point.”

He has not.

The so-called Catholics who advocate for same-sex marriage are the ones who are in error. I have argued why this is so enough times in the past. [Download Equality and Same Sex Marriage] Some of the Catholic advocates argue that they are “obligated” to follow “their own informed consciences on the matter.” If they were Catholic, they would know that this formulation is in error if one follows Church teaching. They are obligated to follow a well-formed conscience, not a subjectively determined one that is premised on grave error. But I digress.

Bishop Malone has offered his own perspective [HERE].

Pollsters appear to agree that the outcome of the initiative is too close to call. That being said, I shall pray that sense and sensibility and the reasoned position of the Church will prevail. Perhaps others may wish to join me in this effort.

 

RJA sj

 

The reconciliation begun by Mary Tudor and Reginald Cardinal Pole advances

This morning, the Holy See and the Archbishop of Canterbury made two important announcements, [HERE] and [HERE]. It is expected that Pope Benedict XVI will be issuing in due course an Apostolic Constitution that will prepare the way for amending the Church’s law to bring into communion with the Roman Catholic Church certain members of the Anglican Communion. While the impact of this communiqué will develop over the ensuing months, it is clear at this stage that some of our discussions here at the Mirror of Justice will be enhanced. As they say in the media business, more at eleven…

 

RJA sj

 

Some additional thoughts on conscience…

 

 

Friends of the Mirror of Justice will recall that I have participated in past discussions on the matter of conscience. Today I do not plan on getting into a prolonged discussion; however, I would like to offer a few observations on some of the recent thread that has developed over the past several days.

 

The first point I would like to make is that both at home (via the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops) and abroad (the Holy See), Catholic thought on the matter of conscience must distinguish between “conscience,” which can be prone to subjective determination, and the “well-formed conscience.” This distinction is essential to our task. While we may debate the meaning or definition of the term the “well-formed conscience,” we ought not to proceed too far on the matter of conscience without first acknowledging that this distinction is vital to Catholic social thought, the Catholic intellectual tradition, and, therefore, the development of Catholic legal theory.

 

The second point I shall make involves several of the illustrations used by some of my MOJ friends to supplement their arguments and positions. I would like to first of all consider the case of the executioner and his or her “right” to conscientious objection. I am more than a bit surprised by this illustration. The post of executioner has been around for a long time. An executioner has one mission in life: to take the life of another person. Usually, but not always, this taking of life exists within the context of a state-sanctioned execution. In all manifestations of the duties, however, the executioner is called upon to terminate the life of another human being. That is what the job is all about, and anyone who takes the post ought to understand this. I think the candidates for the post are aware of this principal function, and to make the argument that an executioner has some kind of right and or argument against doing what he or she was hired to do is problematic. If a person becomes a firefighter and later claims that he or she conscientiously objects to fighting fires, I would think a sensible person would say that this firefighter’s argument is specious. Similarly, a candidate who wishes to be a dog catcher but who thinks dogs should remain free to roam as they please ought to rethink his or her vocational plan. I would of course make an exception to this last conclusion if the post of dogcatcher were advertised as “canine relations officer.”

 

I now come to the second case of the justice of the peace who refuses to marry opposite sex couples, each member of who is from a different racial background. It seems clear from this example used over the past several days that the justice of the peace is now conscientiously objecting to having to perform the marriage that he or she is obliged to perform. This JP would now be contesting forty-three years of judicial precedent, i.e., Loving v. Virginia. If the person is seeking to become a JP, he or she would be like the firefighter, the dog catcher, or the executioner whom I have just treated. The JP would be expected to marry interracial opposite sex couples. JPs marry opposite sex couples regardless of race. Dog catchers catch dogs. Executioners lawfully execute other people under the law of the state. If the JP took his or her office prior to Loving being decided, I would think it fair to ask this person why he or she did not object to performing an interracial marriage of a man and a woman during these past forty-three years.

 

But mandating a JP to now marry same sex couples is substantively different. JPs have long married a couple consisting of a man and a woman. Mandating pharmacists to sell “emergency contraception” is different. Pharmacists are in the profession of compounding and selling medications that sustain life, not destroy it. Mandating doctors to perform abortion is different. Doctors are called upon to save lives, not take them. The “mandates” requiring these actions that contravene the purpose of the office are new or are emerging. Moreover, they are catching good, moral people by surprise. In addition, these budding “mandates” are akin to the questionable and totalitarian mandates of almost eighty years ago that caught by surprise many good people in

Germany

who found that they could no longer do what they once could do as a matter of legal right that understood and respected the well-formed conscience.

 

RJA sj

 

The New York Times and Discrimination

 

Today’s The New York Times has a brief but interesting editorial entitled “Faith-Based Discrimination.” [HERE] The editorial begins by mentioning a parallel between Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama: the promise to maintain a faith-based initiative designed to assist social service programs operated by religious organizations to obtain federal monies and contracts. The Times concludes the parallel between the two presidents at the end of the first sentence of this editorial. It then, in encouraging fashion, applauds President Obama’s vow to ensure “anti-discrimination” by prohibiting these organizations from hiring on the basis of religion. In support of its position, the Times argues a dual objective: anti-discrimination and separation of church-and-state. It would appear that the Times is wrong on both counts.

First of all, the “anti-discrimination” objective proposed by the Times would, in fact, discriminate against religious organizations—especially the Catholic Church’s social service programs. The Times is joined in this crusade by an umbrella group of almost sixty organizations (none of which are considered friends of the Church, e.g., the ACLU, American Humanist Association, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Lamda Legal, National Center for Lesbian Rights, NOW, Rainbow PUSH Coalition, Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, and the Unitarian Universalist Association) which calls itself the Coalition Against Religious Discrimination. But civil rights laws and regulations currently permit religious organizations to take account of religious affiliation where there is a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ). While lawyers and courts disagree on how to interpret the BFOQ, it exists and it is legally protected. I would advance the position that a bona fide qualification for many of these positions within the Church’s social service organizations would mandate that the employee personally identify with the Church’s teachings. Otherwise, the direction in which the Catholic social service operates could easily be compromised. The Times fails to take account of this. Yet other groups that are involved with social service programs that may also be recipients of Federal monies and contracts and who may hire on the basis of other “protected” categories would not be affected by the Times’ crusade.

Second, the church-state separation issue is a red herring when one looks at the nature of the Times’ argument. The journal asserts that “Effective social service organizations should not be ineligible for federal dollars just because they have a religious affiliation.” But the clincher is that in order for the religious entity to enjoy Federal support, it cannot “discriminate.” The Church maintains a substantive distinction between “discrimination” and “unjust discrimination.” In essence, hiring qualifications “discriminate” but they are not unjust. When the Church deems it essential to her mission to hire those who are sympathetic with or join in its mission, it is not “unjustly discriminating” even though it discriminatingly chooses whom she will hire and whom she will not. When we select health care providers, restaurants, schools for our children, movies, etc., we discriminate, but our discrimination is not unjust. However, it appears that if you do not agree with the social and political agenda sponsored by the Times, you may very well “unjustly discriminate” as the Times understands it. And when The New York Times encourages the Federal Government to adopt its standard, this would indeed be a church-state separation problem because the Federal Government, by adopting the Times’ position, would in fact dictate to the religious institution that has a different view than the Times that it must abandon its beliefs to get financial support. However, if the religious institution agrees with the Times, then financial support is on its way. Now that would be unjust discrimination, and, furthermore, it would be a breach of “the wall of separation.”

 

RJA sj

A Nun’s Story (2009)

 

 

Thanks, Michael P., for directing our attention to the lengthy essay authored by Sister X which appears in the October 9 issue of Commonweal. Since I have discussed a lot of what Sister X has to say in my last posting [HERE] in the context of communio and concilium, I won’t go into any of her contentions that Sr. Ilia Delio has raised and to which I have already responded.

At the outset of today’s posting, I acknowledge that Sister X, Sr. Delio, O.F.S., Sr. Sandra Schneiders, I.H.M, and Sr. Joan Chittister, O.S.B. have registered their concerns about the two apostolic visitations of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious [LCWR] (one by the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life and the another investigation by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith). What is not in question is the good work that the religious orders (both women’s and men’s) have provided in the Church in the United States for several centuries. What is in question, though, is the quality of the response to religious life (hence the visitation by the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life) and questions stemming from a 2001 meeting of officials from both the LCWR and the CDF regarding a variety of issues (including women’s ordination; the Declaration Dominus Jesu; human sexuality; and abortion).

Let me begin with a narrative: last September there was convened at Stonehill College a symposium entitled “Apostolic Religious Life since Vatican II...Reclaiming the Treasure: Bishops, Theologians, and Religious in Conversation.” I attended this important day-long event. During that time, I spoke with a good number of religious, both men and women, but more women than men. We were all from apostolic orders. I have an answer for Sister X who eloquently poses the question: “Is the Vatican visitation truly being done out of concern for American nuns?”

The answer is unequivocally: yes. And not only yes, but yes because it is American women religious who have asked for, petitioned for, and begged for this visitation. The women with whom I spoke saw no need to conceal their identity to me in raising their concerns about two important issues: the first, the quality of life in their respective communities; the second, the fidelity of some of their community to the Church and her teachings. They did, however, respect anonymity not from Rome, not from the Vatican, but from their own sisters who have decided, it seems unilaterally, to take the congregations into new and questionable directions. This symposium was an eye-opener. These were women who entered their congregations with zeal for the apostolates of teaching, of nursing, and of other works so vital to the Church. What they have seen and experienced is that their orders have undergone dangerous radical transformation—or, as some said, an abandonment—of their raison d’être and the charism of their founder or foundress.

After hearing their narratives, I, like Sr. X, also want to believe in the good will of the “institutional church” better known as the Church. But I would also like to believe in the good will of the women religious who have been making it increasingly difficult for these good women religious who publicly appeared at this symposium to live out their vocation to Christ and the Church. This is something that Sr. X does not address. Looking at many of the statements contained on the LCWR website of past annual conferences of this organization, I can see why these good and holy women whom I met at Stonehill are worried. They are not worried about Rome or the “Vatican.” They are worried about their own community members who have chartered a course that dramatically departs from the Church and her teachings.

Sr. X asserts that the visitations, especially from the CDF, constitute an “implicit accusation” that the leaders of the LCWR “are not Catholic.” Well, that concern comes not from Rome and the “institutional church.” It comes from members of the women’s congregations themselves—from members who have gone to receive advanced degrees, who have great love for the Church, who have labored valiantly in the vineyard of the Lord. Sr. X states further that the allegation that the LCWR leadership is “not Catholic” is “both insulting and absurd.” From what I gathered at the Stonehill conference, she should talk with some of her fellow congregation members who have a different take. When Sr. X claims that “since the 1980s the Vatican has not seemed interested in hearing what women religious themselves think about the quality of life in their own communities” it has. And her expressed disappointment should not be with “the Vatican” but with the women’s religious orders themselves who have neglected the concerns of their own members who have asked for the investigations.

I find it curious that Sr. X, and those sisters who have identified themselves publicly and criticized the visitation, have not focused on the fact that it is a fellow woman religious who is in charge of the visitation. It is not a bishop or cardinal. It is not a priest. It is not a man. It is one of their own who happens to be the superior general of her order, and, yes, she is an American.

I am confused by Sr. X attributing to Sr. Sandra Schneiders a dichotomy between “two theological visions of church and religious life.” Sr. X asserts that Schneiders poses two lenses of the renewal of religious life: one from the dogmatic constitution and one from the pastoral constitution of the Second Vatican Council. I was intrigued by Sr. X’s claim about Sr. Schneiders. But, I am sorry to say, one or both are mistaken. While it is true that Lumen Gentium does speak of the church “as institution,” it also speaks of the Church as “the people of God” and “as a pilgrim Church.” The pastoral constitution also speaks of the “people of God” but it does not address the pilgrim church as Sr. X attributes to Sr. Schneiders. It is, however, the dogamtic constitution that talks about a great length the “pilgrim church.” Moreover, the dogmatic constitution does not speak of the “fortress” or the “witness to a godless world” as Sr. X implies to Sr. Schneiders. So the implication that Sr. X makes that “Rome seems partial to the worldview of Lumen Gentium” simply is not supported by the texts upon which reliance is made. Frankly, from my humble experience, the Roman curia is vitally concerned about both simultaneously.

There are other problematic assertions made by Sr. X that are indefensible. But one other that I must comment on today is her suggestion that the priest shortage is not subject to an investigation. Well, maybe on its surface, that is true. But to think that the Vatican only investigates the LCWR is unwise. The seminaries, and therefore aspects of the priesthood and male religious life and the deficit of priestly vocations, were the subject of a recent investigation. Sr. X does not take account of this. And as I speak, the Legionnaires of Christ are also undergoing an investigation by Roman curial authorities. Sr. X fails to mention this as well. So any implication that only women are “targets of Vatican investigations” is simply not true.

As I said the other day in the context of a thread that Michael initiated regarding Sr. Theresa Kane, prayers are in order for the Church, the people of God, and the Body of Christ. I shall also pray for Sr. X, her gifts, and her zeal to serve the Church that she and I were called to assist as vowed religious. And so I conclude with another prayer: Maria, Speculum Justitiae, ora pro nobis.

 

RJA sj