Well, my last post was picked up on Gloria TV
- right at the start but do watch on; at about half way through there
is a report on the apparent criticism from Cardinal Murphy O'Connor
about the Holy Father's appointment of Bishop Mark Davies.
The same dissent is reported by Protect the Pope. Apparently, U.S. Women Religious are considering forming a breakaway group from the Holy See by ‘disbanding canonically and re-forming as an unofficial interest group." I think this is called a schism. Following on from my last post about the Irish clergy protesting about the Church's teaching, this is part of the same problem. Dissident groups are now willing to publicly suggest breaking away and asserting their rejection of the Church's teaching. What I cannot fathom about these groups and individuals is that there are many other Christian denominations outside the Church who already promote all these teachings - why don't they go and join them if these people believe these teachings are right - despite the fact that most such groups are in even worse shape than the Catholic Church in the Western World. Ordaining women and liberalising the liturgy has not helped Anglicans and Methodists to fill their churches.
On a wider stage, I wonder if this is why the Holy Father sometimes seems to us not to be acting quickly or decisively enough to bring dissenters into line? As the Chief Shepherd he must have a great desire to keep all members of the Church within it - even those who protest and attack it from within. His desire to bring those who already do believe what the Church teaches is evidenced strongly by his efforts with Anglicans and with the Society of St Pius X. What a dilemma it must be to have to make the decision on when dissent can no longer be tolerated for the good of souls and demanding that dissenters make a decision for or against the Church which they claim to be members of and yet show such a strong desire to re-fashion in their own image and overthrow its structures and teachings.
7 comments:
Congratulations on the TV 'pick up' ... next come the personal appearances, auto-graph hunters, paparatzi etc, etc ... :-)
As with the ACP in Ireland, I question just how many US nuns the LCWR represents. I have heard anything from 3% to 80%. Even if it is the latter that just means the total number of nuns belonging to the Orders whose Major Superiors are part of the LCWR. It doesn’t mean all those sisters subscribe to what the LCWR is selling.
I suspect there are thousands of nuns who quietly go about their work in education, the health field and social services who spend little if any time sitting in on LCWR conferences. The media (read: Maureen Dowd of the NYT) and select ‘prominent nuns’ (read: Sr. Joan Chittister, Sr. Simone Campbell et al.) would like you to believe that it is these faithful nuns that are being ‘persecuted’ by the Vatican.
On the contrary, it is the Campbells, Chittisters and Keehans of the US nuns that have been leading their sisters away from orthodox religious life.
And that…I find revolting!
Thank you once again Father for a highly informative post. You highlight so clearly what a difficult task the Holy Father has before him and how much we all need to keep him in our prayers. Keep up the good work.
The SSPX 'already do believe what the Church teaches'? Not according to the large numbers of SSPX laity I know, who see Fellay as selling the Society to the Devil and who will not countenance full communion. (From what I've read I think Fellay is aware that he hasn't got his flock with him, but he has no real option unless he wants the SSPX to become irrelevant schismatics.) I guess they will join either the SSPV, Old Catholics or other functionally Sedevacantist groups. Many (not all) I've met appear to define their faith according to their radical opposition to the Church, the deep dislike of JPII and BXVI to a lesser extent), the memory of Assisi and other 'ecumenical' mumbo-jumbo, rather than according to older ways of practising and interpreting the Faith.
I'm not sympathetic to the LCWR, and I applaud the CDF initiative. However, the suggestion that the organization go noncanonical means that the superiors would form their own ad hoc organization that would not be a canonical entity. That doesn't mean the sisters who would take that route would leave the Catholic Church; it simply means that if some sisters formed a new group, that group would not be an entity canonically erected by the Holy See.
Unknown, I have formed the same impression as you about the suggested action of the members of the LCWR. They may have the idea of turning the LCWR into an empty shell, while remaining, as individuals, within the Church. Since the canonical paperwork supporting the bishops' task refers specifically to the LCWR, this move may have the effect of rendering the bishops’ remit effectively void. Rome may thus have to start again from the beginning, dealing this time, perhaps, with individual sisters.
Not individual sisters, Dorothy B. But individual congregations. Remember that an investigation of individual orders was also done, and the results have not yet been reported.
They know what they're doing in Rome, even if they are as slow as glaciers. The sisters won't win this one.
Post a Comment