FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: LCWR
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
The Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR), an American umbrella group that remains the focus of a Vatican-ordered reform, has given new evidence of its dissident leanings by bestowing its most prestigious award on a theologian whose work has drawn a caution from the US bishops’ conference.

At its August meeting in Nashville, Tennessee, the LCWR will give Sister Elizabeth Johnson its Outstanding Leadership Award. In 2011 the doctrinal committee of the US bishops’ conference issued a critique of Sister Johnson’s book, Quest for the Living God, saying that it “contains misrepresentations, ambiguities, and errors that bear upon the faith of the Catholic Church as found in Sacred Scripture, and as it is authentically taught by the Church’s universal magisterium.”

In 2012, the Vatican ordered a reform of the LCWR, after an investigation found that “the current doctrinal and pastoral situation of LCWR is grave and a matter of serious concern." Last April, then-Archbishop Gerhard Müller, the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, told LCWR leaders that Pope Francis strongly supported the critical findings of the Vatican “assessment” and the need for reform to bring the group into line with Church teachings.

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/head...ryid=21289

It looks like somebody needs to be visited again.
They won't be visited again. Apparently, all visitation forces are needed elsewhere, like wherever Fr. Manelli is, to prevent him from dangerous behavior, like visiting his parents' graves . . .
I see "LCWR" and I cringe.
CaptCrunch73 Wrote:Actually the CDF responded to them in the last few days. Notice how the CDF's response the the LCWR is practically identical to that of the FFI. NOT
  :scratchinghead:

Meeting of the Superiors of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
with the Presidency of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR)

April 30, 2014

Opening Remarks
By Cardinal Gerhard Müller

I am happy to welcome once again the Presidency of the LCWR to Rome and to the Congregation. It is a happy occasion that your visit coincides with the Canonization of Pope John Paul II and Pope John XXIII, two great figures important for the Church in our times. I am grateful as well for the presence and participation of the Delegate for the implementation of the LCWR Doctrinal Assessment, Archbishop Peter Sartain.

As in past meetings, I would like to begin by making some introductory observations which I believe will be a helpful way of framing our discussion.

First, I would like to acknowledge with gratitude the progress that has been made in the implementation of the Doctrinal Assessment. Archbishop Sartain has kept the Congregation appraised on the work regarding the revision of the LCWR Statutes and civil by-laws. We are glad to see that work continue and remain particularly interested that these foundational documents reflect more explicitly the mission of a Conference of Major Superiors as something centered on Jesus Christ and grounded in the Church’s teaching about Consecrated Life. For that collaboration, I thank you.

Two further introductory comments I would like to frame around what could be called objections to the Doctrinal Assessment raised by your predecessors during past meetings here at the Congregation and in public statements by LCWR officers. We are aware that, from the beginning, LCWR Officers judged the Doctrinal Assessment to be “flawed and the findings based on unsubstantiated accusations” and that the so-called “sanctions” were “disproportionate to the concerns raised and compromised the organization’s ability to fulfill its mission.” This principal objection, I note, was repeated most recently in the preface of the collection of LCWR Presidential Addresses you have just published. It is my intention in discussing these things frankly and openly with you to offer an explanation of why it is that we believe the conclusions of the Doctrinal Assessment are accurate and the path of reform it lays before the LCWR remains necessary so that religious life might continue to flourish in the United States.

Let me begin with the notion of “disproportionate sanctions.” One of the more contentious aspects of the Mandate—though one that has not yet been put into force—is the provision that speakers and presenters at major programs will be subject to approval by the Delegate. This provision has been portrayed as heavy-handed interference in the day-to-day activities of the Conference. For its part, the Holy See would not understand this as a “sanction,” but rather as a point of dialogue and discernment. It allows the Holy See’s Delegate to be involved in the discussion first of all in order to avoid difficult and embarrassing situations wherein speakers use an LCWR forum to advance positions at odds with the teaching of the Church. Further, this is meant as an assistance to you, the Presidency, so as to anticipate better the issues that will further complicate the relationship of the LCWR with the Holy See.

An example may help at this point. It saddens me to learn that you have decided to give the Outstanding Leadership Award during this year’s Assembly to a theologian criticized by the Bishops of the United States because of the gravity of the doctrinal errors in that theologian’s writings. This is a decision that will be seen as a rather open provocation against the Holy See and the Doctrinal Assessment. Not only that, but it further alienates the LCWR from the Bishops as well.

I realize I am speaking rather bluntly about this, but I do so out of an awareness that there is no other interpretive lens, within and outside the Church, through which the decision to confer this honor will be viewed. It is my understanding that Archbishop Sartain was informed of the selection of the honoree only after the decision had been made. Had he been involved in the conversation as the Mandate envisions, I am confident that he would have added an important element to the discernment which then may have gone in a different direction. The decision taken by the LCWR during the ongoing implementation of the Doctrinal Assessment is indeed regrettable and demonstrates clearly the necessity of the Mandate’s provision that speakers and presenters at major programs will be subject to approval by the Delegate. I must therefore inform you that this provision is to be considered fully in force. I do understand that the selection of honorees results from a process, but this case suggests that the process is itself in need of reexamination. I also understand that plans for this year’s Assembly are already at a very advanced stage and I do not see the need to interrupt them. However, following the August Assembly, it will be the expectation of the Holy See that Archbishop Sartain have an active role in the discussion about invited speakers and honorees.

Let me address a second objection, namely that the findings of the Doctrinal Assessment are unsubstantiated. The phrase in the Doctrinal Assessment most often cited as overreaching or unsubstantiated is when it talks about religious moving beyond the Church or even beyond Jesus. Yes, this is hard language and I can imagine it sounded harsh in the ears of thousands of faithful religious. I regret that, because the last thing in the world the Congregation would want to do is call into question the eloquent, even prophetic witness of so many faithful religious women. And yet, the issues raised in the Assessment are so central and so foundational, there is no other way of discussing them except as constituting a movement away from the ecclesial center of faith in Christ Jesus the Lord.

For the last several years, the Congregation has been following with increasing concern a focalizing of attention within the LCWR around the concept of Conscious Evolution. Since Barbara Marx Hubbard addressed the Assembly on this topic two years ago, every issue of your newsletter has discussed Conscious Evolution in some way. Issues of Occasional Papers have been devoted to it. We have even seen some religious Institutes modify their directional statements to incorporate concepts and undeveloped terms from Conscious Evolution.

Again, I apologize if this seems blunt, but what I must say is too important to dress up in flowery language. The fundamental theses of Conscious Evolution are opposed to Christian Revelation and, when taken unreflectively, lead almost necessarily to fundamental errors regarding the omnipotence of God, the Incarnation of Christ, the reality of Original Sin, the necessity of salvation and the definitive nature of the salvific action of Christ in the Paschal Mystery.

My concern is whether such an intense focus on new ideas such as Conscious Evolution has robbed religious of the ability truly to sentire cum Ecclesia. To phrase it as a question, do the many religious listening to addresses on this topic or reading expositions of it even hear the divergences from the Christian faith present?

This concern is even deeper than the Doctrinal Assessment’s criticism of the LCWR for not providing a counter-point during presentations and Assemblies when speakers diverge from Church teaching. The Assessment is concerned with positive errors of doctrine seen in the light of the LCWR’s responsibility to support a vision of religious life in harmony with that of the Church and to promote a solid doctrinal basis for religious life. I am worried that the uncritical acceptance of things such as Conscious Evolution seemingly without any awareness that it offers a vision of God, the cosmos, and the human person divergent from or opposed to Revelation evidences that a de facto movement beyond the Church and sound Christian faith has already occurred.

I do not think I overstate the point when I say that the futuristic ideas advanced by the proponents of Conscious Evolution are not actually new. The Gnostic tradition is filled with similar affirmations and we have seen again and again in the history of the Church the tragic results of partaking of this bitter fruit. Conscious Evolution does not offer anything which will nourish religious life as a privileged and prophetic witness rooted in Christ revealing divine love to a wounded world. It does not present the treasure beyond price for which new generations of young women will leave all to follow Christ. The Gospel does! Selfless service to the poor and marginalized in the name of Jesus Christ does!

It is in this context that we can understand Pope Francis’ remarks to the Plenary Assembly of the International Union of Superiors General in May of 2013. What the Holy Father proposes is a vision of religious life and particularly of the role of conferences of major superiors which in many ways is a positive articulation of issues which come across as concerns in the Doctrinal Assessment. I urge you to reread the Holy Father’s remarks and to make them a point of discussion with members of your Board as well.

I have raised several points in these remarks, so I will stop here. I owe an incalculable debt to the women religious who have long been a part of my life. They were the ones who instilled in me a love for the Lord and for the Church and encouraged me to follow the vocation to which the Lord was calling me. The things I have said today are therefore born of great love. The Holy See and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith deeply desire religious life to thrive and that the LCWR will be an effective instrument supporting its growth. In the end, the point is this: the Holy See believes that the charismatic vitality of religious life can only flourish within the ecclesial faith of the Church. The LCWR, as a canonical entity dependent on the Holy See, has a profound obligation to the promotion of that faith as the essential foundation of religious life. Canonical status and ecclesial vision go hand-in-hand, and at this phase of the implementation of the Doctrinal Assessment, we are looking for a clearer expression of that ecclesial vision and more substantive signs of collaboration.

http://www.doctrinafidei.va/muller/rc_co...wr_en.html
(05-05-2014, 10:30 AM)J Michael Wrote: [ -> ]I see "LCWR" and I cringe.

Ditto! I can't stand the LCWR. Wolves in sheeps clothing. Sometimes I really wonder why they even bother calling themselves Catholic. People would probably like them better if they started their own shin dig of a church......just wondering
At a meeting with representatives of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR), the prefect of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith rebuked the group for giving a top award to a dissident theologian, and pointedly reminded the American women religious that the LCWR is “a canonical entity dependent on the Holy See,” and must comply with Vatican-mandated plans for reform.

Cardinal Gerhard Müller said that the decision by the LCWR to confer its Outstanding Leadership Award on Sister Elizabeth Johnson, whose writings have drawn a caution from the US bishops’ committee on doctrine, can be “seen as a rather open provocation” in light of the Vatican’s call for reform of the American group.

Under the terms of the reform ordered by the Vatican in 2012, Cardinal Müller reminded the LCWR, the speakers at LCWR meetings should be cleared by the Vatican’s delegate supervising the reform process, Archbishop J. Peter Sartain of Seattle. But Archbishop Sartain was informed about the award for Sister Johnson “only after the decision had been made,” the cardinal observed, in an apparent violation of the Vatican’s directives.

Cardinal Müller—who apologized several times during his address for speaking so bluntly to the women religious—advised the LCWR leaders to bear in mind that an “assessment” of their group, at the conclusion of a Vatican investigation in 2011, had uncovered serious doctrinal problems. He said that these problems “are so central and so foundational, there is no other way of discussing them except as constituting a movement away from the ecclesial center of faith in Christ Jesus the Lord.”

To illustrate his point, the cardinal spoke about the “Conscious Evolution” movement, which has been discussed at length in LCWR meetings and publications. Cardinal Müller said:


Again, I apologize if this seems blunt, but what I must say is too important to dress up in flowery language. The fundamental theses of Conscious Evolution are opposed to Christian Revelation and, when taken unreflectively, lead almost necessarily to fundamental errors regarding the omnipotence of God, the Incarnation of Christ, the reality of Original Sin, the necessity of salvation and the definitive nature of the salvific action of Christ in the Paschal Mystery.

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/head...ryid=21312
(05-05-2014, 07:56 PM)divinesilence80 Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-05-2014, 10:30 AM)J Michael Wrote: [ -> ]I see "LCWR" and I cringe.

Ditto! I can't stand the LCWR. Wolves in sheeps clothing. Sometimes I really wonder why they even bother calling themselves Catholic. People would probably like them better[size=10pt] if they started their own shin dig of a church.[/size].....just wondering

That would defeat the purpose of subverting the Catholic Church and re-making it in *their* image.
(05-06-2014, 09:05 AM)J Michael Wrote: [ -> ]That would defeat the purpose of subverting the Catholic Church and re-making it in *their* image.

I'm not suggesting they do it, but saying if they did people would probably follow them. I think we have to be real here. People may physically drag their bodies to Church, but if they despise Catholic teaching their hearts are far from the truth. It is vain worship. "These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me." Matthew 15:8

I don't know if this is the right thinking, but I feel as though they are better off not in Church when their hearts are not into it.......seems like a lie to me.
(05-07-2014, 12:08 AM)divinesilence80 Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-06-2014, 09:05 AM)J Michael Wrote: [ -> ]That would defeat the purpose of subverting the Catholic Church and re-making it in *their* image.

I'm not suggesting they do it, but saying if they did people would probably follow them. I think we have to be real here. People may physically drag their bodies to Church, but if they despise Catholic teaching their hearts are far from the truth. It is vain worship. "These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me." Matthew 15:8

I don't know if this is the right thinking, but I feel as though they are better off not in Church when their hearts are not into it.......seems like a lie to me.
Actually if they keep up the way they are going that is exactly what they will do.
(05-07-2014, 12:08 AM)divinesilence80 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not suggesting they do it, but saying if they did people would probably follow them. I think we have to be real here. People may physically drag their bodies to Church, but if they despise Catholic teaching their hearts are far from the truth. It is vain worship. "These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me." Matthew 15:8

I don't know if this is the right thinking, but I feel as though they are better off not in Church when their hearts are not into it.......seems like a lie to me.

Me, I suggest they do it. They should admit they're Episcopalians, be happy, and go away already. There is not a single bit of sense in their sticking around in the One, True Church when everything they want can be found at some Episcopalian faith community down the street. They can have their womyn-priests with the rainbow vestments, the homosexual "priests" married to their partners, an OK on contraception and abortion, to not have to believe in the Real Presence, their wine in Kool-Aid picthers, all the felt banners they want, and even puppets! It's not as if they think "There is only One Church, and it is the Catholic Church, and outside of Her is no salvation" or anything. So why? Why do they stick around? Can they not have any fun unless they're ruining things for other people or something? It is a lack of cojones? Is it a matter of their thinking "I was baptized Catholic as a baby -- and that means I can call myself one even after I've grown up and don't believe anything the Church teaches, and they consider me a major heretic"? Would they think that way about any other organization their parents associated them with when they were little?

Really, the hubris is astonishing, isn't it? "No! I refuse to leave this 2,000 year old institution with roots that go back to the Old Testament! Even though I hate every other thing this Church teaches, I will NOT leave! I will remake it the way I want it re-made! It shall bend to ME, not I to it!" Wow!

Pages: 1 2