O Sister, Where Art Thou?

CWR: How did a comparatively small cadre of sisters effect such an enormous change in women’s religious communities in a very short period of time?

Carey: The LCWR played a huge role in transforming most of the women’s religious orders in the US, and it continues to have a strong influence, even internationally, in spreading what the CDF called doctrinal errors and corporate dissent. As the Second Vatican Council was drawing to a close in 1965, some sisters put their own interpretation on Vatican II documents and subsequent Vatican teachings on the renewal of religious orders.

I describe in my book how change-oriented sisters worked their way into positions of authority in the LCWR and changed membership requirements from one superior to teams or entire councils being LCWR members. This allowed the change-oriented orders to have several voting members per order, maybe 8-12, compared to the classic orders that had maintained the one-superior model and thus had only one vote. So, it was easy for the change-oriented sisters to impose their own agenda on the LCWR, and through that organization, onto many orders of sisters. I write about how this caused a split in the LCWR, leading to establishment of the other superior’s conference, the Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious.

Sisters have told me that similar voting irregularities occur in their own orders, often with the vote of the elderly diluted, or by intimidation or deception. Usually, sisters vote for their leaders and on policies through delegates to their “chapter” meetings. However, delegates are now allowed to be self-appointed, thus allowing for a large group of change-oriented sisters to be a part of decision making in the chapter.

So, what is likely to happen? If the CDF and Church leadership stays the course, the LCWR will almost certainly lose its canonical status, something that probably should have happened a long time ago:

CWR: One thing that doesn’t seem to be disputed by anyone—by the LCWR or the Vatican or anyone else—is that the Vatican and the sisters of the LCWR have very different views of the Church and of the role of religious in the Church. Given this divergence, what kind of outcome can be expected from the on-going “dialogue” between the Holy See—and the bishops representing it—and the sisters of the LCWR?

Carey: Both the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the LCWR have been very tight-lipped about their “dialogue.” The CDF mandate was for the three bishops overseeing the reform of the LCWR to finish their work in five years; it was not to wait five years to start reform. However, there is no evidence that any of the changes mandated in the CDF doctrinal assessment have taken place. For example, the assessment directed that the LCWR publication “Systems Thinking Handbook” be withdrawn from circulation, but it is still available for download on the LCWR website.

The 2012 mandate also directed the LCWR to clear all of its speakers and programs with the three bishops appointed as apostolic delegates to oversee the reform. Yet the theme for the 2013 LCWR August 13-17 annual assembly is “Leadership Evolving: Graced, Grounded & Free,” with the keynoter, Sister Ilia Delio, OSF, speaking on “Religious Life on the Edge of the Universe.” Somehow, this does not sound as if the apostolic delegates had any say in the program.

If the LCWR does not accept the changes mandated in the assessment, the Vatican has no choice but to withdraw the LCWR canonical status as an official superiors’ conference. The LCWR could continue as a secular, professional organization. However, without Church recognition, its influence and status certainly would decline, and I wonder if many orders could justify continuing to pay the dues that help support the LCWR’s $1.5 million annual budget.

It is important to say that if the LCWR loses its canonical recognition, it would affect only the LCWR and would not impact the canonical status of any of the women’s religious orders or the individual sisters themselves. However, some sisters have used that confusion as a scare tactic to garner support for the LCWR.

Carey reports that the 2013 LCWR president, Franciscan Sister Florence Deacon, recently spoke about “faithful dissent”. That is akin to married couples talking about “faithful adultery” or civic leaders lauding “faithful treason.” We’ve now witnessed over forty years of the rotten fruit of such nonsense, and the results are evident: a loss of faith, scandal among the faithful, and a drastic decline in the number of sisters and vocations. The experiment in double-speak and spiritual sterility is over, even if the leaders of the LCWR continue to stall, stall, and stall.