National Public Radio recently interviewed Sister Pat Farrell, the current president of the LCWR (Leadership Conference of Women Religious):
Farrell tells Fresh Air's
Terry Gross that the leadership organization is currently gathering
the perspectives of all of its members in preparation for its national
assembly in August.
"We're
hoping to come out of that assembly with a much clearer direction about
[the Vatican's decision], and that's when the national board and
presidency can proceed," she says.
Among
the options on the table, she says, are fully complying with the
mandate, not complying with the mandate or seeing if the Vatican will
negotiate with them.
"In my
mind, [I want] to see if we can somehow, in a spirited, nonviolent
strategizing, look for maybe a third way that refuses to define the
mandate and the issues in such black and white terms," she says.
In other words, let's sit down and talk about having further dialogue
that will point us in the direction of additional conversations, which
in turn will open up new vistas of vague and non-distinct paths ushering
in an even more rewarding round of discussions, etc., etc. Frankly,
this is what it is like sometimes dealing with my seven-year-old son,
who is verbally skilled, sometimes manipulative, very adept at
deflection, and usually refuses to back down when caught breaking rules,
telling lies, or stealing sweets. A "third way"? That's simply grown-up
talk for "one more chance". Refusing to define issues in such "black
and white terms" is a variation on "why do you always have to be so
strict about X, Y, and Z?" The key to this approach is being willing to
outlast—often through endless talk!—those in authority. It also helps to
be able say one thing while claiming to say another.
But, first, how about a little dose of deflection?
"The
question is, 'Can you be Catholic and have a questioning mind?' That's
what we're asking. ... I think one of our deepest hopes is that in the
way we manage the balancing beam in the position we're in, if we can
make any headways in helping to create a safe and respectful
environment where church leaders along with rank-and-file members can
raise questions openly and search for truth freely, with very complex
and swiftly changing issues in our day, that would be our hope. But the
climate is not there. And this mandate coming from the Congregation of
the Doctrine of the Faith putting us in a position of being under the
control of certain bishops, that is not a dialogue. If anything, it
appears to be shutting down dialogue."
First, begin with a nonsensical question (my son, caught watching a
television channel he knows is off limits, says, "Why does my sister get
to watch whatever shes wants to?" Well, she doesn't. But he's not
interested in the answer, is he?) Does Sister Farrell really ponder,
with all seriousness, the question, "Can I be a Catholic and have a
questioning mind?" Uh, the fact that a Catholic can even ponder such a
question indicates the obvious answer: "Yes!" Crack open the Summa Theologica,
one of the seminal theological and philosophical texts in the
Tradition, and what do you find? Questions! Hundreds of 'em! Because we
were made to question, ponder, contemplate, and wonder. But what is
really being asked is this: "Can I be a Catholic and reject
certain Catholic teachings?" The giveaway is in the term "complex and
swiftly shifting issues in our day". The next part of deflection, of
course, is blaming someone else. In this case, it's the CDF and the
bishops appointed by the CDF: "But the climate is not there." Yes,
that's right: the forecast for the LCWR is stormy weather, not smooth
sailing.
Another tactic employed by the wayward child is claiming he or she
knows better than the backwards, mean-spiriited parent. If only Mom or
Dad would see how smart and enlightened little Johnny really is! Then
they would admit the error of their cruel and unfair ways. The adult
variation is more sophisticated, of course, but not any more convincing:
We have
been, in good faith, raising concerns about some of the church's
teachings on sexuality. The problem being that the teaching and
interpretation of the faith can't remain static and really needs to be
reformulated, rethought in light of the world we live in. And new
questions and new realities [need to be addressed] as they arise. And if
those issues become points of conflict, it's because Women Religious
stand in very close proximity to people at the margins, to people with
very painful, difficult situations in their lives. That is our gift to
the church. Our gift to the church is to be with those who have been
made poorer, with those on the margins. Questions there are much less
black and white because human realities are much less black and white.
That's where we spend our days.
Because, you see, being around poor people makes you smarter than
bishops, theologians, the Magisterium, and the Tradition! Why? Uh, well, it's complicated. It's complex. You wouldn't understand. Take our word on it.
I'm sure that one of the complex issues in question is the Church's
teachings about contraceptives. As Mary Eberstadt points out in Adam and Eve After the Pill,
it's one thing to have made the argument for how great contraceptives
are in, say, 1968. But the results are in; the polls have closed;
history has rendered judgment. And the widespread use of contraceptives
has proven to be a social and spiritual (as well as physiological)
disaster.
The telling statement by Sister Farrell is this: "The problem being
that the teaching and interpretation of the faith can't remain static
and really needs to be reformulated, rethought in light of the world
we live in." She either doesn't understand the relationship between the
sacred deposit of faith and how it can be presented in various ways in
differing circumstances, or she is throwing up a smokescreen. Ad Gentes,
for example, stated, "Religious institutes, working to plant the
Church, and thoroughly Imbued with mystic treasures with which the
Church's religious tradition is adorned, should strive to give
expression to them and to hand them on, according to the nature and the
genius of each nation" (par. 18). But her problem is not with trying to
articulate Catholic moral doctrine, for example, but with the moral
teaching itself, as her negative references to "black and
white" beliefs make clear. Yet truth does not change because someone is
poor, just as it doesn't change because someone is rich. Besides, it's
not as if the LCWR has a monopoly on working among the poor, nor does it
follow that those who work with the poor are somehow able to earn the
right and ability to form their own magisterium.
Then, of course, there is the issue of women's ordination. This response is a
rather classic version of the child who insists, "Oh, no, I was not near
the cookie jar! In fact, I didn't see it there. I don't even like
cookies! Why do you think I like cookies? I never talk about cookies!"
Here goes:
The
position we took in favor of women's ordination in 1977 was before
there was a Vatican letter saying that there is a definitive church
position against the ordination of women. So it's interesting to me that
the document [just released by the church] goes back 30 years to talk
about our position on the ordination of women. There has, in fact, been
an official opinion from the church that that topic should not be
discussed. When that declaration came out, the response of the
Leadership Conference of Women Religious was to call for a nationwide
time of prayer and fasting for all Women Religious in response to that.
Because our deep desire for places of leadership of women in the church
be open. It remains a desire. Since then, the Leadership Conference
has not spoken publicly about the ordination of women. Imposing a
silence doesn't necessarily change people's thinking, but we are in a
position to continue to be very concerned that the position of women in
the church be recognized.
Translation: When it was finally clear what the Church taught about
women's ordination, we knew it couldn't be discussed. So, instead, we
encouraged dialogue about it. And conversation. And prayer. And we still
want to have women ordained; we haven't changed our minds about it.
It's something we continue to be fixatd on. But we have no idea why it's
a point of concern. No idea at all.
Huh. As for the 1977 date, what to do with this statement,
made by then-LCWR President Sister Theresa Kane on October 7, 1979,
directly to Pope John Paul II at the National Shrine in Washington,
D.C.?
As
I share this privileged moment with you, Your Holiness, I urge you to
be mindful of the intense suffering and pain which is part of the
life of many women in these United States. I call upon you to listen
with compassion and to hear the call of women who comprise half of
humankind. As women we have heard the powerful messages of our Church
addressing the dignity and reverence for all persons. As women we have
pondered upon these words. Our contemplation leads us to state that
the Church in its struggle to be faithful to its call for reverence
and dignity for all persons must respond by providing the possibility
of women as persons being included in all ministries of our Church. I
urge you, Your Holiness, to be open to and respond to the voices
coming from the women of this country who are desirous of serving in
and through the Church as fully participating members.
So, almost three years after the CDF document, Inter Insigniores,
was released (October 15, 1976), the head of LCWR publicly demanded
that women be ordained. Yet Sister Farell claims, "Since then [that is,
1977], the Leadership Conference has not spoken publicly about the
ordination of women." Of course, the dates are rather black and white,
and it's obvious she doesn't have any patience for such rigidity. Oh,
and there is also the October 7, 1984, New York Times ad—“A Diversity of Opinions Regarding Abortion Exists Among Committed Catholics”—which was publicly supported by the LCWR. (See this timeline from Fr. Z for more details.)
Finally, her remarks about abortion are, predictably, both confused
and frustrating. She says it is "unfair" that the LCWR is criticized for
what "we're not talking about" (that is, how abortion is murder and a
grave sin), insisting, "Our works are very much pro-life". Then there is
this bizarre statement, which sounds like something Mario Cuomo, John
Kerry, or Nancy Pelosi might toss out: "We would question, however, any
policy that is more pro-fetus than actually pro-life. If the rights of
the unborn trump all of the rights of all of those who are already
born, that is a distortion, too — if there's such an emphasis on
that." That is not just nonsensical, it is directly contrary to Catholic
teaching as the very notion there is a conflict between the rights of
the unborn and of the born is deeply confused: every human being has the
right to life. Period.
Yes, it's true that life issues more than abortion—but what serious
Catholic would deny it? But what serious Catholic would deny that abortion is the life issue of our time? Do we really need to spell out why that is so? Are the murders of forty million innocent
unborn not reason enough? How about the Catechism: "Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception" (par 2270)? Or the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church:
The first right presented in this list [of essential rights] is the right to life, from conception to its natural end,
which is the condition for the exercise of all other rights and, in
particular, implies the illicitness of every form of procured abortion
and of euthanasia. (par 155)
The Sister then says, "To single out one right-to-life issue and to say
that that's the only issue that defines Catholic identity, I think,
is really a distortion." Again, I don't know of any good Catholics who say or believe abortion is the "only issue that defines Catholic identity"—this is itself a distortion, as well as a convenient way of avoiding the fact that the LCWR does nothing and says nothing about abortion!
In short, a less than impressive interview, one that suggests, again, that the LCWR
and CDF will likely be entering some stormy waters in the near
future.
[Some minor edits—for typos and grammar—where made to this post at 3:30 EST on July 18, 2012.]