with restless hearts

reflections, critiques, comments, and questions of a 20-something catholic in pursuit of truth and justice in a dualistic world


Leave a comment

more thoughts on the nun-vatican showdown

Not too long ago I wrote a brief post about the purported nun-vatican standoff in the immediate aftermath of Cardinal Levada’s NCR interview. Other than throwing in my two cents that our tendency to cast “sides” in this issue will only prove damaging in the long-run, I was mostly silent on my own thoughts on the matter.

As many others have already observed, and even Levada has urged people to remember, the Church moves slow. Like took 1900 years to infallibly proclaim teachings the Church had always held to be true slow. So it is no surprise that the media (both ecclesial and secular) coverage of the tensions, conflict, loving challenge, confrontation, full-on attack, or whatever you want to call it between the CDF and LCWR leadership has come in an ebb-and-flow manner. Over the past few days, however, it seems that we’re back in a rush of coverage, assumptions, and less-than-charitable chiming in from viewers at home. And, yesterday, I came upon a blog post that hit so wonderfully to the heart of the matter that it made me want to affirm her conclusions and throw in my own voice as well.

The post comes from Sr. Susan, a sister of St. Joseph of Peace, who has a fabulous and comprehensive blog, Musings of a Discerning Woman, that captures her journey from maybe-discerner, through the trying novitiate years, and now as a temporary professed. The whole post can be found here, but I’ll quote some of the highlights as I meander my way to a point.

To provide some background, Sr. Susan’s community is a part of the majority that belong to the LCWR, she is considered a young religious (aka under 40), and has a great investment in thinking about what it means to be a new sister in aging communities with so much experience and wisdom. So if anyone should have a stake in the current Vatican-LCWR talks, and if anyone has a right to sound off about their frustration and confusion in the matter, it would be her. What I love and respect about Sr. Susan, though, is that in a move that speaks to her true character and love of her vocation, she has remained largely silent on the matter. As she reminds readers,

In my world of course, one of the biggest happenings of late has been the recent hullabaloo between the men who make up the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church and the women called to leadership of religious communities like my own. Regular readers of the blog will know that I’ve not written much here about that situation here, mostly because I want to respect the process and place my trust in our leadership and the Holy Spirit.

Read that last part again. It’s beautiful – I want to respect the process and place my trust in our leadership and the Holy Spirit. And I think she hits it right on the head.

No matter which way you try to spin it, this is a painful process. Even without all of the media hype, twitter name-calling, and uninformed op-eds that have appeared in its wake.

It’s painful for the bishops and Vatican officials because the general assumption seems to be that their primary motivation is anything but love and genuine pastoral concern. At best, they seem to be accused of clinging to out-dated tradition and set of expectations for women; at worst, they are misogynistic, anti-poor, abortion-obsessed, controlling, and threatened male hierarchy trying to hold onto whatever power they may have left.

It’s painful for the LCWR communities because they have been homogenized, villianized, victimized, manipulated, misunderstood, misquoted, and politicized. It’s painful because it’s hard to not feel personally attacked and under-appreciated when the constitutions by which you live your life and pledge your whole self are being questioned and picked apart. And it’s painful because all of this has been played out on a national stage, making them symbols of an ecclesial revolution that I would venture to say most are not interested in fighting.

Finally, it’s painful for onlookers, Catholics and non-Catholics alike, because we’ve allowed this issue to bring out the worst in us. No matter where we find ourselves on the spectrum of support, I think it’s fair to say that most of us have made comments (or read and condone online comments) that do no honor to Christ by disrespecting his brides. This was called out for what is beautifully in a recent Facebook post on Fr. James Martin’s public figure page (I suppose I don’t know for sure if this is associated with him or not, but it was brilliant nonetheless).

Earlier I posted a profile about Sister Pat Farrell, OSF, the current president of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious.  David Gibson’s article for Religion News Service focused on her work for the Church, and with the poor, in Central America over the last 30 years, often in situations of great danger.  How is it possible that, within a few minutes, I had to delete so many ad hominem comments about Sister Pat, which critiqued her for not being a “good Catholic”?   Have people no sense of perspective any longer?  If not, I have an idea: If you’d like to criticize Sister Pat for not being a good Catholic, as some did, then I would suggest that you do the following: First, spend some time working with the poor in San Antonio. Then, spend six years working with the poor in Chile during an oppressive and violent political regime. You’ll be working in a Catholic parish in a small town in the desert, by the way.  Next, move to El Salvador, where you will be in danger of being killed for working for the Catholic Church. That is, put your life on the line every single day for Jesus Christ and for the Catholic Church.  At one point during your almost twenty years there, work in a refugee camp, run by the church, that is the target of military raids.  Do all of this, by the way, while living under vows of poverty, chastity and obedience; living far from your home country; and having nothing to call your own. Then feel free to come back and post a comment on this Facebook page about what a bad Catholic she is.

Ok, so it definitely can be read with some passive-aggressive undertones, but it gets to the point. And at the end of the day, I think it’s this: the LCWR is and remains a canonical body of the Church, and inasmuch, it is absolutely acceptable that it’s teachings, publications, governing statutes, formation statutes, and public image be examined and adjusted if necessary. In fact, it is the bishops’ vocations and pastoral duties to do so. What is not acceptable, is when we make the leap from questionable teaching to questionable people. Everyone is prone to error, misjudgment, and sin. The LCWR leadership is no exception, but neither are the men who make up the CDF, the CMSWR leadership, or any of us. The Church doesn’t ask us to forget our conscious and automatically submit to her teachings. No, what she asks us to do requires more simplicity, humility, and trust. When we don’t agree or don’t understand, she simply tells us, that’s ok. You still belong. Just keep learning, keep searching, and keeping opening yourself to my Truth. (See here for an interesting article on “legitimate diversity of opinion.”)

Yes, there are times that the LCWR has, in my opinion, publically strayed from official Church teaching, and as a body that carries the heavy burden of publically representing the Church to others and the world, that’s a problem that should, and is hopefully being corrected. But while the missteps are so small, they are unfortunately being judged by them. But it’s what these women are doing right that should be the real story here!

As Sr. Susan puts it,

Over the past 40 years, many women religious have lived  and ministered with people on the margins of society, whether that is with AIDS patients or homeless urban Native Americans, with children with multiple disabilities or families without health insurance. We have a saying in our community that wherever one of our Sisters is, we are all there.  So while I have not had these ministry experiences, my Sisters have, and this in turn has informed our shared experience of life as followers of Jesus who pay special attention to the “little ones.”

Yes. We can talk all day about what makes up the “essentials” of religious life – habits, type of dwelling, size of community, horarium, daily mass, line of work, you name it. But the problem comes in as soon as we start delegitimizing someone else’s expression of it. Oh, there are some nonnegotiables – Catholic Religious Life implies communion with the Catholic Church and then there are the evangelical counsels – but beyond that, “authentic” religious life can be open to individualized expression.

And located within this, I would argue, is the real tension of what’s going on, and I would put it this way: The Vatican should rightly facilitate the alignment of the essentials of religious life. Women religious should rightly protect their communities’ unique charisms and expressions of religious life. Some within the Vatican hierarchy are redefining the essentials to include these individual expressions and are thus overstepping bounds of control. Some within LCWR religious communities are redefining individual expressions to include the essentials and are thus interpret this through a lens of violence, and the media’s leaving no room for anything but the extreme.

Both are off the mark, but both speak to very real pain and confusion. So what’s the answer? I would say that as a starting point, all parties involved should define the terms, work towards establishing a common language, and stop with the polarizations. But even as I say that, I have to believe that those truly invested and at the center of this issue are already doing just that. So maybe it’s just something the rest of us need to get on board with too?

Obviously, this is a difficult issue to discuss and write about. As a lay woman, I know that my concern and investment only goes so far, but as someone who has discerned Religious Life and has spent a great deal of time breaking down stereotypes and building relationships with women religious of all flavors, this is something that matters deeply to me. I’d like to close with Sr. Susan’s closing thoughts and call to prayer:

Please join me in praying for our Church, for the Bishops appointed by Rome to engage with LCWR, for the women in leadership who will meet in St Louis next week, and for all of God’s people.  That we may learn to follow Jesus with integrity and love, open to the call and presence of the Holy Spirit, living the good news in service of God and all of God’s people, especially the most vulnerable.

Amen, Sister, Amen!

Advertisements


2 Comments

levada speaks: vatican v. nuns

Cardinal William Levada, the prefect of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) and the man leading the alleged charge against
American women religious via the LCWR doctrinal assessment, recently granted an exclusive interview to National Catholic Reporter correspondent John L. Allen Jr.

Ordinarily, I steer clear of NCR reporting because, to be frank, it reminds me too much of Fox News – it claims to be independent, fair-and-balanced, whatever, but its stories all seem to have a definite partisan lean. Nevertheless, every so often I come across an article that is both thought-provoking and reflexive, and this interview is certainly one of those rare pieces.

The full text of the interview can be found here. It came as breath of fresh air after months of emotionally charged writings and rantings on both “sides” of the issue. I am of the opinion that it should be read by everyone who has, or claims to have, a stake in latest LCWR headlines, and I would also favor somehow making it prerequisite reading for anyone who wants to publish on the matter.

There is so much that I could say about this topic as I find deep connections to it on a personal, religious, and academic level. I’ll reserve comment for the time being, however, and just say that I am strong believer that the urge to cast “sides” in what should be a dialogue has caused serious rifts and pain for all parties involved. But more on what I think later. For now, I want to close with some quotations from the interview that address my compiled short-list of FAQs about the alleged smack down between the Vatican and nuns.

Why is the CDF going after American nuns? 

This assessment is not about the sisters in the United States. It’s about the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, a coordinating and directive body that has a spokesperson’s role for 80 percent of the religious congregations in the States or so. It exists because of a canonical statute in which the Holy See invites them to do this work of coordination, in a way that’s in sync with the teachings of the church and the directives of the Holy Father. That’s the basic issue we discussed with them.

Why is this all just coming up now? 

One answer is that the wheels turn slowly here in the Vatican… In reality, this should not be a surprise to anyone. We started this process four years ago. I met with the representatives [of LCWR] then to explain it to them. Of course, these things go on at a snail’s pace here, while the LCWR has changes in leadership all the time, so the new leaders may not be familiar with the history, and they have to go back over it all.

Why now? It’s a reasonable question in that this is not new stuff. Yet it’s cumulative, and at a certain point someone has to pay attention to it.

So there’s not an attack on US sisters?

For the record, let me say again this is not about a criticism of the sisters. No sister will lose her job in teaching or charitable work or hospital work as a result of this assessment, as far as I know. … This is about questions of doctrine, in response to God’s revelation, and church tradition from the time of the apostles. We take that seriously.

What about the criticisms on Sr. Margaret Farley? 

These things take a lot of time, and they all have their own logic. For instance, we didn’t just wake up one day and say, “Let’s go after Margaret Farley.” Frankly, this came up because of an interview she gave in Ireland. She was there for a conference, and said something along the lines that Ireland ought to approve same-sex marriage. Someone in Ireland objected, asking, “Why is this sister coming from the States and pushing same-sex marriage?” We wrote to her superior and got a vague response about how she’s a wonderful person who enjoys great esteem. That’s how Margaret Farley came onto our radar screen. It had nothing to do with the LCWR. We then found [her book] Just Love, read the reviews, and the process developed from there.

But why just pick on the nuns? Plenty of Catholics agree with many of their positions on social issues that go against the Church anyway. 

We’re not picking on people. We’re saying that people who have a representative role as spokespersons in and for the church also have a higher responsibility. It’s the same standard with theologians, even if they’re laity. We intervene, we give notifications and so forth. Sure, their books go off the charts, but we’re here to say that this doesn’t correspond with the truth of our Catholic tradition, with the revelation of Christ to the apostles.

I know some people say, “Isn’t my opinion as good as anybody else’s?” But this isn’t a question of my opinion. I don’t wake up and say, “Here’s dogma B, C and D.” These are the teachings of the church.

Wait, what’s the point of all this again? 

Ultimately, this is about a group that represents the church doing so in a way that is accountable to the teaching and tradition of the church.


1 Comment

hhs frustrations

Disclaimer: I am not at all an expert on the hhs mandate, the US Constitution, women’s health issues, insurance costs, or contraception costs and needs. But of all the recent Catholic headlines out there, nothing baffles me more than rallying cry for religious freedom that has gone up in the wake of the mandate.

I jumped on the hhs bandwagon relatively late – the regulation was first released in August, 2011, but I didn’t hear much about it until Obama and the bishops began going back and forth on the issue in February and March. I read a few articles, keeping more or less up to date on new negotiations, but no one I knew was really heavily invested in it or interested in discussing it, so I just filed it away in the look-something-catholic-is-getting-national-attention-but-it-doesn’t-really-affect-me part of my brain.

But then, something happened. Two things, really. First of all, I realized that as an employee of a Catholic social service agency that does not qualify for the narrow exemption, this seemingly far-off policy actually does impact me, in a profoundly personal and professional way. And secondly, on perhaps a less ego-centric note, I attended a young adults speaker event and the speaker, a priest that I very much respect, went a bit off topic to touch upon what a pivotal moment this mandate was for the Catholic Church in America.

So with that extra push of perceived relevancy, I started to do some more intentional research. I had heard that the brief filed by Notre Dame was the best piece of writing on this by the “this is a breach of religious freedom” crowd, so I read it. All of it. It’s a legal brief, so obviously it’s dense, but I actually found it very engaging and if you’re even mildly curious about what exactly these Catholic institutions are complaining about, it’s well worth the read. What I like most about it is that Notre Dame makes it explicit that this is not about the morality or accessibility of contraceptives

This lawsuit is about one of America’s most cherished freedoms: the freedom to practice one’s religion without government interference. It is not about whether people have a right to abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception. Those services are, and will continue to be, freely available in the United States, and nothing prevents the Government itself from making them more widely available.

But this is also precisely what makes me so uncomfortable about this whole thing. Can we really call this a violation of religious freedom? Especially when we have sisters and brothers suffering in parts of the world where there truly are governmental impediments to freedom of religion and worship. Just this week alone, a Protestant church was forced to shut down in Tehran, a Christian leader was arrested for allegedly having “too many conversions,” and a suicide bomber and gunmen attacked Nigerian churches – and that’s just looking at Christianity!

Personally, I do believe that contraceptives and abortifacients are morally objectionable, and I also recognize that that stance comes directly from my religious tradition. I also understand, and agree, that forcing Catholic institutions to pay for that which they find morally objectionable is in itself morally objectionable and does technically “violate” religious freedom. But at the same time, I also understand that for many women and families, contraception has become a normalized and costly part of their lives, and this mandate would in fact ease the financial burden of some of those women. So in that sense, the government should work to make it more affordable. The issue comes in with how they’re doing it – if the government believes that women should have covered access to birth control, fine. It’s not my thing, but fine. But if that’s the case, they should pay for it; use their money to back up that this really is something that our nation is passionate about and should be a “right.”

So in that sense, I suppose I am very anti-hhs mandate, but where my ambivalence remains is in the question of what to do about it. When Franciscan University of Steubenville very loudly and enthusiastically dropped health insurance for students and employees rather than be forced to eventually submit to the terms of the mandate, my first thought was, but what about those students who can’t get health insurance any other way? As an undergraduate student, I was on my college’s health insurance plan, but if that wasn’t there I always had my parents’ plan to fall back on, but I recognize that that was a unique privilege of my class, race, background, and a whole slew of factors that I am ordinarily blind to but depend on to get through my life. And what about those employees? How can they be expected to raise families without health care coverage?

I think that what frustrates me most about this whole thing is that it’s a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation (which the Notre Dame brief brilliantly points to – seriously, if you haven’t, read it). Catholic services and institutions must choose between violating Catholic social teaching regarding either contraceptives OR affordable health care.

So, then, what’s the answer? As much as I admire Franciscan University’s steadfast commitment to its Catholic identity, I do not think that it is a solution that others would be wise to follow. Yes, it sends a strong message they will not compromise their religious identity and beliefs, but it also serves to victimize those who are most vulnerable, those without alternate means to safe and affordable health care. The only real way out of this, at least that I can see, is for the government to expand its definition of which institutions qualify for the exemption and allow Catholic institutions to make atrue choicein the matter. And for that, unless you are into political lobbying, which I am hopelessly not, then I think the best plan of action we have is simply to pray.

The US bishops have declared a ‘Fortnight for Freedom’ from June 21 – July 3 to join in prayer, study, and public action to defend our right to religious freedom, and I’ve already received email notifications for events happening around my city for it. As much as I struggle with framing the HHS mandate as a full-fledged attack on religious liberty, especially considering how many unchecked privileges we as Christians and Americans actually do enjoy, I certainly will be joining in these two weeks, praying that this matter can be resolved in the way that will lead to the victimization and harm of the least number of people.

Do we need marches and speeches and catchy protest slogans? Maybe, but they have their potential for doing just as much harm as good. If making our message louder and more visible is what works for people, than so be it, but what I really believe that we need is more people in this nation on their knees. This whole thing is a mess; I don’t know how to fix it, but I guarantee that God does, and I for one, will choose to trust in that.


Leave a comment

a word on love

Today I randomly came upon an article that was recently run by Catholic News Service simply entitled, “Reminding those in despair of God’s love.” It was written from the perspective of a priest whose ministry has brought him face-to-face with the feelings of confusion, fear, rejection, and self-loathing that accompanies the navigation of sexual identity for too many young people today.

His piece did not waste time weighing the possibility or merit of same-sex unions, marriage, or adoption. There was nothing said of the theology of full communion with the Church or the distinction – that I suspect causes many people of both “sides” to cringe – between the tendency and act, the sinner and sin. In fact, the article was nearly entirely devoid of any reference to politics at all, and therein, I believe, lies its beauty and potency.

What this priest touches upon so poignantly is that this discussion isn’t about “rights” or equality; it’s about love. Too many youth in our country lose their sense of self, their faith, and their lives because they hear (or interpret) so many voices in their lives telling them that they aren’t worth it, that there is something wrong with them, that they are unloveable. Regardless of where you stand on the Church’s stance on homosexuality, or perhaps non-heterosexuality is a more accurate rendering, we should all be able to agree that there are young people (and some not-so-young people) who have been deeply wounded as a result of their sexual identities and they should be told that they are beautiful, loved, and wanted.

As the article strongly concludes,

 “No one should feel excluded from God’s love. No one should ever be driven to despair. Ever.”