[There are three women religious in my family: a cousin, an aunt, and a great aunt--all Dominican sisters. Only my aunt is still living.
I doubt many MOJ readers have been following the important events to which Sandra Schneiders' communication, below, refers.
Sandra M. Schneiders is a member of Sisters, Servants of the Immaculate
Heart of Mary of Monroe, Mich., is a professor of New Testament Studies
and Christian Spirituality at the Jesuit School of Theology, Berkeley,
CA.]
NCR Editor's note: When the Vatican announced in
January that it was undertaking a study of institutes of women
religious in the United States, many women religious were taken by
surprise. Reactions were mixed, some welcoming the study, others
anxious about it.
Sr. Sandra M. Schneiders shared her thoughts with some
colleagues and friends in an e-mail that was not meant for publication.
But her letter did become public and NCR received several
requests to publish the letter. We contacted Sr. Schneiders and she
gave us permission to share her letter with our online readers.
Author's Note: The following is not and never was
an article nor intended for publication. It originated as a spontaneous
response in an e-mail conversation among a few colleagues. It became
public, so I am making a few changes [in brackets] to clarify
references for readers who may not be conversant with the subject
matter.
Dear [Friends]
Thanks for your e-mails.
I am not inclined to get into too much of a panic about this
investigation -- which is what it is. We just went through a similar
investigation of seminaries, equally aggressive and dishonest. I do not
put any credence at all in the claim that this is friendly,
transparent, aimed to be helpful, etc. It is a hostile move and the
conclusions are already in. It is meant to be intimidating. But I think
if we believe in what we are doing (and I definitely do) we just have
to be peacefully about our business, which is announcing the Gospel of
Jesus Christ, fostering the Reign of God in this world.
We cannot, of course, keep them from investigating. But we can
receive them, politely and kindly, for what they are, uninvited guests
who should be received in the parlor, not given the run of the house.
When people ask questions they shouldn't ask, the questions should be
answered accordingly. I just hope we will not, as we American Religious
so often do, think that by total "openness" and efforts to "dialogue"
we are going to bring about mutual understanding and acceptance. This
is not mutual and it is not a dialogue. The investigators are not
coming to understand -- believe me, we found that out in the seminary
investigation. So let's be honest but reserved, supply no ammunition
that can be aimed at us, be non-violent even in the face of violence,
but not be naive. Non-violent resistance is what finally works as we've
found out in so many arenas.
In my work on the renewal of Religious Life over the last eight
years I have come to the conclusion that Congregations like ours [the
kind represented by LCWR in this country] have, in fact, birthed a new
form of Religious Life. We are really no longer "Congregations
dedicated to works of the apostolate" - that is, monastic communities
whose members "go out" to do institutionalized works basically assigned
by the hierarchy as an extension of their agendas, e.g., in Catholic
schools and hospitals, etc. We are ministerial Religious. Ministry is
integral to our identity and vocation. It arises from our baptism
specified by profession, discerned with our Congregational leadership
and effected according to the charism of our Congregation, not by
delegation from the hierarchy. We are not monastics at home. We are not
extensions of the clergy abroad. Our whole life is affected by our
ministerial identity: searching out the places (often on the margins of
Church and society) where the need for the Gospel is greatest (which
may be in Church institutions but often is not); living in ways that
are conducive to our ministry; preaching the Gospel freely as Jesus
commissioned his itinerant, full time companions to do. Our community
life and ministries are corporate but not "common life" in the sense of
everyone in the same place at the same time doing the same thing.
The phase of postconciliar "up-dating" for us was brief. We
realized, by our return to the Gospel and to our own foundations, that
we were called to much more radical [meaning in-depth] renewal than
surface adjustments of lifestyle. There is no going back. But I think
we may have to claim this, calmly and firmly, in the face of this now
organized effort to get us back into the older form. We are as
different from "apostolic Religious Congregations” [such as those
represented by the Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious, or
CMSWR] (of whom the Vatican is much more approving) as the mendicants
were from the Benedictine monks. The big difference is that they
[apostolic Religious Congregations] read Perfectae Caritatis and
did what it asked: deepened their spirituality (I hope), and did some
updating -- shorter habits, a more flexible schedule, dropping customs
that were merely weird, etc. We read Perfectae Caritatis through the lenses of Gaudium et Spes and Lumen Gentium and we were called out of the monastic/apostolic mode and into the world that Gaudium et Spes declared the Church was embracing after centuries of world rejection.
There is no problem with CMSWR-type communities continuing the older
form. Benedictinism didn't disappear when the Franciscans were founded.
There is only a problem if they feel called to halt the journey we are
on. That's where, in my view, we just have to be as courageous as our
forebears like Angela Merici [founder of the Ursulines] and Mary Ward
[IBVM) and Nano Nagle [PBVM] and Marguerite Bourgeoys [CND] and Louise
de Marillac [DC] and all those other pioneers of apostolic Religious
Life long before it was officially approved in 1900. The institutional
Church has always resisted the new in Religious Life, especially among
women. But the new will continue to happen. At this moment in history,
we are it. So, let's be what we are: Religious who are not cloistered
and ministers who are not ordained. Canon law has no categories yet for
that combination. But we exist. Law follows life, not vice versa.
On the subject of the Stonehill "symposium"
[held at Stonehill College, 2008, and very critical of LCWR-type
Congregations] - it wasn't a symposium where people come together to
share diverse views in the effort to reach greater truth. It was a pep
rally for those convinced they are right and can only be right if
people not like them are wrong. They were listening to themselves.
That's fine -- provided they don't go after other people. We are not
after them. This is a fake war being stirred up by the Vatican at the
instigation of the frightened. Let's not get into it. Also, what is the
worst thing that can happen from this investigation? They are surely
not going to shut down 95 % of the Religious Congregatons in this
country, even if they'd like to, any more than they closed all the
seminaries that were not teaching 19th century moral theology or buying
the official line that the clergy sex abuse scandal was caused, not by
corrupt bishops protecting pedophile priests, but by homosexuals in
seminaries.
Well, that's where I am on this. I refuse to go into a panic over
it. There are better things to do. Always glad to hear from any of you
on any of this.
Peace and courage,
Sandra
[From Fr. McBrien's column in NCR. For those who don't know: Fr. McBrien is the Crowley-O'Brien Professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame.]
Something has changed since the election of John Paul II as Pope in 1978, namely, the composi-tion of the Catholic hierarchy.
At the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), the following bishops (a
partial list only) exercised significant leadership: Cardinal Bernhard
Alfrink (Holland), Bishop Joseph DeSmedt (Belgium), Cardinal Julius
Döpfner (Germany), Cardinal Joseph Frings (Germany), Cardinal Franz
König (Austria), Cardinal Paul-Émile Léger (Canada), Cardinal Giacomo
Lercaro (Italy), Cardinal Achille Liénart (France), Cardinal François
Marty (France), Cardinal Albert Meyer (U.S.A.), and Cardinal Leo-Jozef
Suenens (Belgium).
What is remarkable is that every single one of them first became a
bishop under Pope Pius XII. The only exception was Cardinal Liénart,
who had been appointed by Pius XI.
Can one imagine a similar group of progressive bishops assuming
major leadership positions at, let us say, Vatican III? Not likely,
since Pope John Paul II, unlike Pope Pius XII -- no liberal, he -- made
a conscious effort throughout his long pontificate to appoint only
rigid loyalists to the hierarchy and to exclude, just as consciously,
the very type of priests who could become the pace-setters of another
much-needed renewal and reform of the universal Catholic church.
John Paul II's bishops, with outstanding exceptions to be sure,
tended to be priests known first of all for their readiness to do
whatever they were told by the Vatican, and not to think for themselves
or to be responsive to pastoral challenges identified by their own
priests, religious, and laity.
These appointees were largely "careerists" whose apparent main
concern was to curry favor with those in the Vatican who could promote
them within the hierarchy, and not to do or say anything that could
abort their rise to the top.
At least three cardinals have publicly attacked careerism in the
priesthood: Vincenzo Fagioli, former head of the Pontifical Council for
the Interpretation of Legislative Texts, Bernardin Gantin, former head
of the Congregation of Bishops, and Joseph Ratzinger, at the time head
of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and now Pope Benedict
XVI.
[Here is the entire column.]
[From an article in NCR:]
Calling the Obama presidency a new moment in U.S. history, Jesuit
Fr. John P. Langan of Georgetown University warned April 27 of a
current “three-way impasse” on abortion. He urged U.S. bishops seeking
real change to act with caution, pastoral care and “civil respect for
those with whom they disagree.”
“The bishops are certainly right to condemn the moral evil of
abortion and to warn us against the individualism, selfishness and
greed which have had such a devastating effect on American culture and
family life as well as on our financial institutions,” he said.
“But if they think they make their witness more credible and more
effective by developing a quasi-excommunication of the Democratic Party
and by aligning themselves with politicians who think that combining
pro-life slogans with American chauvinism and exercising American
military power without regard to international criticism constitutes an
adequate response to evil in the world, they are sadly mistaken,” he
added.
Bishops who try to make abortion the sole or overriding political
issue for Catholics are “marginalizing the church’s political
influence,” he said.
Langan is Georgetown’s Cardinal Joseph Bernardin professor of
Catholic social thought and rector of the university’s Jesuit
community. He delivered a carefully nuanced analysis of the Catholic
social teaching challenges facing the new Obama administration and the
111th U.S. Congress at a seminar on Capitol Hill, held at the Dirksen
Senate Office Building and sponsored by The Catholic University of
America’s Life Cycle Institute.
Langan pulled no punches on Catholic politicians who do not embrace
the church’s teachings against abortion. “Catholic Democrats in
political and civil life will need to show that they are ready to
criticize the practice of abortion and that they do not regard it as
the unquestionable exercise of an inherent right or as a morally
trivial private choice,” he said. “The teaching of the church needs to
make some difference in their political behavior and should not be
relegated to a purely private realm.”
But at the same time he excoriated those bishops -- and single-issue
pro-life advocates they directly or indirectly support -- who put all
supporters of legal abortion in a single camp as proponents of the
“culture of death,” and who advocate systematic resistance to Obama and
his administration on absolutist grounds of opposition to his abortion
policies. . . .
“What we are looking at,” he said, “is a three-way impasse”:
- “Pro-life Democrats -- and some pro-life Republicans as well -- are
looking for the Obama administration to offer reassurances with regard
to conscience clauses [protecting health care workers who
conscientiously oppose abortion] and some signs that it is prepared to
take seriously the goal of making abortion rare as well as safe and
legal. So far there are not many signs that the administration thinks
it necessary or worthwhile to make such concessions” and a continued
divide on such issues could fracture the religious and secular wings of
the current liberal coalition.
- “The bishops, meanwhile, have been discovering that the pace of
their political involvement is determined by three groups: 1) a
minority of bishops who take positions which capture media attention,
such as the denial of Communion to pro-choice politicians; 2) a noisy
movement of activists and populists, which includes many sincerely
devout people but also far too many members who use scurrilous and
vicious language to attack those who deviate from the antiabortion line
which they identify with Catholic orthodoxy; and 3) rationalistic moral
theorists who hold that all other considerations pale into
insignificance in comparison with the intrinsic evil of abortion. In
this situation the political influence of the church is likely to be
enfeebled and marginalized beyond the dreams of our enemies.”
- “To an increasing extent, the pro-life movement within the church
shows a desire to act in ways which break amicable and civil relations
with those both inside and outside our church who favor abortion or who
support compromise on this issue. ... They lump together both those who
deny that abortion is a moral evil and those who believe that even
while it is indeed a moral evil, it cannot be effectively forbidden by
law in the contemporary United States.”
“The bishops need to think carefully,” Langan commented, “about
whether they are showing a heroic resistance to absolute evil or
whether they are being used by selfish and dishonest political
interests and by zealots who show more passion than judgment when they
stubbornly refuse to recognize the limits of what is politically
possible in a pluralistic and individualistic society.”
He said that the need in the U.S. church today “is for a group of
bishops to teach in a way which shows that they are sensitive to the
wounded condition of American Catholicism and to the complexities of
the life issues in a very imperfect world.”
“They will need to show civil respect for those with whom they
disagree, pastoral concern for Catholics who may question their
teaching and caution in scrutinizing those who offer to fight their
battles for them,” he said.
[Here is the whole article.]
I was happy to see Michael Sean Winters link to Rick’s op-ed over at America Magazine’s group blog In All Things. In response to Rick’s comments MSW said the following:
Readers will know where I stand on the controversy surrounding the University of Notre Dame's decision to award President Obama an honorary degree next Sunday at their commencement. But, I have to tip my hat to Rick Garnett, a law professor at Notre Dame, who takes the opposite position in today’s USAToday but does so thoughtfully and intelligently. This does not surprise if you are familiar with Garnett's writing. But, his calm, reasoned argument, which could have found its way into Dr. Glendon's speech if she had not decided to absent herself from the ceremonies, will not be the face of the opposition to Notre Dame's decision next Sunday. Randall Terry will garner all the media attention. That is a shame for Notre Dame, a shame for the pro-life movement, and a shame for the Church.
In response to this, I posted the following comment on the America blog which I am happy to share with MOJ readers (hopefully free of the formatting errors over there). I particulary took exception to some of MSW's prior remarks about Mary Ann Glendon.
I think that overall, the criticisms of Notre Dame's decision to honor President Obama have been more along the lines of Prof. Rick Garnett's thoughtful editorial than the shrill accusations of Randall Terry (which, while likely well-intentioned, are more prone to alienate than to persuade). Instead, it has served the interests of those who support Notre Dame's decision to mischaracterize all opposition as being more like the latter than the former. Thus, your acknowledgement of the quality of Prof. Garnett's remarks is certainly welcome. At the same time, what has been missing in all of this controversy is anything like a point-by-point response to (as you put it) the “calm, reasoned argument[s]” put forth by Garnett and others.
Moreover, your suggestion that Prof. Mary Ann Glendon could have delivered remarks similar to Prof. Garnett's is surprising, to say the least, given your prior characterization of her decision (here) not to share the stage with President Obama as demonstrating a false sense of "moral responsibility," as showing all the sincerity of "a sincere Republican" whose affiliation with the Bush administration meant that she endorsed the intrinsic evil of torture such that "it is rich to hear her lecturing about moral outrage." Of course, you can cite to no source which shows that Prof. Glendon endorses or has endorsed torture for the simple reason that she has never advocated that position. What you could do is point to many sources in which President Obama has endorsed the intrinsic evil of abortion, as a matter of both personal and political morality.
Further, Prof. Glendon is not the Republican stooge you suggest, indeed, I don't believe that Prof. Glendon is a Republican at all. She was invited to serve in a Republican administration, but, let's face it, no such invitation was forthcoming from the Clinton administration nor will any be forthcoming from the Obama administration for the simple reason that the views she holds and so eloquently defends – and indeed, the kind of feminism she embodies – are anathema to those who hold power in the Democratic Party. (I say this as a disaffected Democrat, disaffected precisely because of the Party's doctrinaire approach to the "choice" issue). Prof. Glendon's decision to decline the Laetare Medal had nothing to do with some supposed sense of moral purity that would be offended if she were to share the stage with the President. As I think her letter to Father Jenkins made clear, her decision was based on a desire not to be manipulated – not to serve as political cover for the serious miscalculations in judgment for which Jenkins and the University are responsible.
The absence of manipulation and a forthright engagement with the arguments put forth by those who respect the President but oppose the University's decision to honor him are necessary if the Catholic community is to enjoy the benefits of genuine dialogue on this matter.
Apropos of the discussion between Steve and Rick, I've just posted a short article on SSRN, based on a talk concerning school funding that I gave to a Rome audience in February. Here's an abstract:
The pattern of church-state relations in the United States presents what many Europeans may see as a paradox. America is by far the most religiously observant of Western nations, yet it provides far less than many Western European nations in government support for religiously affiliated education at the primary and secondary levels, the most important years in forming children’s minds. This article, written for a European audience, reviews two explanations for the American tradition of no financing. One is “pluralist,” asserting that religious primary and secondary schools can better maintain their independence and identity without state aid because aid brings state regulation; and the second “cohesionist,” asserting that while nonsectarian religion may be socially valuable, schools of particular denominations undercut social unity by separating children in their formative years and therefore should not be encouraged with government support. I offer a few reasons why the pluralist approach to education is more attractive than the cohesionist approach. Finally, I assess whether the tradition against financing of religious primary and secondary schools does in fact promote educational pluralism, and I conclude that, on balance, it is better for pluralism that religious schools have the option to receive state financing.
Today, USA Today ran an op-ed of mine about the controversy surrounding Notre Dame's decision to give President Obama an honorary degree. A bit:
Notre Dame's project is challenging and vulnerable, but it's also exciting and important — and not just to Catholics. We all have a stake in its success. Conversations are made deeper and richer, and the diligent search for truth is helped by the presence of diverse, distinctive — sometimes dissenting — voices. Institutions, like individuals, provide these voices.
Peter Parker's Uncle Ben was right to say, "With great power comes great responsibility." Similarly, institutions that matter carry a burden. This is why Notre Dame's decision to honor President Obama with an honorary law degree is so controversial. Most graduation speeches, of course, are entirely forgettable hodgepodges of Dr. Seuss, Ralph Waldo Emerson and Starbucks-cup quotations. This year, however, Notre Dame's commencement speaker on Sunday could hardly be more prominent or memorable. And yet, the choice has divided sharply not only the Irish Nation but Catholics generally and has prompted many of us who love Notre Dame and embrace its mission to ask: Is Notre Dame's decision consistent with the character and commitments that make it distinctive? That make it worth caring about? That make it matter? . . .
The question on the table is not whether Notre Dame should hear from the president but whether Notre Dame should honor the president. A Catholic university can and should engage all comers, but in order to be true to itself — to have integrity — it should hesitate before honoring those who use their talents or power to bring about grave injustice. The university is, and must remain, a bustling marketplace of ideas; at the same time, it also has a voice of its own. We say a lot about who we are and what we stand for through what we love and what we choose to honor. The controversy at Notre Dame is not about what should be said at Catholic universities, but about what should be said by a Catholic university. . . .
To doubt that a Catholic university should honor Obama at this time, and to worry about the message such an honor sends, is not to engage in partisan or "single issue" politics or to deny that there are many things to be celebrated and admired about our new president's life, campaign, election and vision. Indeed, these things make it all the more regrettable — tragic, really — that he is so badly misguided on such a fundamental issue of justice.
