Authority, political discussion and debates, and the presentation of dissenting views all have their proper role in the formulation of norms; moreover, norm making is an important project of the law. Civil society has its law, and the Church has hers. In both of these contexts, the human law maker has an important role to exercise. There was a time when the natural law was the common denominator of both legal systems, i.e., temporal and ecclesial. But in the present age, getting a message to the public often appears to be just as an important element of norm making. This is the case in the civil sector where radio, television, the conventional press, and the internet have important and influential roles in the manner in which the laws that govern temporal society are made. In some ways regarding ecclesial juridical authority, getting the message to the faithful about how norms are made and how they appropriated by the People of God also brings the media into the fray.
On this past Tuesday, July 17, National Public Radio (NPR) broadcast the first of a two-part series concerning governance in the Church. This past Tuesday’s episode was entitled “An American Nun Responds to Vatican Criticism.” [HERE] The guest on this NPR program was Sister Pat Farrell, OSF who is the current President of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) which is the subject of a doctrinal assessment and visitation by the Holy See. In the near future, NPR will have a second broadcast in which Bishop Leonard Blair of Toledo, who is a member of the team that is charged with working with the LCWR on the doctrinal assessment, will be the guest interviewee.
In her interview, Sister Farrell made some important points about the assessment and about religious life and its future, especially in the United States. I realize that time was probably insufficient for her to develop all her remarks as she would have liked, and I further appreciate that what she did say in a lengthy interview will have an impact on how many of the faithful and others think about the principles of Catholicism including norms designed for religious life and fidelity to the Church. While there are many elements of the content of her interview meriting discussion, I would like to comment on a few of her points that require further elaboration. These are not the only ones meriting serious discussion, but they contain, I think, mischaracterizations about the truth of the matters asserted. Consequently, elements of this interview will have an impact on how the faithful and others understand critical normative principles of the Church.
The first point I comment on is the reference made by the interviewer to an past LCWR address which the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith mentioned in its April 2012 report on the LCWR, namely, the keynote speech delivered by Sister Laurie Brink, OP at the 2007 LCWR annual meeting.
The CDF raised concerns about Sister Brink’s address by pointing to an observation that some women religious in the United States are sojourners who have moved beyond the Church or even beyond Jesus. In her interview, Sister Farrell acknowledged that the CDF called attention to the Brink address, and Farrell acknowledged that this Brink remark “is of serious concern to us.” But Sister Farrell also insisted that “it is a very distorted quotation” and “quoted very much out of context from the presentation that was given.” Because of Sister Farrell’s protest, the interview asked if Sister Farrell if she rejected this Brink option characterizing women’s religious life. Farrell asserted that this “would be a very serious distortion” by somehow suggesting that “the majority of women religious… are beyond Jesus and beyond the Church,” so it “is a very egregious and a very serious distortion.”
But I question if this is the case after having reread the Brink address today. Like Sister Farrell and the CDF, the Brink keynote address is a very serious matter necessitating a careful and objective reading of it in its entirety. Having just done this, I realize that there is more to the Brink address than Sister Farrell contended yesterday. In her keynote, Sister Brink suggested that there are at least four “lenses” through which a person can view women’s religious life in the United States today. Although Sister Brink indicated that there could be other lenses pertaining to “felt experience” of religious life and how it is understood by some individuals, her keynote identified and discussed four that she considered viable methods of understanding women’s religious life today. Consequently, she by no means dismissed this sojourner model that is beyond the Church and Jesus; moreover, she clearly explained that for some women religious, “[r]eligious titles, institutional limitations, ecclesiastical authorities no longer fit [some] congregation[s], which in most respects [are] Post-Christian.” Brink was clear that this “lens” “embraced the renewal in the 1970s.” Brink also indicated that one illustration of these “courageous women” who are sojourners can be found in the Benedictine Women of Madison. A few years ago two Benedictine sisters in Madison WI asked to be released from their vows, and this request was granted by the appropriate ecclesiastical authorities. These former Benedictine nuns then transferred their community’s property in piecemeal fashion back to a corporation of which they were the officers. But what became of the canonical requirements dealing with the alienation of ecclesiastical property is obscured. Then they accepted into their community a woman, who is a Presbyterian Minister, who now presides at the “sharing of the Bread of Life around a common table” at their Sunday worship in a community that purportedly follows the Rule of Saint Benedict. I wonder if this is really an acceptable model “of integrity, insight, and courage” as Sister Brink contends that it is.
While Sister Brink did indicate a personal preference for the “reconciliation” lens which she subsequently developed in her keynote, it is difficult in some respects to see how this “lens” differs in substance from prime elements of the “sojourner” lens. In the context of the “reconciliation” lens, Sister Brink contends that the “theologically educated… American laity” make the hierarchy “more edgy.” I do not think that is what makes the ecclesiastical authorities “edgy”; rather, I think the source of the particular problem here is defining the substance of this theological education and in what it believes and in what it does not. In her defense of the “reconciliation” lens Brink argues that “young Catholics see themselves as spiritual and not necessarily tied to traditional religion”; however, she avoids addressing the candid question that emerges: what makes these “young Catholics” Catholic if they aren’t tied to Catholicism? Yet this contention seems to be a part of her preferred model of Catholicism and religious life. In her “reconciliation” model, she also complains about “Catholic theologians… denied academic freedom.” Really? In fact, do not the very academicians who want “academic freedom” for themselves deny it to those who are considered “traditional” and “orthodox”? That is my “felt experience”; moreover, it is the “felt experience” of others, too.
A final remark needs to be made in Brink’s defense of the “reconciliation” model: she asserts that, “Gays and lesbians desire to participate as fully human, fully sexual Catholics within their parishes.” I don’t think the problem is with anyone participating in their parish and sacramental life regardless of their orientation. But the real question posed by the Brink address is this: what does it mean to be “fully sexual” knowing that particular manifestations of human sexuality in both heterosexual and homosexual contexts are sinful? At this point Sister Brink contends that, “The hierarchy of our Church is right to feel alarmed.” On that point, she is correct; moreover, the hierarchy are also justified in concluding, after careful thought, that alarm is warranted.
In the conclusion of her “reconciliation lens,” it is clear that Brink stated that it is the hierarchy who are to be forgiven and not the LCWR or any of its corporate or individual members. As “prophets”, women religious, in her estimation, are justified in proclaiming the “hierarchy’s abuses of power, shameful behavior and deafness to [women religious’s] cries for equality.” If this is the model of reconciliation, I wonder what is her model of confrontation?
But I must return to a couple of other points of Sister Farrell’s interview. Regarding the Church’s teaching on human sexuality, Sister Farrell contended that this needs to be reevaluated, as these teachings cannot “remain static and really need[] to be reformulated, rethought, in light of the world we live in…” This statement is a recipe not for the search for universal truth about the essence and nature of the human person but about promoting the acceptance of subjectivism, personalism, and historicism that can serve as the justification for what anyone wants to do in the venue of human sexuality.
When the interviewer brought up the issue of women’s ordination, Sister Farrell recalled and defended the fact that the LCWR favored women’s ordination in 1977. She did this earnestly and innocently by contending that this declaration was “before there was a Vatican letter saying that there is a definitive Church position against the ordination of women.” It is not clear by “Vatican letter” if she meant Pope John Paul II’s Apostolic Letter Mulieris Dignitatem (1988) or his Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (1994). If she meant either of these, she would be correct in stating that the 1977 position of the LCWR predates these letters of Blessed John Paul. However, she fails to acknowledge that the 1977 position in support of women’s ordination was in direct conflict with the Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law (c. 968) then in effect; with Pope Paul VI’s response to the Archbishop of Canterbury concerning the Ordination of Women to the Priesthood (1975); and with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s Declaration Inter Insigniores (1976).
When the interview turned to the matter of whether the LCWR is “pro-life” or not, Sister Farrell quick defended the organization by stating that, “Religious have clearly given our lives to supporting life… Our works are very much pro-life.” But then she registered the LCWR’s concern that “any policy that is more pro-fetus than actually pro-life” trumps “the rights of the unborn” over “the rights of all of those who are already born.” Her statement fails Catholic teaching in two critical ways. The first is that there is a continuum of human life which includes pre-birth and post-birth phases, but these two dimensions of human existence are inextricably connected for everyone. They are not separate but related in an indivisible fashion. The second is that she failed, perhaps inadvertently, to mention that both the USCCB and the Holy See have time and again emphasized the issues of war, capital punishment, fundamental health-care, and basic education in a “pro-life” context. Furthermore, she appeared to push the abortion question aside by emphasizing that it is a divisive issue because it “is often phrased in such extreme and such polarizing terms.” She insisted that the LCWR has given voice to other issues “that are less covered, but are equally important.” If this is so, she did not take any steps to demonstrate how the extinction of over 50 million human lives in the United States since Roe was decided in 1973 can compare to these other “equal” issues—whatever they are.
While much more can be said about her interview, I will stop for now after this final remark. Much of her interview is laced with references to the Second Vatican Council and the “reforms” for which the Council called. It strikes me that Sister Farrell appears to justify the actions taken by the LCWR and some of its members as consistent with the Council’s conclusions about religious life and related matters. If that is her point, I think the LCWR needs to re-read very carefully what the Council said that pertains to the issues she addressed in her recent interview.
In the meantime, I do think that all the faithful need to pray for the LCWR and the three bishops who will participate in the meetings with the LCWR as called for in the CDF’s doctrinal assessment report.
RJA sj
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Lawyers and most laity are familiar with oaths. Lawyers take them upon admittance to the bar and the practice of law. Those of us who have served in the military of the United States have sworn by them because or actions would be done in the solemn execution of the duties entrusted to us. For those who have served in certain other public offices, an oath is taken reminding the office holder of his or her duties to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States and the laws made in accordance with it. The President of the United States takes an oath of office as do Federal judges and Members of Congress. Upon my being hired by a federal regulatory agency in 1974, I had to declare in front of a public officer an oath of similar consequence. When a citizen is called as a witness in a judicial proceeding, he or she must first declare an oath swearing the evidence given shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth—and in some jurisdictions complemented with the phrase “so help me God!” These oaths are a part of our lives when we consciously and mostly freely elect to do something where the oath is an integral element of the action pursued.
In virtually all of these circumstances, the objective of the oath is to serve as a reminder that the declarant has assumed a responsibility by assuming the office or activity which he or she is about to undertake in furtherance of others and often the common good. The solemnity surrounding the brief but vital moment in which the oath is taken is a powerful reminder to the declarant that he or she is doing something voluntarily in the exercise of freedom. In the religious context, those of us who are called to religious life in the men’s and women’s institutes of consecrated and religious life offer a kind of oath when we make our profession of vows—be them simple or solemn. These vows remind the vowvant of the responsibilities of the Evangelical Counsels which we embrace because we choose to accept them. Prior to a man’s ordination into the diaconate he must make two kinds of oaths—the first being the Proclamation of Faith and the second being the Oath of Fidelity, both mandated by the Church’s law. In a way, at Sunday and other certain Masses that require it, we as the faithful of the Church make an oath declaring in what we believe when we pray: “Credo in unum Deum… etc.”
Of course, oaths can be manipulated by those who may have clandestine motives. I am working on a research paper now that largely involves statutory construction of the legislation used in the indictment and trials of Sir Thomas More and John Cardinal Fisher. As one reads the underlying legislation dealing with the Act of Succession and pertinent statutes that followed, the oaths were required of everyone to compel office holders and subjects alike to comply with the will of King Henry VIII. These oaths were not exercises of free will; rather, they were mandated by the state to demand full compliance with legally questionable legislation that compromised the legitimate and natural rights of persons.
Recently, some voices in the world of matters Catholic have raised concerns about some of the faithful being required to take oaths if they are performing or are to perform some function or exercise some office in the name of the Catholic Church. For example, Fr. John Coleman, S.J. movingly presents his concerns about oaths mandated by the Oakland, CA diocese for those persons who are members of the Catholic Association for Gay and Lesbian Ministry and are or would like to be engaged in works in this diocese. [HERE] In his discussion of this oath, Fr. Coleman reminds his readers of the circumstances surrounding the work of the House Un-American Activities Committee in the early 1950s and the famous question posed to those brought before the Congress: are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party? The Washington Post has also published a recent article presenting the concerns of some CCD teachers in the Arlington, VA diocese who are resigning their teaching posts rather than take the oath that they are being asked to make as teachers entrusted with the religious instruction of youth. [HERE] There is much sympathy surfacing for those who refuse to take these kinds of oaths. But should there be?
Unlike the historical circumstances mentioned in concerns registered by Fr. Coleman and the Post article, the oaths being complained about in the two dioceses (and others around the country) are being mandated for people who are pursuing or will pursue some kind of apostolic service in the name of the Church. If a person is elected to public office, he or she must expect to take an oath that makes a statement of record of one’s fidelity to the office and the sovereign. If one is serving the country in military or civil service, he or she must expect to take an oath that again demonstrates fidelity to the life of service to which one is responding. It logically follows that if one voluntarily elects to serve the Church in some public ministry or apostolic service, one might reasonably be expected to declare his or her fidelity to the teachings of the Church that he or she is about to serve or is serving. Prior to my diaconal ordination, I did. And when I was proposed as an Ordinary Professor of and Ecclesiastical Faculty, I had to do the same again. It needs to be clear that these oaths about which Catholics are now raising concerns and objections are not being imposed on the unwilling; rather, they are being required of those who have offered themselves to serve the Church and to uphold with fidelity what the Church teaches.
I agree with Fr. Coleman and those who contributed to the Post article that oaths are important matters and not to be taken lightly. But I also recognize that they are an expected part of ways of life and service that we as Catholics and as Americans are accustomed to proclaiming when we decide to serve the common good in some fashion that mandates fidelity—be it to the Constitution or to the Church. When we make this fee election to serve, we also need to recall that our commitment to serve must be done in good faith, and our offering a proclamation of this commitment in the making of an oath is not an unreasonable requirement that serves as a testament of our commitment. As Robert Bolt’s Thomas More reminds us, when a person takes an oath, he holds his own self, the essence of his being, in his hands; but if the person opens his hands “he needn’t hope to find himself again.” More concludes by stating that some people aren’t capable of this, yet he “loathes to think” that he would be such a person. Taking an oath is important and one enters the taking of the oath conscious of what it implies. But there is a preliminary matter that must be first acknowledged: does the person want to do something, does the person freely choose to pursue a path that will inevitably require an oath? If so, then this individual should not quarrel with the oath that will follow the path he or she has chosen in the exercise of liberty.
RJA sj
