Apparently, the CDF is tired of waiting for the LCWR to carry out its canonical duties in addressing rampant dissent among its members -- members of the LCWR leadership, mind you. . .not the rank and file sisters.
I'm posting the full text of Cardinal Müller's address b/c he pretty much dispenses with the polite formal noises and gets down to business:
+ + +
Meeting
of the Superiors of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith
with the Presidency of the Leadership Conference of Women
Religious (LCWR)
April
30, 2014
Opening
Remarks
By Cardinal Gerhard Müller
I
am happy to welcome once again the Presidency of the LCWR to Rome and
to the Congregation. It is a happy occasion that your visit coincides
with the Canonization of Pope John Paul II and Pope John XXIII, two
great figures important for the Church in our times. I am grateful as
well for the presence and participation of the Delegate for the
implementation of the LCWR Doctrinal Assessment, Archbishop Peter
Sartain.
As
in past meetings, I would like to begin by making some introductory
observations which I believe will be a helpful way of framing our
discussion.
First,
I would like to acknowledge with gratitude the progress that has been
made in the implementation of the Doctrinal Assessment. Archbishop
Sartain has kept the Congregation appraised on the work regarding the
revision of the LCWR Statutes and civil by-laws. We are glad to see
that work continue and remain particularly interested that these
foundational documents reflect more explicitly the mission of a
Conference of Major Superiors as something centered on Jesus Christ
and grounded in the Church’s teaching about Consecrated Life. For
that collaboration, I thank you.
Two
further introductory comments I would like to frame around what could
be called objections to the Doctrinal Assessment raised by your
predecessors during past meetings here at the Congregation and in
public statements by LCWR officers. We are aware that, from the
beginning, LCWR Officers judged the Doctrinal Assessment to be
“flawed and the findings based on unsubstantiated accusations”
and that the so-called “sanctions” were “disproportionate to
the concerns raised and compromised the organization’s ability to
fulfill its mission.” This principal objection, I note, was
repeated most recently in the preface of the collection of LCWR
Presidential Addresses you have just published. It is my intention in
discussing these things frankly and openly with you to offer an
explanation of why it is that we believe the conclusions of the
Doctrinal Assessment are accurate and the path of reform it lays
before the LCWR remains necessary so that religious life might
continue to flourish in the United States.
Let
me begin with the notion of “disproportionate sanctions.” One of
the more contentious aspects of the Mandate—though one that has not
yet been put into force—is the provision that speakers and
presenters at major programs will be subject to approval by the
Delegate. This provision has been portrayed as heavy-handed
interference in the day-to-day activities of the Conference. For its
part, the Holy See would not understand this as a “sanction,” but
rather as a point of dialogue and discernment. It allows the Holy
See’s Delegate to be involved in the discussion first of all in
order to avoid difficult and embarrassing situations wherein speakers
use an LCWR forum to advance positions at odds with the teaching of
the Church. Further, this is meant as an assistance to you, the
Presidency, so as to anticipate better the issues that will further
complicate the relationship of the LCWR with the Holy See.
An
example may help at this point. It saddens me to learn that you have
decided to give the Outstanding Leadership Award during this year’s
Assembly to a theologian criticized by the Bishops of the United
States because of the gravity of the doctrinal errors in that
theologian’s writings. This is a decision that will be seen as a
rather open provocation against the Holy See and the Doctrinal
Assessment. Not only that, but it further alienates the LCWR from the
Bishops as well. [He's talking about Elizabeth Johnson.]
I
realize I am speaking rather bluntly about this, but I do so out of
an awareness that there is no other interpretive lens, within and
outside the Church, through which the decision to confer this honor
will be viewed. It is my understanding that Archbishop Sartain was
informed of the selection of the honoree only after the decision had
been made. Had he been involved in the conversation as the Mandate
envisions, I am confident that he would have added an important
element to the discernment which then may have gone in a different
direction. The decision taken by the LCWR during the ongoing
implementation of the Doctrinal Assessment is indeed regrettable and
demonstrates clearly the necessity of the Mandate’s provision that
speakers and presenters at major programs will be subject to approval
by the Delegate. I must therefore inform you that this provision is
to be considered fully in force. I do understand that the selection
of honorees results from a process [ah, the Holy Process of Religious! Always a great disguise for doing whatever we want], but this case suggests that the
process is itself in need of reexamination. I also understand that
plans for this year’s Assembly are already at a very advanced stage
and I do not see the need to interrupt them. However, following the
August Assembly, it will be the expectation of the Holy See that
Archbishop Sartain have an active role in the discussion about
invited speakers and honorees.
Let
me address a second objection, namely that the findings of the
Doctrinal Assessment are unsubstantiated. The phrase in the Doctrinal
Assessment most often cited as overreaching or unsubstantiated is
when it talks about religious moving beyond the Church or even beyond
Jesus. Yes, this is hard language and I can imagine it sounded harsh
in the ears of thousands of faithful religious. I regret that,
because the last thing in the world the Congregation would want to do
is call into question the eloquent, even prophetic witness of so many
faithful religious women. And yet, the issues raised in the
Assessment are so central and so foundational, there is no other way
of discussing them except as constituting a movement away from the
ecclesial center of faith in Christ Jesus the Lord.
For
the last several years, the Congregation has been following with
increasing concern a focalizing of attention within the LCWR around
the concept of Conscious Evolution. Since Barbara Marx Hubbard
addressed the Assembly on this topic two years ago, every issue of
your newsletter has discussed Conscious Evolution in some way. Issues
of Occasional Papers have been devoted to it. We have even
seen some religious Institutes modify their directional statements to
incorporate concepts and undeveloped terms from Conscious Evolution.
Again,
I apologize if this seems blunt, but what I must say is too important
to dress up in flowery language. The fundamental theses of Conscious
Evolution are opposed to Christian Revelation and, when taken
unreflectively, lead almost necessarily to fundamental errors
regarding the omnipotence of God, the Incarnation of Christ, the
reality of Original Sin, the necessity of salvation and the
definitive nature of the salvific action of Christ in the Paschal
Mystery. [Exactly. Hubbard's mish-mash of New Age junk is NOT Christian.]
My
concern is whether such an intense focus on new ideas such as
Conscious Evolution has robbed religious of the ability truly to
sentire cum Ecclesia. To phrase it as a question, do the many
religious listening to addresses on this topic or reading expositions
of it even hear the divergences from the Christian faith
present?
This
concern is even deeper than the Doctrinal Assessment’s criticism of
the LCWR for not providing a counter-point during presentations and
Assemblies when speakers diverge from Church teaching. The Assessment
is concerned with positive errors of doctrine seen in the light of
the LCWR’s responsibility to support a vision of religious life in
harmony with that of the Church and to promote a solid doctrinal
basis for religious life. I am worried that the uncritical acceptance
of things such as Conscious Evolution seemingly without any awareness
that it offers a vision of God, the cosmos, and the human person
divergent from or opposed to Revelation evidences that a de facto
movement beyond the Church and sound Christian faith has already
occurred. [This is exactly right. If your theology is wrong, then your ecclesiology is wrong and your religious life will be wrong too.]
I
do not think I overstate the point when I say that the futuristic
ideas advanced by the proponents of Conscious Evolution are not
actually new. The Gnostic tradition is filled with similar
affirmations and we have seen again and again in the history of the
Church the tragic results of partaking of this bitter fruit.
Conscious Evolution does not offer anything which will nourish
religious life as a privileged and prophetic witness rooted in Christ
revealing divine love to a wounded world. It does not present the
treasure beyond price for which new generations of young women will
leave all to follow Christ. The Gospel does! Selfless service to the
poor and marginalized in the name of Jesus Christ does!
It
is in this context that we can understand Pope Francis’ remarks to
the Plenary Assembly of the International Union of Superiors General
in May of 2013. What the Holy Father proposes is a vision of
religious life and particularly of the role of conferences of major
superiors which in many ways is a positive articulation of issues
which come across as concerns in the Doctrinal Assessment. I urge you
to reread the Holy Father’s remarks and to make them a point of
discussion with members of your Board as well.
I
have raised several points in these remarks, so I will stop here. I
owe an incalculable debt to the women religious who have long been a
part of my life. They were the ones who instilled in me a love for
the Lord and for the Church and encouraged me to follow the vocation
to which the Lord was calling me. The things I have said today are
therefore born of great love. The Holy See and the Congregation for
the Doctrine of the Faith deeply desire religious life to thrive and
that the LCWR will be an effective instrument supporting its growth.
In the end, the point is this: [read this part carefully] the Holy See believes that the
charismatic vitality of religious life can only flourish within the
ecclesial faith of the Church. The LCWR, as a canonical entity
dependent on the Holy See, has a profound obligation to the promotion
of that faith as the essential foundation of religious life.
Canonical status and ecclesial vision go hand-in-hand, and at this
phase of the implementation of the Doctrinal Assessment, we are
looking for a clearer expression of that ecclesial vision and more
substantive signs of collaboration.
Here's a translation of that last bit: "If you want to keep your canonical status, get with the Church's program." I don't see that happening b/c the LCWR has constructed an institutional identity founded on opposition to the Church. Joining with the Church in her mission would effectively kill the LCWR as it understands itself.
_______________________
Follow HancAquam or Subscribe ----->
