LCWR is planning how not to obey

From the site of Vatican Radio:

Statement by Archbishop J. Peter Sartain in response to the LCWR statement

Following the May 31 statement by the national board of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR ) concerning the assessment that led to the Vatican decision to reform the organization, Archbishop J. Peter Sartain, appointed to oversee the reform, has issued the following statement:

Both the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and I are wholeheartedly committed to dealing with the important issues raised by the Doctrinal Assessment and the LCWR Board in an atmosphere of openness, honesty, integrity and fidelity to the Church’s faith. I look forward to our next meeting in Rome in June as we continue to collaborate in promoting the important work of the LCWR for consecrated life in the United States.

The Holy See and the Bishops of the United States are deeply proud of the historic and continuing contribution of women religious – a pride that has been echoed by many in recent weeks.

Dramatic examples of this can be witnessed in the school system and in the network of Catholic hospitals established by sisters across America which are lasting contributions to the wellbeing of our country.

So… what did the LCWR (a subsidiary of the Magisterium of Nuns) do?

Here is their statement:

LCWR Board Meets to Review CDF Report
June 1, 2012


[Washington, DC] The national board of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) held a special meeting in Washington, DC from May 29-31 to review, and plan a response to, the report issued to LCWR by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. [If the CDF asks a group to do something, the first meeting held should aid at figuring our how to jump as high as necessary. But in the case of this subsidiary of the Magisterium of Nuns, that seems not to have been on the agenda.]

The board members raised concerns about both the content of the doctrinal assessment and the process by which it was prepared. Board members concluded that the assessment was based on unsubstantiated accusations and the result of a flawed process that lacked transparency. Moreover, the sanctions imposed were disproportionate to the concerns raised and could compromise their ability to fulfill their mission. The report has furthermore caused scandal and pain throughout the church community, and created greater polarization.  [I guess they didn’t like the CDF’s plan.]

The board determined that the conference will take the following steps:

On June 12 the LCWR president and executive director will return to Rome to meet with CDF prefect Cardinal William Levada and the apostolic delegate Archbishop Peter Sartain to raise and discuss the board’s concerns.

Following the discussions in Rome, the conference will gather its members both in regional meetings and in its August assembly to determine its response to the CDF report. [Is that the same LCWR Assembly where they are scheduled to hear talks from the editor of a dissident catholic rag, a lesbian activist, and a talk about “co-creating a cosmic shift” and “entering the cosmic mystery”?]

The board recognizes this matter has deeply touched Catholics and non-Catholics throughout the world as evidenced by the thousands of messages of support [Like the one here?] as well as the dozens of prayer vigils held in numerous parts of the country. [Each attended by tens of people!] It believes that the matters of faith and justice that capture the hearts of Catholic sisters are clearly shared by many people around the world. [Watch this…] As the church and society face tumultuous times, the board believes it is imperative that these matters be addressed by the entire church community in an atmosphere of openness, honesty, and integrity. [“by the entire church community”….  Just how would that work, exactly?  This is nothing other than a dodge.  They don’t want to obey.]

Contact: Sister Annmarie Sanders, IHM – LCWR Director of Communications – 301-588-4955 (office) – 301-672-3043 (cell) –

June 1, 2012

Remember ladies: When you decide to disband you will immediately become …


About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Magisterium of Nuns, The Drill, The future and our choices, Throwing a Nutty and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. SonofMonica says:

    Is that the same LCWR Assembly where they are scheduled to hear talks from the editor of a dissident catholic rag, a lesbian activist, and a talk about “co-creating a cosmic shift” and “entering the cosmic mystery”?

    It seems as though they are already lost. :-( Now they are just having meetings on how best to tell the Church to shove it.

  2. wmeyer says:

    I have offered a message to Sr. Annmarie, but must confess to feeling a bit like Sisyphus as I did so. If they reject the CDF, they are hardly likely to be moved by any member of the laity.

  3. Burke says:

    Clearly these women are not of kindred in spirit with Archbishop François Fénelon, whose exemplary obedience to licit authority is displayed here:
    (6 August 1651 – 7 January 1715) as displayed here:

    Have these sisters not taken a vow of obedience? Perhaps their definition of the word is different than the standard dictionary one though …

  4. Texas trad says:

    And they called Archbishop Lefevbre disobedient! He was only trying to preserve tradition.

  5. ContraMundum says:

    Stop trying to pick a fight.

    Yes, Lefevbre was called disobedient, because he *was* disobedient. The LCWR are not, by virtue of their own disobedience, able to magically make Lefevbre’s disobedience disappear. These things have nothing to do with each other; neither one is justified in itself or justifies its opposite. Both sides *claim* that they disobey only for the most noble reasons, and that they are a poor remnant, persecuted by the bad guys on Vatican Hill.

  6. mike cliffson says:

    With you , but just in case

    Lefebre is a tiresome red herring , because there’s a schism , ( and with every schism the seeds of a heresy usually exist ) which looks nearly over, but in priciple, orthodox (if limitedly so, perhaps.)

    You CAN be disobedient but not unorthodox and heretical.

    Or, you can manage both.

    In some abstruse theologies it’s hard for a layman to see what the fuss is about , but in this case it is very hard to see in what way the lcrw are NOT heretical, perhaps they’re OK on baptism or something.if anything. Or maybe they specialize, each to her own tenets……

  7. anilwang says:

    Don’t forget that the LCWR leadership is full of modernists. In modernism words tend to mean whatever you want to mean, so you ignore the letter and trust the “spirit” (as in VII).

    So according to modernism “disloyalty is obedience” ( ).

    For those trying to compare this to the SSPX, please move on. Its in the Pope’s hands now.

    But for the record, I agree with mike cliffson. The Eastern Orthodox are a prime example of a long standing schism without obedience to Peter.

    The situation with the SSPX is complicated, and if Pope Pope VI had fore-knowledge of 2012 and had not become “scared of the wolves” because of the reaction to Humanae Vitae, the SSPX schism might never have happened and many of the abuses of Vatican II, including the LCWR, might never have happened.

  8. PA mom says:

    It is becoming clear why Pope Benedict chooses to move so slowly and carefully. I know that religious orders have not always been true to their founding vision or perfectly true to their vows, but have they ever been so clearly opposed to the Pope before?

    And that book by Sister, as touched as I am for her concern for those of us in the laity who have not taken vows of chastity, just what does her exalted “experience”consist of? It is very difficult to shake loose of the sense that it is not a purely theoretical pastime.

  9. JimmyA says:

    We must pray for them – we know where “non serviam” leads.

  10. Spaniard says:

    Pray pray pray. And by God, I am tired of seeing nuns out of their habits in this LCWR (Magisterium of Nuns) business.

Comments are closed.