Sr. Sandra Schneider’s NunThink, or, Why The CDF Is Picking On The Magisterium of Nuns


In the recent interview in the Fishwrap with the CDF’s Prefect Card. Levada, there were some fascinating things.

He revealed quite a lot about the manner of work of the CDF, he admitted that he made a mistake, he described the slow process, he explained how Sr. Margaret Farley of “self-pleasuring” fame … and no doubt many many others we have not yet heard about … came to their attention.  He basically said that when the LCWR decides not to cooperate, the CDF has alternative plans.

Levada spoke in clear language and he spoke it to the NCR.  I’ve gotta say that he hit it out of the park.

Can you say preemptive strike?

I was quite interested in his admission of the mistake in allowing the LCWR to honor Sr. Sandra Schneiders, IHM, at their August meeting.

Sr. Schneiders – like so many of these liberal nun exponents of the Magisterium of Nuns – has put out some really bad books.

For example, there is her line of thought – NunThink – in the 2009 essays Fishwrap published (see links below).

sandra schneidersSr. Schneiders has taught her sister women religious that, since Lumen gentium confirms that nuns aren’t actually members of the hierarchy, then nuns don’t have to pay attention to the teachings of the hierarchy which they don’t like or promote or enforce the teachings that come from the hierarchy.
Furthermore, according to NunThink, they now make their vows to God, not the Church.  Basically, Schneiders exalts the sisters who defy the hierarchy and she runs down those who are in the “CMSWR-type communities continuing the older form”.  For Schneiders, the women religious of her preference have evolved away from consecrated religious life, into ministerial religious life.  They see themselves as “ministers”.  But they are not members of the hierarchy.

Therefore have a kind of prophetic ministerial church authority over and against the official institutional church.

Get it?

According to Schneiders, the hierarchy considers women religious a kind of work force, foot soldiers, who will promote official teaching, etc.

But Schneiders sees religious as being freed from that role by the Spirit of Vatican II.

There is actually an entire planet between her thought and Vatican II on religious. 

The more you read what Schneiders’ writes and says, the more you understand the context of Card. Levada’s recent explanations and the CDF’s hostile takeover of the LCWR.

On a side bar, have you noticed that the group of dissident Irish priests has piped down?   I can imagine the scene down at the Pink Shamrock Pub: “Hey, Paddy.  Did you see what the CDF is doing to the Irish-American nuns of the LCWR?”  “Sean, I did.  And if the ******** can do that to them, imagine what they could do to us!”

Take a look at Schneider’s essays – a cri de coeur in five parts against the Apostolic Visitation – which were made into a really bad book.  Here are links to the essays:

Do you want to know how screwy Sr. Schneiders’ ideas on religious life really are?  Read how Fishwrap‘s Richard McBrien lavishes praise on her HERE.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Brick by Brick, Dogs and Fleas, Our Catholic Identity, The Drill, Throwing a Nutty and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Burke says:

    The ‘pink’ shamrock? Father, what are you suggesting :-) …

  2. Gail F says:

    Huh. I didn’t read her long essay but I did read the interview. Is this woman remotely aware of the history of religious orders in the world? Has she never heard of ANY order clashing with the hierarchy but winning in the end (Franciscans? Dominicans? Jesuits?)? Has she never heard of and order being actually WRONG and having to be suppressed? Some orders have clashed with the local and/or the entire Church, been misunderstood by bishops and popes, and have ended up vindicated in the end — but they remained part of and true to the CHURCH. They didn’t say, “oh, well, we’re part of the prophetic mission of Jesus, so the Church can go do whatever the heck it wants to do.” And that goes for many, many saints as well. Look at St. Theresa of Lisieux, for goodness’ sake! She had a nutcase for a superior who wouldn’t let her have morphine while she was in incredible pain. That was stupid and arrogant and I’m sure no one would say it should have happened. But Therese didn’t say, “I think I’ll go off on my own now because Jesus loves me so much I don’t need these idiots.” And of course, many orders, or congregations of orders, have been suppressed. And they weren’t even always wrong — in my city a couple of decades ago, a very fervent group was growing up around a charismatic and holy priest who became very ill and died. They were in the middle of starting an order, and the bishop dissolved it. I don’t know all the details, because I wasn’t here at the time, but the priests and seminarians joined other orders and some are not starting another group. For whatever reason, the bishop at the time felt the group could not continue without the founder. I’m sure there was a lot of anguish and grief. But they didn’t say, “The heck with you, bishop, we’re doing it anyway because we embody Christ’s prophetic ministry.” Sheesh.

  3. Gail F says:

    Okay, I tried to read her essay. She thinks she knows the history of religious orders, anyway. But in her version everyone has been wrong up until her! Amazing. I cant’ make it through these, sorry.

  4. lh says:

    Could not bring myself to read the rest of her “work”. She’s insane and trying to drag others down into her mad little world.

  5. filioque says:

    I’m with lh and GailF. This stuff makes my head hurt.

    But I have a humble request: could we make this blog, so full of light and sustenance, a sanctuary where the word “nun” will not be misused? Nuns are living in cloisters; they have what canon law calls enclosure. It may be more or less strict but they have it. The nuns in the U.S. are not part of the LCWR. The sisters in the communities that belong to the LCWR you can bet are not living in cloisters. So let’s just call them “sisters” or “religious women,” and spare the name of the good nuns. Maybe instead of the “Magisterium of Nuns” we can say the “Magisterium of the Deaf,” as Cardinal Levada more than hinted.

  6. Stephen D says:

    Some of the commentators on the NCR would have us believe that these ladies spend 16 hours a day washing lepers and then write their books and attacks on the Church by candlelight at 3 in the morning. Most religious in the US have been teachers, nurses or administrators with working hours and conditions that would be considered ridiculously easy by most people in the world. A few days in Calcutta with the real poor would do them all the world of good and put their ‘struggles’ in context for them.

  7. feargalmac says:

    On the sidebar, I’m afraid the Association of Confused Priests is starting to huff and puff following a leak in The Irish Times of Cardinal Dolan’s report into the Irish College in Rome. I just find it interesting that this is printed just two days before the end of The International Eucharistic Congress.

  8. Charles E Flynn says:

    Whenever I see the phrase the “Spirit of Vatican II” I think that someone with good Photoshop skills could put it on an image of Charles Lindbergh’s “Spirit of St. Louis”.

  9. Girgadis says:

    I read the first essay, but came across too many irksome references to Vatican II and “tridentines” to want to go any further. Sister Schneiders’ comparison of the survey of the LCWR to Christ’s persecution at the hands of the establishment would be laughable if it wasn’t such a mockery. It is entirely possible to advocate for the poor and downtrodden without disobeying the Magisterium. Advocating for the depraved and the disordered to be recognized by the Church as legitimate bears no resemblance at all to the ministry of Jesus. When the defenders of sisters like Schneiders try to tell me that “nuns are under attack from the Vatican”, I remind them that the Missionaries of Charity, who themselves live in poverty and probably do more for the poor than any other order, are not under investigation, nor are they hurting for vocations.

  10. Joe in Canada says:

    Nuns used to take their vows to the Church? She really has her own private library.
    Stephen D: I wonder if you really meant “most religious in the US have been teachers, nurses or administrators with working hours and conditions that would be considered ridiculously easy by most people in the world,” or if you have confounded sisters in the past with sisters of your more recent experience. Sisters in the past led very edifying lives in terms of dedication to the apostolate and the people confided to them by God. The Sisters Servant of Mary Immaculate would damp the furnace on Friday afternoon to save on coal, only turning it up again Sunday night, so the school would be suitable on Monday morning for students. And that was in Winnipeg, where it could easily get to -30 in the winter.

  11. heway says:

    Mercy! I couldn’t even get through the first one. What a catechist she would make! I was jolted at the paragraph that mentioned bishops guilty of racial discrimination. Ha Ha, as a young nurse in a Sisters of Mercy Hospital, I worked night shift with a wonderful crew of people that included adult nurses aides who were black. This was the late 50’s, blacks were still not accepted in local eaterys. We planned a Christmas party and decided we would hold it in the department at regular dinner break times or have it in a private home. The Director of Nurses (from a wealthy family in another state) called 2 of us to her office – where she informed us that as professionals we should not be associating with the aides.( I was one at age 15). Well, she never got to either one of us. [Interesting.] We were horrified and we let her know it..and never heard anymore from her. One dear soul said the ‘n’word not knowing that a black aide was behind her. That Sister suffered for her mistake – and this poor young nurse informed her that like swearing, she shoud elminate such comments from her vocabulary. These were consecrated women that were teaching others, being an ‘example’ to us. Such hypocrisy! What were they saying around the refrectory table??
    I am not going to read anymore of this dribble!

  12. Random Friar says:

    At the risk of sounding uncharitable, these sisters remind me of a great title:
    “Rebels Without a Clue.”

    They really don’t get it. Pray for a conversion of hearts.

  13. Athelstan says:

    Hello Fear,

    Yes – it seems that the ACP is dismayed at the suggestion that the Irish College might unduly dominated by homosexuals.

    I mean, after all, it’s not as if we’ve ever heard of THAT happening to a seminary before in the last five decades.

  14. filioque says:

    Further to my suggestion that “Magisterium of the Nuns” be replaced with “Magisterium of the Deaf,” the latter is really more accurate. [No. That has nothing of the rhetorical impact.] Fr. James Martin, S.J., is ample evidence that the problem is not confined to the sisters. [He is just one of their toys.]

  15. Supertradmum says:

    Sister Sandra notes that “Religious Life is not a grade on the hierarchical ladder; it does not belong to the hierarchical organization of the Church at all. It is a charismatically grounded close following and imitation of Jesus and his itinerant band of disciples. The vocation to prophetic ministry is intrinsic to this life form. This is true of the life form itself and therefore of Congregations and individual members.”

    Wrong, it is a grade on the hierarchical ladder and a humble one of service and obedience, which the radical feminist just does not understand. I call this hubris.

    That is a quotation from one of the articles. Sister has created her on metahistory and redefined Church, the Kingdom of God, hierarchy, mission, ministry, Ecclesiastical history, nuns, sisters, and prophecy. Why do rebels always see themselves as prophets? Another quotation is almost blasphemous, as she compares the sufferings of the modern nun with that of Christ, completely forgetting about obedience and humility. Look at this. “First, prophetic ministry is absolutely necessary for the Church in every age even though it will never be welcomed by institutional authority. Second, the exercise of that ministry, which is intrinsic to Religious Life, will always involve misunderstanding of one’s best intentions, persecution and suffering, and sometimes even crucifixion…” And, from another article, “Religious orders, then, are not the creations of the ecclesiastical institution (although it makes certain regulatory provisions regarding the living of the life, approves rules, and exercises some supervisory or protective functions in regard to approved institutes [L.G. VI, 45]), any more than the Old Testament prophets were appointed by Israel’s kings or priests or Jesus by the Temple officials. In fact, those who functioned as “court prophets,” who “worked for” the king or priests by telling them what they wanted to hear or leading the people to submit to their rulers when God spoke differently through the true prophets or “the signs of the times,” were quintessentially “false prophets.” Ummm…she goes on to state that the religious life is a charism. Now, I get nervous when people use that term “charism”, as they usually do not know what it really means and misuse it to serve their own purposes.

    Her article is full of empty, ideological rhetoric, which even contradicts Lumen Gentium. Her interpretation of the Council is fatuous and serves her own vision and not that of the Church.

    What I never, never understand in this type of rhetoric is the Marxist dialectic, which creeps into the view of relationships of “them” and “us”. It is the feminist idea of “masculine hegemony”, about which I have written on my blog. These ladies fear any type of male hierarchy and thus base their entire view of history, Ecclesiology, and ministry on a Church without institutional foundation and without apostolic succession.

    Look at these notes: “But it does suggest that prophets, in our case religious, cannot be defined as or reduced to “Temple police.” They are not an enforcement agency for the hierarchy’s teaching or practice.”

    And, a long quotation showing the depth of her confusion and self-deceit, as well as disobedience–“Church teaching, to be considered authoritative, must be not only “promulgated” (announced and adequately explained) but also “received” (accepted by the believing Church). Humanae Vitae, for example, promulgated the official position that every act of “artificial” (that is, non-spontaneous) contraception is intrinsically a serious moral evil. Not only did this teaching contradict the conclusions of the papally appointed commission of competent consultors who studied the question in depth, but also neither the clergy who were to teach and enforce this position nor the married people whose lives were intimately affected by this teaching, have accepted it. The vast majority of faithful Catholic couples use contraception according to their well-formed consciences to regulate the role of reproduction in their families and most pastors make no effort to stop this practice or punish it.
    Similar cases of non-reception affect the official teaching concerning the “impossibility” of ordaining women, the “intrinsically disordered” character of homosexuality, the “grave deficiency” of non-Catholic and especially non-Christian religious traditions, the sinfulness of using condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS between spouses, to name only a few “hot button” issues. In these cases the majority of Catholics, including laity, theologians, many pastors, and even some bishops believe that these teachings need revision. In the meantime, ministers, among whom are many religious, must help people of good will figure out what to do in morally impossible situations.
    Insistence that religious must argue against their own theologically well-grounded judgment, mature experience, and pastoral sensibilities to enforce teachings and policies which the hierarchy itself cannot defend credibly enough to persuade the majority of the Church’s members and cannot actually enforce is a cooptation of the prophetic ministry of religious for institutional purposes. It is a cooptation which religious not only may but must resist.”

    This follow with a note on the “compassion” of the sisters and those who disagree with the Church’s teaching in Faith and Morals.

    May I add that I do not think she believes in the Incarnation, Christ as the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. She falls into modernist heresy here, defining Christ by His time and denying His power and Revelation. Note, “Jesus was drawn beyond his initial understanding of himself as sent “only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” to inclusion in his ministry of pagans (e.g., Mt. 15:22-28) and Samaritans (Jn 4:1-42). He did not seem to feel obliged to convert these people to Judaism in order to proclaim the Reign of God to them.”

    She does not understand the Old Testament revelation given by God Himself and fulfilled in the New. Again, her historical reference is her own ideology and not the Truth. But, as a radical feminist, she would say the same about the so-called male dominated Church.

    I had to put up with this sort of stuff at ND thirty years ago, which is when, no offense, the Church hierarchy should have stepped in and stopped the growth of the groups of non-believing nuns. Another quotation, I cannot resist follows.

    “In fact, twentieth century American women in 18th century European garb moving sedately in pairs from school to nearby convent and back, hands hidden demurely in sleeves or scapular, working quietly under the close supervision of the clergy, and relating to “seculars” with quaint Victorian gentility bore very little resemblance to their pioneer forebears.
    As women’s ministerial religious Life in the new world gradually emerged from its largely cloistered origins in Europe, and scores of new Congregations were founded in the new world, the prophetic character of this life was clearly manifest. For the first hundred-plus years at least, the non-cloistered women religious in this country were most often frontier pioneers ministering in the most diverse and arduous settings imaginable to whoever needed their help.”

    Well, my ancestors were on the prairies and on the Oregon Trail and somehow managed to keep gentility, Victorian manners (which are Christian manners), culture, femininity, and a woman’s call to bring beauty and peace into an environment which was hostile. Sadly, I think this sister and her coreligionists, have lost the vision to which their founders followed this path into harsh territories-to spread the Gospel of Christ, indeed, but through the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Once we separate ourselves from that real history, the history of Christ, coming at the fullness of time to institute His Church on earth, we lose the vision, His vision and supplant it with our own, small, narcissistic and dangerous heresy.

    The last quotation makes me really sad, as it shows the depth of misunderstanding, anger, and even hatred for Christ’s Mystical Body. “I would suggest that women religious — being the only part of the female population of the Church to which the male hierarchy has verifiable access and over whom they have the ability to exercise direct coercive power — must be kept under strict and publicly visible control lest the hierarchical power structure itself be called into question. Like Jesus “stirring up the people,” women religious claiming even moderate personal and community autonomy from patriarchal control can seem subversive of hierarchy, or at least of the absolute monarchy version of such. The issue, once again, is cast in terms of “obedience.” But the real issue is power. Even if nothing else in religious life had changed these developments in regard to lifestyle could well have precipitated the panic-reaction that launched the investigation.”

    Yes, Sister, it is about power, and some of us little ones know where that power really subsides-in the very hierarchical Church which you despise and have worked all your adult life to undermine. If you want power, you can have it at the expense of your own vocation, which is to serve the Church, thereby going to God, through the means He Himself established.

  16. Sixupman says:

    My experience of nuns was that they could put the fear of death into parish clergy; fought for their school pupils welfare; could charm the birds off the trees in seeking support for the their convents; they attended to the sick, poor and young disadvantaged as if they were their own family.

    What on earth have LCWR types to do with such.

  17. PhilipNeri says:

    Beware self-anointed Prophetesses. . .theirs is not the agenda of holiness!

    The whole “we’re being prophetic” schtick is basically a lame rhetorical move designed to allow the LCWR-types to excuse their lack of faithfulness to the Church. While “being prophetic” outside the Church, they are aiding and abetting the enemies of the Church using the resources made available to them by generations of faithful Catholics. Their agenda is third-wave, Marxist-feminism, and it will die with them.

    Fr. Philip Neri, OP

  18. Stephen D says:

    @Joe in Canada. I did not mean to disparage American nuns in general and certainly not the nuns of the past. I knew several nuns as a child in the fifties when my mother worked in a convent. They were wonderful, warm, hard working women who would, I am sure, be horrified by the actions of the members of the LCWR.

  19. robtbrown says:

    PhilipNeri says:

    Beware self-anointed Prophetesses. . .theirs is not the agenda of holiness!

    The whole “we’re being prophetic” schtick is basically a lame rhetorical move designed to allow the LCWR-types to excuse their lack of faithfulness to the Church.

    They’re progressives; theirs is the god of Hegel.

  20. filioque says:

    Fr. Z, I grant you that “Magisterium of Nuns” has rhetorical impact, for some audiences. But to what audience are we appealing? [No. You are wrong. I will not debate this. This is the right label. Thanks anyway! o{]:¬) ] Are the sisters of the LCWR reading [Ohhhhh yes. But they are not my audience. I’ll cut the rest of your comment because I am a benevolent dictator.]

  21. contrarian says:

    These writings are a perfect example of why the CDF is, calmly and with moderation, ‘cracking down’. It’s hardly a matter of deep sleuthing. The rhetorical cry of ‘witch hunt!!’ doesn’t really work…because they aren’t really hunting. Insofar as the metaphor has any rhetorical force (however ridiculous), it should be called a witch…presentation? Dunno. Ain’t hunting, that’s for sure.
    The CDF isn’t going out and looking for anything secret or hidden here. Yeesh. The CDF doesn’t really have to do any real ‘work’ at all. The writings under scrutiny speak for themselves.


    I was talking to a friend the other day who said that conservative Catholics are always complaining about media distortion. So I used this LWCR debacle as an example of such. Sure enough, my friend, relying on media reports, assumed that this was an attack on all nuns.

    The best example so far that I’ve found is an article from the Guardian a while back (I can’t find the link to it now). It ran a ridiculous article about how the big bag menfolk were picking on little old nuns–all of them. And the picture they attached was of some pious looking nun with a traditional habit.

  22. wmeyer says:

    “Picking on the” Magisterium of Nuns is just so wrong a characterization. These women wandered off the reservation decades ago, and instead of lashing out defensively, should give thanks for the gentle correction which is now being applied. Obedience, after all, was one of their principle vows, and I do not believe that the vow was to “obedience to my own conscience, however ill-formed”.

  23. Marc says:

    The Magisterium of Nuns’ NunThink double-talk of the brings to mind: “Did God say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree of the garden’?” (Gen 3:1b)

  24. Lori Pieper says:

    Is anyone else but me creeped out by Sister’s constant repetition of the words “prophetic life form”? It may just be a fancy bit of progressive jargon standing for “way of life” – but on the other hand it does bring to mind “alien life form.” Maybe she actually considers herself a separate type of entity from. . .

    Wait a minute. . . Hmmm.

    Doesn’t Sister actually look an awful lot like ET?

    It would also explain the “entire planet” between her thought and the thought of Vatican II.

    Just sayin’. . .

  25. spock says:

    So, I’m driving home from the great state of Veeskonsin and I’m listening to the radio. And again, the news is citing the Fishwrap about the ongoing issues with the LCWR. And I’m asking myself; why does the mainstream media keep citing the Fishwrap as Catholic News ? I have never, no not once, not even one time, in all the USA dioceses I’ve been to, see ANYONE reading the NCR. Not one. Never.

    So why do they get all the press?

  26. AnAmericanMother says:

    “birds of a feather, flock together.”
    Or, in my dad’s homelier phrase, “Where the buzzards are circling, you’re gonna find some road kill.”

  27. Supertradmum says:

    Lori Pieper, the arch-feminist has to change the language to be inclusive, which, I suppose, means aliens as well…

  28. kiwitrad says:

    I realised years ago that any time a person claimed to be ‘prophetic’ they were trouble. Much prayer is needed.

  29. Augustin57 says:

    It would be interesting for someone to do a study to see where/how these poor, misguided nuns (Magisterium of Nuns) got so far off the beaten track.

    I think that at some point, they decided to pursue degrees in theology, and related fields, and went to the wrong universities. (I’m thinking places like Catholic University where Fr. Charles Curran led the theology department down the wide, paved path to heresy.) Not knowing any better, they soaked up all the lies and heresy they were taught like sponges.

    I recall some years ago, my daughter was enrolled at an all girls Catholic school. They decided to close the school because of a lack of funds. They asked my uncle, who was on the diocesan school board, to come meet with them to discuss how they might save the school. He told them that the reason they were having financial difficulties was because when the school was thriving, they had nuns who took the vow of poverty teaching and who lived on campus in the convent. Overhead was cheap. Now, with only a handful of nuns teaching, they had to hire secular teachers who demanded a living wage. They said that they understood that, but they hadn’t had many vocations since Vatican II. My uncle then politely pointed out that they no longer wore habits, but dressed in street clothes and asked what were they demonstrating to the children, other than worldliness that they could get anywhere. They then got mad and asked them to leave. When the school was closed, they showed a short clip on the 6pm news, of the school when it was thriving and when it closed. When it was thriving, there were throngs of nuns in full habits. When they closed, there were a handful of nuns in street clothes (I knew they were nuns because I knew them, not because of how they were dressed.)

  30. irishgirl says:

    @ Lori Pieper: Yes, that ‘sister’ sure has a strange resemblance to ‘ET’!
    I’ve heard about Ms. Schneiders, but this is the first time I’ve seen a photo of her-yikes, she looks positively scary! Compare her ‘puss’ with the clear, unlined and JOYFUL face of a young Sister in her habit and veil!
    @ An American Mother: ‘When the buzzards are circling, you’re gonna find some road kill’. More fitting words were never said! Good quote from your dad!

  31. Supertradmum says:

    Augustin57, It started in the 1970s, when the nuns went out of habit. I have written on this before. One day, my psychology professor in college was wearing a habit and the next day, she was wearing a leather mini-skirt and boots. Then, the nuns changed their constitution, re-wrote bits to make it all more contemporary. Within 30 years, the college closed.

    Other nuns in the area, the Carmelites, sold their beautiful neo-Baroque building and moved to a simple structure in the country, getting rid of their habits and re-writing their constitution. Same processes over and over happened in the 1970s.

    Two things in my mind caused this. A knee-jerk reaction to Vatican II on the laity, which meant the nuns felt like they were in competition with us for ministries and no longer saw themselves as signs of contradiction in the world. Secondly, a false ecumenism, which also was effecting the seminaries at the time, so that the sisters had to reach out to the Prostestants by being less obviusly Catholic. My aunt, who is 92, followed the same path. She is still a sister, but her order changed rapidly. She went back to her baptismal name in the 1970s, as they all did and dropped the habit, as they all did. She was trained in univerisity by liberal Jesuits, by the way, and many sisters in the Midwest went to Chicago Loyola, St. Louis University and Marquette for education.

  32. Supertradmum says:

    Please, excuse typos and spelling errors. I am sure these changed caused less of us to enter active orders at the age we would have done if these horrible things had not happened. Many of you know my stories of living with sisters and nuns at ND in the early 80s…same rot.

  33. Therese Z says:

    Just this past week, I heard a very credible rumor from a very connected person that one of the goofier Franciscan provinces in our area (and they vie with the OP’s in this area for goofiness) had “new leadership” coming and they were talking about going back to some sort of habit and even praying together, can you imagine?

    They are currently dwindling like crazy, even though they operate several successful schools and hospitals, so I look forward to seeing if they are doing this for magical reasons (since they can’t help but notice that the habited orders are young happy and growing) or because their hearts are changing.

  34. MPSchneiderLC says:

    Fr Z, it’s the “ANTI-magisterium of nuns.” They don’t teach anything (that’s what magisterium means!).

  35. Pingback: Desperately Seeking Catholicity at Being Frank

  36. Pingback: SSPX, LCWR and their common ground « Dominus mihi adjutor

Comments are closed.