The Fishwrap (aka National Schismatic Reporter) reports that the LCWR nuns had a conclave. I’d report it myself, but the nuns rejected my request for media credentials.
It seems that they locked the doors, posted specially-hired security guards, eschewed wireless microphones, and forced the IT people to sign non-disclosure agreements. Maybe they were worried that I would come anyway and hack into their sound system.
The picture is worth … you know…
Archbishop Sartain, the CDF’s Nun-Overlord, spoke to the assembly for a little over a half hour.
The same Archbishop Sartain celebrated Mass for the sisters for Assumption -it being a Holy Day of Obligation… at least for Archbishop Sartain. He preached about obedience. But I digress.
I read at the official organ of the LCWR, the National Schismatic Reporter, that the sisters weren’t happy with what Archbp. Sartain told them. What a shock. Can you imagine why?
One member said Sartain did not respond in any detailed way to questions about the specific allegations made in the Vatican doctrinal assessment of LCWR, preferring instead to talk about his general sense of the role of religious life in the church. Most of his talk, this person said, focused on Jesus. [OMG!]
At one point during his talk, one LCWR member said, Sartain told the sisters their role “is to be thinking with the church and fidelity to the magisterium of the church.”
Meanwhile, as I posted in another entry, the sisters had a pharmaco-cosmo-theological talk by their keynote speaker. HERE I especially liked Sr. Ilia Delio’s line: “There is no cosmos without God, and no God without cosmos.” Sr. Delia needs a refresher in “God 101”.
How do we explain the antics of the LCWR nuns?
I have the impression that – and mothers can correct me about the right age for this sort of thing – I have the impression that the sisters are rather like 13-year-olds right now. They push and push at the boundary of what is acceptable (acceptable for the Holy See, that is, from whom they crave approval).
Is it that they need attention? Even if it is negative attention? In that case, I suppose we have to admit that we white male hierarchs truly did fail them.
It is as if their leadership is saying: How weird can we be before something snaps? (Speaking of SNAP, are they protesting abuse of children by nuns at the meeting again this year?)
The sisters aren’t going to push the boundary and cry for attention through the use of – I dunno – goth-black eyeliner and eye-brow rings. Instead, as they use the mature nunny equivalent: they import for their assembly’s focus – under the eyes of the CDF – the weirdest theology they can find. Then they coo at it.
They normally can’t stand not being in the lime-light. They have become professional dissenters. They have a reputation to maintain. They have media to court. They mustn’t let their “publics” down (e.g., the cool-kids-table theology departments at places like Fordham, the with-it feminists of a certain age, religion-column writers, newsies on the spirituality beat, etc.). They can’t wait for that next controversial subject to jump into. Their conflict with the CDF is a chance for them to smear on that theological gothic eyeliner, get another nostril-ring, and crank up the volume on the music they know Dad hates most.