Fr. Z's Blog

The nearly ubiquitous John L Allen, Jr., still and sadly writing for the Fishwrap, reports for the same the following. I insert some emphases and comments:

Vatican official warns of ‘dialogue of the deaf’ with LCWR [a subsidiary of the Magisterium of Nuns.]

by John L Allen Jr [1] on Jun. 12, 2012

ROME — In the wake of Tuesday’s meeting with representatives of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, the Vatican official responsible for a recent crackdown[I have come around to thinking that this is a good word for what happened.] said he still believes the relationship can work, but also warned of a possible “dialogue of the deaf,” reflected in what he sees as a lack of movement on the Vatican’s concerns.

Cardinal William Levada, prefect of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, floated the possibility that should the LCWR not accept the reforms outlined in an April 18 assessment, the result could be decertifying it in favor of a new organization for women’s religious leaders in America more faithful to church teaching.  [HEY!  There is one, too!]

Levada strongly rejected charges that the move against the LCWR is based on “unsubstantiated accusations” or lacks transparency, both complaints leveled in an LCWR statement issued last week.

“In reality, this is not a surprise,” he said, insisting that the process began four years ago and that its results are based not on secret accusations but “what happens in their assemblies, what’s on their website, what they do or don’t do.”  [Do I hear an “Amen!”?]

Levada also denied press reports that retired Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston helped instigate the move against LCWR, saying, “He’s not involved in this.”

Levada made the comments in an interview with NCR held shortly after the meeting between officials of his office and Sr. Pat Farrell, president of the LCWR, along with Sr. Janet Mock, the group’s executive director.

The LCWR is the largest umbrella group for the leaders of women’s religious orders in the United States. [Thank you, Mr. Allen, for getting that right.  LCWR is for the leaders of groups and not for all the members of the groups represented.]

Capping a four-year review, in April, Levada’s office issued a stinging eight-page assessment of LCWR, citing “serious doctrinal problems” and “doctrinal confusion,” including alleged “silence” on abortion and other pro-life concerns, [“alleged”?  Okay, Mr. Allen, or LCWR, where is the open support of the Church’s pro-life teaching?] a policy of “corporate dissent” on matters such as women priests and homosexuality, and the inroads of “certain radical feminist themes.”

After Tuesday’s meeting, Farrell and Mock released a statement describing the session as “open” and saying LCWR would ponder its further response in upcoming regional meetings and at an August national assembly. They declined to comment beyond the statement.

In his NCR interview, Levada said he believes the breach between Rome and the LCWR can be repaired.

“I believe it can work,” he said. “That’s my hope and prayer.”

At the same time, Levada described the risk of a “dialogue of the deaf,” saying the Vatican has been in talks with LCWR for four years, but along the way the group has made choices that, in Levada’s eyes, signal it’s not taking their concerns to heart.

[Want proof?] Specifically, Levada cited publication of an interview with Fr. Charles Curran, a moral theologian censured by the Vatican in the 1980s for his views on sexual morality, in a recent issue of the group’s Occasional Papers as well as decisions to invite Barbara Marx Hubbard, often described as a “New Age leader,” to address the upcoming August assembly meeting and to bestow an award on Immaculate Heart Sr. Sandra Schneiders, another theologian sometimes critical of Vatican policy.

Levada acknowledged he had given LCWR the go-ahead to proceed with its August assembly, but said he wasn’t aware at the time of the choice of speakers or honorees, and that “I wish they hadn’t made these choices.”  [Interesting.  No?  But this gesture of – what can you call it – naivete? – should be taken as a proof of good will towards]

“Too many people crossing the LCWR screen, who are supposedly representing the Catholic church, aren’t representing the church with any reasonable sense of product identity,” Levada said.  [It’s the Duck Rule.]

Levada said while church officials cannot force LCWR to change course, if things come to an impasse, they can withdraw official recognition.

“What we can do, and what we’d have to do, is to say to them, ‘We will substitute a functioning group for yours,’ ” he said.

[…]

Read the rest there.

Very encouraging!