Sister Sandra Schneiders on U.S. Women Religious and the Apostolic Visitation

Augustine gave me a new word: syncretism. Thanks! It brings to mind a very interesting article I read in the June Sojourners, which you get in their online archives: “Christ and Whose Culture: A new wave of Native American evangelical theologians rejects the false choice between following Jesus or embracing their traditions”, by Kent Annan. It may not be at all interesting to you, Augustine, because it does not speak specifically to **Catholic** Christianity. But it was very interesting, especially in light of my new word (thanks again), to think about the generations of people of other belief systems who have responded in syncretistic (!) ways when they encountered Catholicism. I am absolutely talking from my elbow (and my knee) here, which I know you will recognize, Aug, but it has left me wondering whether some amount of syncretism might not be a means of “speaking of in [spiritual, mystical] tongues” to people from various cultures and belief systems. I recognize that I may be missing something about what constitutes genuine “syncretism” but I am just so struck by the reality that a substantial amount of evangelism must have occured over the centuries through that process. I am thinking even of St Paul and the adjustments he made, on Jesus’ behalf, to Jewish Christianity so that the Gentiles might be evangelized. Again, that might not count as formal” syncretism”, but I wonder if some of what you understand as heretical “syncretism” might be similar in inspiration and intention to St Paul’s adaptations of the “first” Christianity so that The Word might live for Gentiles as well and similar in inspiration when some missionaries to Native American communities see the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit in the Great Spirit and include prayer to and dance in celebration of the Great Spirit and, now, Native American spiritual leaders see the Great Spirit in God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit and include Christian and Catholic Christian prayer ? Something for me to chew on when I get a bee in my bonnet about these issues, which I do sometimes. I love our Catholic theology, rituals and sacraments and, for me, personally, their richness is infinite and ever-unfolding and I do not need or want other theologies or rituals. But I am just Jean, an Irish Catholic American who, in this sense, am sort of like the “first” Christians (a “Jewish Christian”) and I am aware that the world is full of “Gentiles” whom Jesus might well be beckoning through these Pauline (“syncretic”) gestures toward other religious cultures.

Just a thought and a version of “use your new word in a sentence”… Thanks for indulging me; you all know I am never satisfied with one sentence when I can think of twenty!

******

One difference I can see between the sexual abuse scandal in the priesthood (and in the religious community) and the issues being addressed (at least those issues that have been publicly identified) is this. I expect that I am going to struggle to articulate this so please bear with me.

There is no evidence anywhere (that I know of) that suggests that sexual abuse became incorporated into congregational life, public ministry, congregational teachings and practices, ritual prayer, etc. There was never a suggestion that sexual abuse could be consistent with Chruch teachings. The secrecy and all aspects of the cover-up is a clear indicator that everyone, whether involed as perpetrator or silence-keeper, knew that the behavior was a violation of all that the Church stands for. The solution, then, is quite straightforward and exactly parallels that in secular life: do it, hide it, cover it up and your ass is going to county jail. (Sorry for the “a” word; plain old child protection street-talk). That process is underway and that reality is as real as it can get. Do it, hide it, cover it up and your ass is going to county jail, period. Spiritually, the response could – and I believe should – then continue as it always had: God forgives a contrite and humble heart and, when necessary, expects and demands reparation and deep, deep sacrifice and penance, perhaps for a lifetime.

I sincerely don’t see the need for an investigation in that instance. The investigation would be case by case, past and future and a strict monitoring and educational process. If an investigation had happened, all Women’s Religious communities would have been ***justly and necessarily*** investigated, because children have been abused by Women Religious, too. The fact that the numbers abused by sisters are very significantly less in this country than those abused by priests/brothers does not matter. One sister abusing one child, no matter the form or extent of abuse, is just as important a

Sister Julie –

I agree with you that “it’s unfortunate that one small piece of [Sr Laurie's paper] got singled out”, misrepresented and was then used as a weapon. It also seems very “death-panelish” (to coin a phrase from another current brouhaha over a misrepresented paragraph).

It makes perfect sense to me that many Roman Catholics would express alarm if entire congregations of Roman Catholic sisters were to assume and declare a public, corporate and definitive “Post-Jesus” identity in their theologies and ministries. But that is not what Sister Laurie claims has occurred in fact (though she does name a single community she thinks may be tending in that general direction. I *did* wonder at her decision to make that identification and have wondered if she spoke with the specific foreknowledge of that community or if her language was, in fact, theirs, and I have hoped that one or the other is the case).

I am re-reading Sr Sandra’s article again to ferret out a better understanding why she used the legal metaphor. On third reading, I realized I am not troubled be her initial use of the legal language, when she speaks of Visitations as the ecclesiastical equivalent of a grand jury that bothers me and defines the conditions that (historically?) trigger such a visitation. That is all a matter of Church history – true or not – and I most definitely do not know Church history sufficiently to question.

What I question is Sr Sandra’s extension of the legal/grand jury analogy when she begins to, in effect, appeal to her readers to engage in a comparison of civil/secular processes and canonical/Church processes and, in that light, to consider what is appropriate in canonical settings vis-avis what is appropriate and customary and just in civil and non-canoncial settings.

****Quite obviously, when the conduct is criminal (physical/sexual assault/abuse; covering up these crimes; misappropriation or fraudulent use of funds, etc.) as well as a violation of Canon law and Church policy/processes, civil law and processes should be imposed and prevail and, in most cases, that will forcibly drive the ecclesiastical response.************

But when the issues are not criminal – sexual liaisons by those who have vowed celibacy; cult-like practices (assuming that criminal activity is not a component); other questions that fall exclusively in the province of the Church – I do not see how the legal/grand jury analogy is appropriate or applicable. Again, it is a powerful one and I see its value in persuasive argument, but I doubt its validity.

Can someone help me with this? I do understand that many sisters may *feel* that they are being hauled before a disciplinary board and, in the end, we may discover that this is the beginning of a disciplinary process. I am NOT discounting or dismissing that perception or “gut sense” and do, in fact, anticpate that some sisters and perhaps communities are in for some difficult months ahead, though perhaps more so from the LCWR doctrinal assessment than from this Visitation itself. And I would hope that all Women Religious would offer those sisters love and prayer and continued relationship – offers that do not require agreement on the issues – no matter the outcome.

What I am asking for here is help in understanding Sr Sandra’s legal analogy?

Thanks, Jean

Hey – still hoping someone can help me understand. Obviously Sr Sandra did not write this lightly and, as a scholar, she is accustomed to rigorous debate about her writings and statements so I am hoping someone can help me understand. SiSter Julie, maybe you could pass my questions straight to her?

I am so completely turned off by the vast majority of discussions on this whole event (other places, not here) because the discussions tend to hinge on an affective logic (if positive regard for sisters, then Visitation is wrong and abusive; if negative, Visitation is right and not abusive). That kind of discussion makes me crazy (for me, it’s comparable to interviewing fans outside a football game…) and does nothing to further understanding and, certainly, does nothing to move people forward together. It does nothing to help those of who have positive regard for sisters but are still discerning whether we believe the Visitation is right or wrong, abusive or not (nor, for that matter, does it do anything to help those who have negative feelings about many sisters but are still struggling with those questions).

I have thought through whether this is one of those situations where it makes sense to say, “well, the people on the receiving end are saying it is wrong so I need to respect that as the truth of the thing: it is wrong and abusive”. I cannot articulate why I don’t think that applies here but I don’t think it does. That this is wrong and abusive IS one experiential truth of the thing but experiential truths are simply not the only ones involved in understanding organizational life.

It HAS occurrred to me that THAT is where my thinking may diverge from so many others on this. For me, the fact that this is spiritual life, Religious Life, life and self as total gift to God and God’s people CO-EXISTS with the fact that US Women Religious and their orders have canonical – and, thus, organizational and institutional- relationship with the organizational and institutional Church. And that relationship cannot be compared, in my mind, with that of a citizenry and its civil government (whether democratic or dictatorial) unless that organizational or institutional relationship is, in fact, philosophically and structurally defined in those terms. And, in the Roman Catholic Church, the case is neither, because it does variously use each structure, process or style. (Certainly its hierarchical structure tips it toward the dictatorial).

I am so sorry this is such a difficult experience for so many sisters and I do think that it has been handled in a ham-fisted way (for many of the reasons Sister Sandra notes in her essay) and it is painful for those who love and are deeply and appropriately grateful for the tremendous contributions of nuns.

But none of that helps me in understanding leaders and magnificent thinkers and women of God like Sister Sandra whose objections are not, I believe, affective in foundation and expression. (I like her so very, very much for not making a fuss about the leaked e-mail in which she shared her initial reactions and responses to the news. Even then, I think her response, though reactive in its energy – who would not have been wound up and suspicious of the sudden announcement!?! – was most likely not founded in emotion but in reason emotionally expressed).

So, here’s hoping someone will help me understand in logical terms (which is not the ***opposite*** of emotional or affective terms; simply **different** terms).

Jean

If the sisters are living in accordance to their statutes then why are they worried? We are all sinners in one way or another – some nuns are “holy as angels but proud as devils”. Sometimes it takes a little fraternal correction to see our true selves. I think that is what the Holy Father is offering and I am grateful for his concern.