Sister Elizabeth Johnson photo courtesy of Fordham University

Sister Elizabeth Johnson photo courtesy of Fordham University


This image is available for Web and print publication. For questions, contact Sally Morrow.

Sister Elizabeth Johnson accepted an award on Friday night (Aug. 15) from the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, the umbrella organization for most of the 50,000 Catholic nuns in the U.S. The LCWR has for two years been the target of an investigation by the Vatican over a range of perceived problems with their doctrinal views and their social justice mission. The sisters reject the accusations.

The investigation is a source of much controversy, and despite signs that it might ease under Pope Francis, the polemics reignited a few months ago when a top Vatican cardinal blasted the nuns for announcing that they would honor Sister Johnson — whose work theologians from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops have sharply criticized — at their annual meeting last week in Nashville.

In addition to our story on the conference, we also have the full text of Sister Johnson’s talk:

Leadership Conference of Women Religious
Remarks for Leadership Award Dinner
Nashville, TN, August 15, 2014
Elizabeth A. Johnson, CSJ

I. Thank you so much. To quote Shakespeare in “Twelfth Night”:

I can no other answer make but thanks,
And thanks, and ever thanks. (Act 3, scene 3)

It is a beautiful honor to receive this award from you, faithful women with whom I share the vocation of being a woman religious in the church today. You are truly my Sisters! You could have chosen from among so many other women religious exercising leadership today in so many different venues. I am awed by your tribute and humbled to join the ranks of previous recipients.

A shout-out to my sister Susan and brother-in-law Stephen who are joining us tonight from Oregon, as well as my dear friend Cathy Hilkert OP from the University of Notre Dame, and other good friends and members of my Brentwood leadership team.

This award is recognizing leadership I have exercised in the ministry of theology. In truth, I would never have become a theologian were it not for the leaders of my own religious community. This vocation within a vocation was simply not on my radar. But Mother Immaculata Maria sent me to study for a Masters, and subsequent General Superiors sent me for the doctorate and helped me discern whether to take a faculty position at Catholic University. They thought the church needed women to teach theology and sensed my interest. From them to our current President Helen Kearney and her recent public supportive statements, the care from my leaders has been unceasing.

One example may stand for the rest. When I applied for tenure at Catholic University, I received the full positive vote of the faculty. But the outcome was in doubt because some bishops were not happy with an article I had written. I considered resigning my faculty position rather than go on with the arduous process of interrogation. In a letter I keep in my Bible, our General Superior Sister John Raymond McGann advised me to stay the course: “Don’t do this if it kills you. But try to find joy in the cross of criticism. Don’t strive to be so orthodox and safe that you sell short the ministry of the theologian and lose your way. The real victory is your integrity.” And in a PS: “Put more money in your budget for recreation.” [I did get tenure].

Without these women, I would not be standing here. As leaders they imagined and encouraged me into the ministry of theology. Through thick and thin, they channeled the support of the community to me in spiritual and practical ways. Never underestimate your influence as elected leaders.

II. A word about my own work. I find doing theology an interesting, tough, and wondrous ministry in the church. One thousand years ago, Anselm defined theology as “faith seeking understanding.” Rooted in the Christian tradition and equipped with scholarly tools, those of us in the theological guild think about the meaning of faith and the way it is practiced. The purpose is to shed more light on the gospel, so it can be lived out with deeper understanding and vibrant love of God and neighbor. My scholarship has engaged a variety of subjects, such as language about God, the meaning of Jesus, the communion of saints, and evolution and creation, among others. Whatever the subject, for me teaching, writing, and public lecturing have always been an invitation to students, readers, and listeners to “Come and see,” as John’s gospel put it (Jn 1:39). Vatican II taught that “The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it makes its entrance into the mind at once quietly and with power” (DH 1). So come and see, think, raise questions, make connections, learn the tradition, see for yourselves how beautiful the faith is, as a step toward encountering and living out the love of the holy mystery of God.

Every cultural era brings new questions which theologians try to address. Early on one key question arose for me when I realized that all the great thinkers whom I had been exposed to in my studies were men. I loved many of their insights. But where were the women? I was struck by the absence of their critical insights and spiritual wisdom. Inspired by a pioneering generation of American women theologians, I grew committed to bringing women’s voices to the table. This does not mean thinking about women all the time. It does mean using the human dignity of women as one lens through which think about other religious and ethical subjects. It means attending to poverty, lack of education, sexual violence, and other injustices that ruin women’s lives. It means employing theologically what promotes the flourishing of women in all their diversity.

The year I received my doctorate and began university teaching, this direction grew stronger when four North American church women were murdered in El Salvador: Ita Ford, Maura Clarke, Dorothy Kazel, and Jean Donovan. Their courage and commitment had a profound impact on me. The spark of their lives has moved me to do theology in like spirit, attentive to the struggles and hopes of those most in need and under threat of violence.

Clearly, my work engages theology done by men and does so with critical appreciation. But I am convinced that this is not enough for the church of today and tomorrow. The submerged female half of the church, indeed of the human race, is rising, and the faith we pass on to the next generations will be poorer if women’s insights are ignored.

In taking this path, I and today’s cohort of women theologians are charting a new path. For centuries the study of theology was reserved for ordained priests as part of the hierarchy’s office to teach. One cannot overestimate the impact of Vatican II which opened the doors of theological study to lay persons. While excellent theology continues to be done by ordained priests, all kinds of new questions, methods, and understandings are now blossoming, fed by the experience of the laity, women and men alike. I take this leadership award to be in part a recognition of this seismic development. With gratitude I accept it as also paying tribute to women who do theology in this vein and to men whose work has an eye for inclusive justice.

III. Normally I would stop here. But it would be disingenuous to ignore the criticism from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith directed at the LCWR for giving me this award. Note that I would not be speaking about this if Cardinal Gerhard Mueller had not made his remarks public. The CDF sees this award as an insult to the U.S. Bishops whose Committee on Doctrine criticized my book “Quest for the Living God.” From Cardinal Mueller’s statement it appears that neither he nor the staff advising him read the book or my written response to the concerns raised, but rather channeled the U.S. committee’s judgment.

Yes, “Quest” was criticized, but to this day no one – not myself, nor the theological community, nor the media, nor the general public – knows what doctrinal issue is at stake. Despite my efforts to give and get clarification, none was forthcoming; the face-to-face conversation I sought never came about. It seems the committee reduced the rich Catholic tradition to a set of neo-scholastic theses as narrow as baby ribbon, and then criticized the book for not being in accord with them. But as Richard Gaillardetz said in this year’s presidential address to the Catholic Theological Society of America, the committee’s assessment of “Quest” is itself theologically flawed. Indeed, the committee’s statement raises a multitude of issues in a confused way. It criticizes positions I take that are in accord with the Catechism of the Catholic Church. In several instances it reports the opposite of what the book actually says, in order to find fault. I am responsible for what I have written, but not for what I have not said and do not think. In my judgment such carelessness with the truth is unworthy of the teaching office of bishop.

Cardinal Dolan of New York told me that the reason my book was singled out was because of its influence. And in truth, despite the committee’s criticism, thousands of messages poured in from people who had found “Quest” a help in their own journey of faith. Sales went through the roof (my community is grateful for the royalties!). Translations into European and Asian languages continue to be made; currently German is underway. I simply hoped that the book would serve this wider readership with insights into the living God, abounding in kindness in the midst of our suffering world.

But now again my little God book and its author come under fire for supposedly serious yet still unclarified errors. What is going on here? To borrow Phyllis Trible’s words from her study of Eve and Adam, let a female speculate. It appears to me that a negative reaction to works of theology that think in new terms about burning issues has become almost automatic in some quarters. A judgment made somewhere that “this is harmful” gets picked up, amplified, taken for granted, and repeated. The adverse reaction becomes institutionalized. Reasons are murky, but a negative miasma colors the atmosphere whenever the subject comes up.

This kind of institutionalized negativity sheds some light on how critique of my book and criticism of LCWR are intertwined. For the doctrinal investigation of LCWR gives evidence of a similar generalized negative pattern that has been a-building over recent decades. While reluctant to examine the context in scholarship and in life of statements made at LCWR Assemblies, the investigation’s statements express more of a vague overall dissatisfaction or mistrust on certain topics. Judgments are rendered in a way that cannot be satisfactorily addressed. In the absence of careful analysis, negativity spreads. Both of us are caught in an adverse situation not of our own making.

Through careful discernment the LCWR has forged a response which is publicly modeling a different form of leadership. To a polarized church and a world racked by violence, your willingness to stay at the table seeking reconciliation through truthful, courageous conversation has given powerful witness. This is costly. The LCWR is experiencing the truth of Clerissac’s adage, “It is easy to suffer for the church; the difficult thing is to suffer at the hands of the church.” Nevertheless, under duress, you persist, giving honest, firm voice to your wisdom gained by years of mystical and prophetic living, as Pat Farrell said last year. What a grace for our time.

IV. What is going on here? Let this female speculate further by placing three frameworks around this situation, which will show that major forces are at work.

1) An historical framework: I could point to the centuries-long tension between religious orders and the hierarchy. This is not to say that some religious and some bishops do not work fabulously well together. But a strain perdures between a prophetic charism that seeks radical living of the gospel and an administrative charism focused on order. Stories of conflict between mother superiors and some bishops worldwide provide multiple examples; Australian Mother Mary MacKillop, first excommunicated and now canonized, is perhaps the clearest. Historians are already writing about the critique of the LCWR as yet another chapter of this historic tension.

2) A sociological framework: I could engage in a gendered analysis of power. The church did not start out this way, but as an institution it has evolved a patriarchal structure where authority is exercised in top-down fashion, and where obedience and loyalty to the system are the greatest virtues. Never before in the history of the church has there been such a cadre of educated women carrying forward the mission of the gospel as is now represented by the LCWR. In this framework the current CDF investigation appears to be an effort by certain ruling men to control committed, competent women whose corporate religious discernment makes them adult believers of conscience, silent and invisible no longer.

3) An ecclesiological framework: I could focus on the differing embrace of renewal in the post-Vatican II church. Implementing council’s mandate, women religious vigorously renewed their lives in accord with the gospel and the spirit of their founders. Consequently they moved toward the periphery, away from a cramped ecclesiastical center which Pope Francis calls “unhealthy from being confined and from clinging to its own security” (Evangelii Gaudium 49). Certainly the LCWR and the Sisters they lead are far from perfect. But they’ve got the “smell of the sheep” on them, embodying a church “that knows how to open her arms and welcome everyone.” Like a “field hospital for the wounded,” they have stood in solidarity with the poor, immigrants, battered women, LGBTQ persons, and even the wounded earth itself. To my knowledge, a similarly vigorous process of post-conciliar renewal has not taken place at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a particular curial office at the center. It has become common knowledge that Pope Francis was elected with a mandate to reform the Curia. This mandate, of course, includes the CDF. Until such reform happens, criticism is almost inevitable because the different pace of renewal has resulted in different ways of being church.

V. Finally, Let me dream of one more framework that might yet take shape, namely, reconciled diversity so we can collaborate mutually for the good of the world that God so loves. As Pope Francis wrote, conflict does arise but it can become “a link in the chain of a new process.” This can only happen if people have peacemaking hearts, and are willing to go below the surface to see others in their deepest dignity (EG 227-228).

Gustavo Gutierrez has expressed his admiration for Gerhard Mueller, citing how this student of his worked many summers among the poorest of the poor in Peru. Can the LCWR’s evident commitment to the poor become a common ground for mutual understanding? To this day it extends a hand in friendship, seeking communion with the CDF in solidarity with the marginalized of this world. Perhaps Cardinal Mueller can extend a hand of friendship back to American women religious, who at first may seem as strange to him as were the Peruvian poor but who are also God’s beloved people. It would be a blessing for the church if he could find a creative way to bring this investigation to an end in a productive manner. When the needs of the suffering world are so vast; when the moral authority of the hierarchy is hemorrhaging due to financial scandals and to many bishops’ horrific dereliction of duty in covering up sexual abuse of children, a cover-up which continues in some quarters to this day; when thousands are drifting away from the church; when the liberating gospel of God’s abounding kindness needs to be heard and enacted everywhere: the waste of time and energy on this investigation is unconscionable. Wouldn’t it be great if we could be partners, not adversaries, for the good of the church and the world.

VI. To conclude: In reading the remarks of previous award recipients, I noticed the custom of ending on a note of inspiration. Instead of a poem or a prayer, I offer you an image, found at your table. I snapped this photograph on a street in Cape Town, South Africa, on August 2, 1987. The South African Catholic Bishops Conference had invited me to be the presenter at their annual Winter School, updating priests and bishops on matters of Christology. The photo’s context is political: the wretched system of apartheid was in effect; Nelson Mandela was still in prison; the government had declared a state of emergency; troops patrolled the streets; danger was in the air. Supporting the violent status quo, an unknown hand, no doubt white, had used thick black paint to scrawl this graffiti: HANG MANDELA! But wait – someone else, probably with a darker hand, had come along and penciled the word ‘on’ between the two painted words. This completely subverts the message! To see the resilience of the human spirit under threat of harm (the pencil writer could have been arrested), to watch how an imaginative person turned a curse into a blessing – this has humbled, delighted, and inspired me ever since. I keep this photo on my desk at Fordham university, and use it to encourage students who hit a rough patch in their studies or their lives. A number of alums now sign off their emails with this little preposition.

To the LCWR, thank you! On this auspicious feast of the Assumption, in the spirit of the poor woman Mary singing for joy in God her Savior who puts down the mighty from their thrones and fills the hungry with good things — ON!

END GIBSON

69 Comments

    • The main thing the church needs to do is preach the Truth! Jesus is the
      only way to heaven..,Period! Bible says Repent and believe the Gospel!
      Repentance and faith in Christ alone is required to be saved and no other
      way to heaven other than that…Period! Far too many “Christians” today
      are not preaching to the Truth of what the Bible says. Ephesians 5:18 says
      don’t get drunk and 1 Corinthians 6:10 says that all drunkards go to hell.
      The wine that Jesus made was from the fruit of the vine/new wine/diluted
      and the Bible says don’t get drunk on strong wine so people who get
      drunk with wine are also wrong/go to hell. People today seem to forget
      that Jesus said many will say to Me Lord,Lord and not enter heaven!
      Bibe says Repent and believe the Gospel to be saved. We must Repent!

      • @Karla,

        “We must Repent!”

        Good grief!
        Repent to whom? Repent for WHAT?

        This is fanatical hysteria and superstitious fear mongering.

        For those who have no personal integrity
        Primitive injunctions like this only beget more of the same.
        It is the boorish clarion that everyone get into the dark caves of
        the middle ages and close the door and HIDE
        against the scary responsibilities of life.

        I’m here to tell you there is nothing to be afraid of.

      • All sin is bad! People today want to talk about gay marriage and/or
        abortion so they don’t have to face their own sin/so their sin doesn’t
        seem so bad. Bible says if you have a sharp tongue your religion is
        worthless yet people are mean/don’t bridle their sharp tongue cause
        it never gets confronted along with sins like coveting/gambling/greed,
        gossip,getting drunk,jealousy,lying,sexual immorality in any form and
        fornicaters in any form which are all sins that send people to hell if
        they don’t Repent! We must Repent! We are known by our fruit and
        that is the fruit of Repentance/change not good works because many
        non-believers do good works so our fruit is Repentance/change and
        the Bible says works don’t save us. Bible says Repent and believe
        the Gospel to be saved! Repentance/faith in Jesus saves us…that’s it!
        Bible says Repent or perish! We must Repent!

        • @Karla,

          “All sin is bad!”

          That cannot be true.

          All of these things were once
          BANNED BY THE CHRISTIAN CHURCHES
          AS SINS BUT NOW THEY ARE CONSIDERED HEALTHY

          WEARING GLASSES NEAR THE ALTAR (Lev. 21:20)
          Divorcing an abusive partner
          Masturbation
          Associating with women who
          Are having their Periods – (Leviticus 15:19-20)
          Having CHRISTMAS TREES – (Jeremiah 10:24)
          Shaving – (Leviticus 19:27)
          Getting a haircut – (Leviticus 19:27)
          Football on Saturdays (Exodus 20:8)
          Eating Lobster – (Leviticus 11:10)
          Eating Pork – (Leviticus 11:7)
          Mixing Cotton and Polyester – (Leviticus 19:19)

          . :-(
          JESUS – AND HIS CHURCH
          SAID THESE ARE NOT SINS:

          OWNING SLAVES
          BURNING PEOPLE ALIVE
          BURNING PEOPLE WHO SLEEP WITH IN-LAWS
          STONING PEOPLE WHO GET DIVORCED
          STONING PEOPLE WHO MASTURBATE
          STONING CHILDREN WHO ARE UNRULY
          STONING PEOPLE WHO SHAVE
          STONING PEOPLE WHO DRINK TOO MUCH
          KILLING ENTIRE VILLAGES IF THEY ARE UNBELIEVERS
          KILLING PEOPLE WHO HAVE CHRISTMAS TREES
          KILLING PEOPLE WHO HAVE BAD DREAMS

          Read your Bible
          You are advocating horrors you can barely imagine.

      • Are you really sure of what you just said Karla? A simple invitation to think again … but this time think wider … think deeper … think wilder … YOU WILL BE SET FREE … and for me that is what Jesus is about … JESUS CAME TO SET US FREE!

    • That talk was only “inspiring, well-argued, and courteous” if you believe in the Church of Elizabeth Johnson, not the Catholic Church.

      There is a name for people who call themselves “Christian” but do not believe in the all-male priesthood and the authority of Rome to speak on faith and morals. They’re called *PROTESTANTS*!

      • Dear D Pierre: it is not the church of Elizabeth Johnson but the most radical, conservative and traditional of all: it is the Church of Jesus Christ … just patiently go back in time … back enough to fogey about all that has done so much damage to all of us believers … back enough to first century Palestine … come to the Jesus before Christianity and YOU may perhaps, if you allow yourself to be set free from all the chains thrown at you (often unintentionally) see the beauty of the Person that showed us a lovely way to be set free. Blessings and deep peace. And yes … if you are wondering … I am a catholic priest.

    • @Art Deco,

      Ahhh, the snide, harsh Christian.

      The know-it-all follower of Jesus
      is ready to burn with the fire of his righteous judgement!

      :-( “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting”
      (2 John 1:10)

      LOVE THY NEIGHBOR? No!
      Not unless he is more righteous than you!

      • Harsh? No, tired. We all know the condition of the “Catholic” colleges, of the religious orders, of the Church’s middle management, of the twerps who are in charge most parishes. This woman’s remarks have two components: one is a wish to continue to collect her salary and play her games without cross-examination by the episcopacy. Academic theologians fancy themselves the Magisterium and not to be questioned by bishops. The other is a fixation on aspects of contemporary politics and culture, and silly and meretricious aspects for a’ that. That’s where we stand. Nothing sweet about it.

        • @Art,

          “the twerps who are in charge of most parishes”

          It is always easier to blame people – than to blame the dumb religion they have been instructed to follow!

          “If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid.” – JESUS (John 5:31)
          ” if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid.” – JESUS (John 8:14)

          “All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.” – JESUS (Matt. 28:18)
          “the whole world is under control of the evil one.” – JESUS (1 John 5:19)

          “For judgment I am come into this world.” – JESUS (John 9:39)
          “I came not to judge the world” – JESUS (John 12:47)

          .
          :-(
          Christianity is a blunder, a parlor trick
          And dangerous, incoherent gibberish

        • @Art,

          How can you blame women
          who are stuck with the despicable job of having to apologize for this woman-hating god of barbaric nonsense?

          “‘When a woman has her regular flow of blood,
          the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening. Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean.
          Anyone who touches her bed will be unclean; they must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening. … The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the LORD for the uncleanness of her discharge.’” ( Leviticus 15: 19-31)

          WHAT DO CHRISTIANS ADD TO THIS?
          “WOMEN – BE A GOOD SEX SLAVE”

          “Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord [as a servant]…wives should submit to their husbands in everything.” (Ephesians 5:22-24)

          “Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are PERVERSE.” (1 Peter 2:18)

          Worthless, primitive, barbaric, woman-hating garbage.

        • “Collect her paycheck”? Did you miss the part where she is a nun? Do you know what that means as far as a “paycheck”? I suggest that you read a bit more before you lambaste her for doing something that she very specifically does not do.

          Her order probably gets her paycheck. Your “tired” approach to this message that quoted the pope rather extensively is clearly an attempt to flee both the truth and the change that comes with it while assiduously avoiding engagement with her and her sisters in an open discussion about the life, history and the growth of the church. You seem to be unable argue against their positions with anything other than “tradition” (and badly learned tradition at that) to support you. Shame!

          I suggest that you talk to them. However, you must leave your preconceptions at the door and only ask questions. They can be leading if you like but the best debates start with questions. If you are right, you need not fear conversation with her and her sisters. If you are right, then you might change their mind but if you are intellectually honest, then you risk having them change yours as well. If you are wrong and learn of it, then you might avoid crushing the budding spirit of a woman who is called to serve in ministry only to be blocked by one like you who has not talked to or learned from women.

          Who am I kidding? You seem convinced of your own moral rectitude and most people of that persuasion will hear nothing that challenges their hoarded opinions. Not even when the pope preaches against conservatism and in support of the mandated changes of Vatican II as he did in Evangelii Gaudium.

          You do realize that the church which you seem to so fondly believe to be unchanging, inerrant and perfect is not now and has never been so, do you not? At one point in history left handed people were tortured by religious persons within the church for that totally normal mutation. Was that inerrant? Was that teaching ever made inerrantly? (The answer is “no”) Was Galileo wrong when he said the earth was not the center of the solar system? (Clearly not.) Has a mandatory all-male clergy ever been proclaimed ‘ex cathedra’? (No, it has not.) Each of those positions and so many more that whole semesters are devoted to them were incorrect positions taken by the church. Since the all-male clergy has *never* been confirmed ‘ex cathedra’, it is, *by definition* open to debate.

          In my experience most people who hold the position you espouse are inflexibly conservative because it makes them feel safe. If they stick to the truth as the clerics describe it rather than questioning the truth, one does not have to understand one’s faith rather one can just do what has always been done – its easier.

          How ridiculous! The saving message of the scriptures is that God will keep us safe, even in death, so long as we trust Him to do so. He is certainly not surprised that we, his creation, are intelligent and seek understanding of Him through theology – He made us that way. So have no fear and seek the truth. Even if you are wrong, you will learn something.

          As we live we (hopefully) learn. Learning is change – change in perception, and change in our living patterns to take advantage of new learning among so many other types of change. If you try to live without change, you live in voluntary ignorance. Voluntary ignorance is an abdication of the responsibility that God laid on all of us when He placed us in stewardship over His creation. Failure to use your curiosity and intellect to understand and care for the world an people around you is the same sort of abdication. Do you want to be the servant who buried his talents? It did not go well for that one in scripture.

          These sisters are asking, among many similar things, “Why not ordain women?” and the only answer you can provide is “Because I said so!” or “Because we have never done that before!” That is a very immature response to a serious and fundamental question of life. So if you are serious about your position and do not hold it simply because you have always held that opinion, then argue. Stand up for your belief and make your case. Stop whining that you are tired and get about the business of being a mature, thoughtful and responsible Christian. Talk to YOUR sisters and find out why they believe as they do. Address their evidence and then maybe real progress can be made. I would be willing to learn that you are right if you can present sufficient evidence, but I will not presume that you are correct as a starting point.

          In short: Talk to those you don’t agree with. Love them. Wondrous things will happen if you can do that. If you can’t, then you aren’t the Christian you claim to be but I think you are that person, and are simply a little afraid of where that talk might lead you.

          Peace to you and yours, my friend.

  1. I am so glad that God is raising up so many wonderful new sisters and communities who are faithful to His church and are not part of the LCWR. In this article she said she couldn’t find any females to study from Church history but were all men. There are many Catholic women of the past who have written much to study: Saint Catherine of Siena, St. Theresa of Avila, St. Therese of Lisieux just to name a few. If you are protesting what the Catholic church teaches and leading people away you are not Catholic and you are unfortunately pulling people out of the Catholic church and endangering their souls. I pray for this sister and others who are part of LCWR, that they will align themselves faith as they have been asked to do and that they will finally help guide other women to the true faith.

    • You should take the time to read her speech again and look at her area of study. She said, “Every cultural era brings new questions which theologians try to address. Early on one key question arose for me when I realized that all the great thinkers whom I had been exposed to in my studies were men. I loved many of their insights. But where were the women? I was struck by the absence of their critical insights and spiritual wisdom. Inspired by a pioneering generation of American women theologians…” That is different from your interpretation. The women you mention are first, not theologians. They did write on spirituality, but they had their own areas such as mystical thoughts and prayers of Catherine of Sienna. Academic scholars have an area of study. They study and write within that area. Because until after Vatican II the area of theology was almost entirely limited to men and specifically priest there would be not female theologians in her area. That is very different than no women wrote on theology.

      Finally, her writing is consistent with Church teaching and the catechism of the Catholic Church.

    • Sister did not say that she couldn’t find any females to study, but rather “I realized that all the great thinkers whom I had been exposed to in my studies were men.” Her teachers were all men and they only taught about men. The three women you mentioned were not named doctors of the church until the late 20th century, despite having lived many centuries before. That in itself is further proof of Sister’s point.

      While I’m sure Sister is happy to receive all prayers, I don’t think its necessary to pray that they will “finally guide other women to the true faith.” I have read at least five of Sr. Elizabeth’s books and they have helped to keep me in a church that all the other women in my family have walked away from.

    • Lord Tirtowa K Lembo

      In essence Sister is never, and has never opposed men’s work in theology. Her plight is clear: in ladies, God took pleasure to descend and accomplish a divine mission n earth through the person of Jesus the Chirst. So how come, the Holy Cathlic church, (not all of it though, but some parts of the church would not dare allow (not dissenting) female voices to express the beauty that only derives from the gift of being a woman? Ladies carry a unique sensitivity for appreciation of life, or courage in times of systemic crisis, of touch in times of reconciliation? The ladies you mentioned, those Holy sisters were not necessarily accepted, desired in the circles that still oppose female voices, vision, and leadership today. It took, some courageous leadership in the past, (secret support systems from Bishops, cardinals, and other male authorities) to help those ladies bring freshness to this Holy church. I concurr that the Church is a huge “Bathroom, where all dirty clothes, bodies are invited to wash, and be santified”. Who dares put a barrier at the door! Let the ladies speculate! Men have speculated, when they did not have to. Let God’s Open door for theological babling STAY OPEN, Yes even for women and all that is in between! The Moderator is God! The Pope accepts that, and so do all the other leaders even if they dare not say! ON!

  2. This is mainly all about her! The LCWR sisters are just unreal–and sad. Their liking for Elizabeth Johnson has to do with their gender ideology and widespread rejection of male names for God (who is precisely the FATHER of Jesus) and their increasing panentheism or pantheism and ecofeminism. There is an all too widespread movement to “evolve” into actually a new religion that is not really recognizable as Catholicism anymore. There are DEEP divides within religious communities in different sisters’ understanding of the nature of God, leading some to pathetically gloss over it with language about God as “unfathomable mystery” that is really about theological indifferentism. The problems come out of the question everything/change everything dynamic of the 1960s. These orders are facing a demographic cliff. The more traditional, more orthodox groups of sisters are doing a lot better and they are the future. The latter are happy to say “Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now and will be forever. Amen. Alleluia.”

    • If you had read She Who IS, you would find not a rejection of male names, but a call to recognize that feminine images for God exist in Scripture but have been consistently undervalued in theological developments. You would also find a claim that allowing the feminine images to re-surface will give us a better, yet still limited, understanding of the God who has no gender and is beyond all human understanding.

      • I reiterate, total or near-total rejection of male names for God is WIDESPREAD and WIDELY supported/”legitimized” among religious sisters by reference to Elizabeth Johnson (among other, often more radical authors… but she is the current trendy one). I wrote a book on one of the largest LCWR communities. Some of the members say they NEVER refer to God by male names. It is COMMON for such communities to “keep the peace” by using made-up “feminist prayer services” with degendered language, instead of Catholic prayer like the Liturgy of the Hours or the Rosary. The reality of what is going on is just preposterous. The religious community I wrote my book about (the Dominican Sisters of Sinsinawa) desperately wanted to remove all male language for God from their vow formula and from their entire Constitutions, they went round and round discussing this, knowing full well it is impossible that the Church would approve it. Jesus taught us to call God Our Father. It’s become common that some religious sisters REFUSE to.

        • GOD HATES WOMEN – GOD IS DISGUSTED
          BY WOMEN.

          GENESIS
          2:22 Eve created from Adam’s rib.
          3:16 Eve cursed with painful childbirth and domination by husband.
          4:19 Man marries two wives.
          12:13-19 Abraham prostitutes wife.
          19:1-8 Rape virgin daughters instead of male angels.
          19:26 Lot’s wife turned into pillar of salt for disobeying god.
          19:30-38 Lot impregnates his two daughters while drunk.
          20:2-12 Abraham prostitutes wife – again.
          25:1-6 Keeping many concubines is OK.

          EXODUS
          20:17 Wife is property.
          21:4 Wife belongs to master.
          21:7-11 OK to sell daughters. Female slaves can be used for sex. Polygamy permitted. Unwanted female slaves can be set “free” without payment of money.
          22:18 Kill witches.

          LEVITICUS
          12:1-8 Childbirth unclean, Women need to make atonement after childbirth.
          15:19-32 Menstruating women are unclean.
          20:10-16 Death penalty for homosexuality and various sexual transgressions.
          21:7 Priests must not marry prostitutes or divorcees.
          21:9 Burn daughters.
          21:13-14 Priest must marry virgin, not “used” woman.

          NUMBERS
          1:2 Census lists only men – women do not count.
          5:11-31 Fidelity test for women only.
          30:1-16 Woman’s vow invalid unless approved by her father or husband.
          31:17-18 Kill all except virgins. Keep virgins for yourselves.
          12 Miriam punished for rebuking Moses.

          DEUTERONOMY
          20:14 Take women, livestock as plunder.
          22:13-21 Stone non-virgin bride.
          22:23-24 Stone rapist and rape victim.
          22:28 Rape victim must marry rapist; rape victim’s father compensated for depreciation of his property.
          25:11-12 Cut woman’s hand for touching foe’s penis.
          24:1-5 Man can “send” wife from HIS house. Man must not marry “used” woman.
          28:18 The FRUIT of your womb will be cursed – eclectic “pro-life” verse!

          JUDGES
          5:30 Women are spoils of war.
          14:20 Samson gives wife to another man.
          16:1 Samson visits prostitute.
          CH 19 Concubine pack-raped and butchered.
          21:10-12 Slaughtered all inc. women and children. Saved virgins for wives.
          21:21 Abducted girls for wives.

          1 SAMUEL
          15:2-3 Attack Amalekites, kill men, women, children and livestock.
          22:19 Kill all inc. infants and livestock.
          21:4-5 Men avoid defilement with women.
          2 SAMUEL
          5:13 David took many wives and concubines.
          CH 13 Ammon rapes his own sister.
          16:21-22 Absalom sleeps with his father’s concubines.
          6:20-23 Mischal punished with bareness.

          1 KINGS
          11:3 Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.

          2 KINGS
          9:30-37 Brutal murder of Jezebel.

          2 CHRONICLES
          15:13 Put to death unbelievers.
          11:21 Hoards of wives and concubines.

          ESTHER
          CH 1-2 Queen Vashti dethroned for disobedience; setting “bad” example to all other women.

          PSALMS
          51:5 Sinful since conception.
          127:3 Sons are heritage from god.
          137:9 Seizes infants and dashes them against rocks.

          PROVERBS
          CH 5 Beware of wicked women!
          CH 7 More of the above.
          6:24 As above.
          31:3 Do not waste strength on women.

          ISAIAH
          3:16-26 Lord punishes haughty women.
          4:4 Filthy women.
          13:16 Ravish wives, dash infants.
          19:16 Will be like women! (insult to Egyptians)

          EZEKIEL
          9:6-7 Slaughter all including children.
          CH 16 Prostitutes, stoning, promiscuity…
          CH 23 Tale of two adulterous sisters – reads like the script of a pornographic film. I bet you weren’t told this story at Sunday school!

          HOSEA
          13:16 Rip pregnant women, dash little ones. (Another “pro-life” verse!)

          NAHUM
          3:4… wanton lust of a harlot… prostitution… witchcraft.
          3:5 I will lift your skirts over your face!
          3:13… Your troops are all women. (insult to Nineveh)

          MATTHEW
          5:32 Husband can divorce wife for adultery. Can wife divorce husband for the same?
          CH 25 Sexist tale of ten virgins.

          LUKE
          2:22 Mary must be purified after birth of Jesus.
          2:49 Jesus rebukes his mother.

          I CORINTHIANS
          11:2-10… Woman created for man.
          14:34 Women must be silent in churches.

          EPHESIANS
          5:22-24 Wives must submit to husbands in everything.

          COLOSSIANS
          3:18 Wives submit to husbands.
          3:22 Slaves must obey masters in everything.

          I TIMOTHY
          2:11-15 Woman must not have authority – she must be silent. Women can be saved with childbearing.
          5:9-10 Widows should be faithful to husband and must wash saints’ feet.

          1 PETER
          2:18 Slaves submit to masters, even SEXUALLY PERVERSE
          3:1 Wives submit to husbands COMPLETELY.
          3:5-6 Sarah calls husband master.

          REVELATION
          CH 17 Destroy great prostitute.
          14:4…they did not DEFILE themselves with women but kept themselves pure

    • …..”The more traditional, more orthodox groups of sisters are doing a lot better and they are the future.” Really? Please take a look at their attrition rates and tell us how they are “doing a lot better?” It is absurd! Many, many enter…but few are able to live the “narrow path” of religious life. The more “orthodox groups” are witnessing exodus of “young sisters” as well. Would that we all might listen to Elizabeth Johnson’s reflection and scholarship with open hearts and minds focused on the message of Christ. God forbid we should be open to change in OUR Church. Imagine the possibilities if we could engage, rather than alienate, the young…religious and otherwise, who are leaving the Catholic Church in droves. Tell me? What really, REALLY frightens you about Dr. Johnson’s message? God Bless Elizabeth Johnson, the LCWR and the handfuls of other women religious attempting to speak their truth in the places of power and authority. Tell me again, what is it that you fear?

      • Barbara,

        “few are able to live the ‘narrow path’ of religious life.”

        Great news. Happy to hear the numbers continue to fall.

        At Godisimaginary
        you will find out why people are running away from this destructive, murderous, primitive nonsense about Jesus.

      • You are misinformed. It is true of all religious orders that some postulants or new members leave during formation stages. But groups like the Dominican Sisters of Mary Mother of the Eucharist and the Sisters of Life are growing. I know women who have entered these orders and stayed and thrived. They were looking for a Catholic prayer life, a shared ecclesial apostolate, life in community, visible witness to Christ and the Church. Even the LCWR’s statistics show that the percentage of sisters belonging to CMSWR orders has risen and the percentage belonging to LCWR orders has declined. This trend is set to continue, there is no mystery, the LCWR orders are mostly elderly and have not attracted many new members and are dying off, the CMSWR orders have a far younger average age. The LCWR sisters in my city are invisible, and they do nothing to evangelize, even of those involved in some way in education most are quite clearly undermining the Faith rather than handing it on faithfully. They are involved in anti-Catholic groups like “call to action” and a local former-Catholic split-away sect that has a priestless “eucharist” on Sundays. I think there is a very low level of awareness of how serious a problem there is in a lot of LCWR communities. I pray for them every day.

  3. This is why most people I know remain Catholic. Thank you Sister Elizabeth. Your talk bursts with integrity, courage, hope and generosity. Thanks to all religious men and women who remain faithful even when it sometimes seems impossible: you have all blest my life. That’s living the resurrection. On!

  4. Hang on Sister! you are well loved world wide. We depend on brillient women such as yourself to articulate a theology of justice and compassion and to “speak truth to power”.

    • Check your facts before posting please. According to a 2009 study on Recent Vocations by the Center for Applied Research, the median age of LCWR members was over 74 and median age of CMSWR members is 60.

      It is also worth noting that CMSWR was only formed in 1992, has fewer congregations some of them still in the early years of their existence. LCWR was formed in 1956, has a greater number of congregations who have been well established in the US since the mid 1800s. It is no surprise then that their members are older. I admire the fidelity and am grateful for the lifetime of service of these seventy, eighty, and ninety year old members. What a treasure they are to new members in those congregations!!!!

      • Toni, perhaps mixed up the average age of a novice.
        However, you too must be “honest”. The CMSWR was formed because their voice was summarily rejected by the LCWR because of their faithful stance to ecclesiastical teaching, common life, and the witness of a habit.

        “What a treasure they are to new members in those congregations” Whaaah? They hardly get any! They are consolidating and disappearing at a rapid pace. The fact is the LCWR is running on the fumes of the past they reject. The current sisters have manipulated their way in to leadership roles and robbed the faithful sisters in these communities who established the reputation they enjoy. The fact is, they’re not faithful. They have little or no common life, They do what they wish. They can’t even be bothered to hold the basic tenets of the faith. They support causes contrary to Church teaching. So spare me about faithfulness. They aren’t a treasure. They’re an embarrassment and a scandal. They USED TO BE A TREASURE. No more.

        I’m against the Vatican intervention, however. It won’t change them, they are too proud and stubborn. The entire LCWR will die away quickly, it’s already happening. Let nature take its course. Meanwhile, the LCWR still avoids, stonewalls, and obfuscates about any questioning of sisters involvement in paedophilia scandals. So, spare me how wonderful the LCWR is. They’re not, it’s clear.

  5. Two women went up to a lecturn to speak, one of the LCWR and the other a nun.

    The LCWR woman stood and began to speak thus about herself: ‘O LCWR, I thank you that I am not like the rest of women, so orthodox and safe that they sell short the ministry of the theologian, narrow as baby ribbon, focused on order, cramped and eccesiastical, confined and clinging, and even obedient and loyal like this nun. I have won awards; I have advanced degrees and tenure at Fordham, my book sales are through the roof, my is wisdom gained by years of mystical and prophetic living, a committed competent woman, adult believer of conscience, I implement the mandate of Vatican II, I stand in solidarity with the poor, immigrants, battered women, LGBTQ persons, and even the wounded earth itself, I present at the annual Winter School and update priests and bishops on matters of Christology, I completely subvert the message.’

    But the nun, standing afar off, would not so much as lift up her eyes to heaven, but kept striking her breast, saying, ‘O God, be merciful to me the sinner!

    This nun went back to her convent justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts herself shall be humbled, and she who humbles herself shall be exalted.

    • I don’t know. It seems disingenuous to attack a group of people, then associate them with Pharisees because they dare to defend themselves. Seems to me the curia has tripped itself up over Matthew 18:15. What to do? Throw out all the bishops and women religious and start over?

      Or perhaps …

      “I thank you that I am not like the rest of women, so unorthodox and wild that they sell short the ministry of the cloister, narrow as a page in a thesis, focused on disorder, wanton and blown by the wind, harsh and critical, and even disobedient and testy like this sister. I have gathered bloggers’ support; I have silence and a life of prayer, my book sales are conducted in the guesthouse, my wisdom is gained by years of obedience and shunning the world, a committed competent woman, adult believer of conscience, I implement the mandate of bishops, I stand in solidarity with the prayerful, Latin-speakers, homeschooling women, seminary rejects, and even the wounded Church itself, I present in my cloister and never dare to update priests and bishops on matters of religion.”

  6. Rosalie J. Tutino

    Congratulations, Beth, on your award and on your amazing acceptance speech! You are a born teacher – your comments, observations and conclusions were so insightful, brilliant and clear that even I understood them. May I humbly offer another preposition … STICK with BETH !!!

  7. Sr. Elizabeth’s book “She Who Is” made a huge impact on me – I recently gave it to a friend because it was on the very top of the list of books I own. Having said that, I intend to read more of her work. Bless you Sister!

  8. Catherine Cherry

    Sister Elizabeth, Thank you of r leading the way with wisdom, depth, and a generous spirit. Catherine Cherry M.Ed., M.A. Theology, Ignatian Spiritual Director.

  9. Eugenia Calabrese

    Thank you Beth

    Your integrity and clarity is always inspiring and greatly appreciated.

    I love the suggestion to Cardinal Mueller …. In recalling his experience in Peru…

    ON

    Eugenia
    Eugenia Calabrese

  10. Elizabeth, thank you for once again speaking the truth so clearly and with such accuracy. Keep going forward! Many of us have been inspired and given hope by your gift of writing. Please know you walking in the footsteps of many great women who have gone before you and are now rooting for you. Thank you for your intelligence and all the gifts you bring to the church: the people of God!

  11. I question how many comments come from those who have actually and thoroughly read Johnson. While I have not read the book “in question,” I have read several of Johnson’s works, including what is, perhaps, one of the most diaphanous essays on Mariology to date.
    Unfortunately, even, “Truly our Sister,” was met with uniformed and sophistic reactions. Typical was the plethora of objections to Johnson’s title and references to the Marian image as “sister.” The book was labeled, by extreme right-wing factions and lazy readers, as “feminist,” although Ms. Johnson addressed and saw value in both traditional and progressive perspectives on that mode of spirituality. She presented objective and subjective imagery of that symbol as Mother, Sister, Companion, Counselor, and Protector.
    The Catholic Church of the early twentieth century would have embraced much of Johnson’s expansive language, which is the precise reason Jung praised the Church.
    However, since Vatican II, there has been a degree of sloppy ecumenism, which jettisoned the pronounced maternal symbology that had long distinguished the Catholic Church. In short; the Church, always too patriarchal to begin with, was influenced by an even more pronounced patriarchal Protestantism: i.e. offspring influencing the fathers.
    One striking thing that separates Christology from contrasting religious traditions are the sublime narratives of Christ with women. These tales are among the most distinguished in all religious literature. In the gospels, we find a figure who treats women as companions on an equal spiritual plane. The early Church recognized this, which is why we see, among the first catacomb images, the depiction of Christ and the Samaritan Woman at the well, Mary, etc.
    Today, how often do we hear of the value found in John’s vignette of Christ and the woman at the well? It is almost a forgotten narrative. I, for one, have never seen that story depicted in any film of Christ, etc. Yet, for the first Church, it was among the most important narratives to represent in artistic retellings.
    In this, Christianity differed from Judaism and Buddhism, both of which were predominantly made-up of male-centered narratives. Yet, it did not take the Church long to shift focus away from the gospels’ maternal tenets. Still, giving credit due, it retained a strong Marian image. After the reformation, it was practically the only church which did so (Eastern Orthodoxy excepted). Across the board, Protestantism threw the maternal emphasis out like yesterday’s bathwater. Over the last fifty years, Catholicism has been following Protestant lead in this, as opposed to setting the example.
    What Johnson has proposed in her writings is a return to the early church focus on authentic, spiritual egalitarianism. The late Andrew Greeley said: “we need a mother in our Holy Family.” In addition to Mary, we find a vast array of mothers in our women saints, nuns, etc.
    We claim to uphold traditional family, yet in leadership we have a decidedly one-sided family, lead only by church “fathers.’ it is a family shorn of maternal voice.
    Oddly, it is the U.S. Bishops, as opposed to the bishops of Rome, who are leading the ostracizing charge against Johnson. I am not so sure that is altogether surprising when we have bishops like Olmstead amongst their lot.

    Olmstead may be a quintessential, lopsided patriarchal interpretative example of “egalitarian’ only through submission. Where was the maternal in this bishop when he agreed with a local priest in refusing communion to an autistic teen because one such handicapped could not understand the “complexities and depth” of transubstantiation?
    Another example of iron-fisted patriarchal thuggery might be found in a Denver diocese. The Our Lady of Guadalupe parish was blessed with a longstanding mural of Our Lady until a male parishioner complained about the mural,saying that Mary only belongs at the foot of the cross. The priest and bishop agreed and “whited out” Mother with another, blank wall. yet again, here is male dominance quashing the creative, feminine, artistic spirit.
    To this day, three years later, parishioners from Our Lady Of Guadalupe still gather every Saturday to protest that erasure. On Sunday, those same parishes go to mass.
    This is likened to U.S. bishops attempts at ‘whiting out” Johnson (and more like her).
    Although Catholic, I attended Christian Theological Seminary; an ecumenical, Protestant grad school seminary. After having to state our denomination, I was inundated, a few times too many, with those predictable by-the-number misconceptions born from one outside looking in. However, one comment rang both true and astute: ” My issue with the Catholic hierarchy is that they are not open to either criticism or self-criticism.”

    http://spirrealism.wordpress.com

  12. Your acceptance speech to the LCWR filled me with hope for women religious. It leaves me with the question, “WHEN WILL THE MEN WHO RULE THE CHURCH LEARN TO BE INCLUSIVE?”
    A friend who is still in the CSJ community sent your remarks to me, although I’ve been out of community since 1987 and consider myself post-catholic,
    I was happy to read your uplifting words. I keep praying and hoping that women religious will one day be accepted as equals in the church.
    Thank you for your courage in speaking out.

  13. It is sad when Catholics spend such time being nasty to one another when Jesus calls us to love one another and Pope Francis asks us to be merciful. Who has not sinned or made errors in life? Let him throw the first stone.

    Surely we can treat each other with respect and listen without judging.

  14. I sent the following letter to Archbishop Sartain on May 13, 2014:

    Dear Archbishop Sartain,
    I am a Catholic parishioner in South Florida, a convert to Christianity and the Catholic Church after having been raised with no religion. My conversion experience was previously shared with Archbishop Thomas Wenski and Archbishop John Favalora of Miami. I am writing to provide you with a witness on how LCWR has affected me – a lay person – and my conversion experience. I believe this is necessary because the dialogue I see happening excludes the very people who are most affected by the problems with LCWR – children and lay people both within and outside the Church.

    For many years prior to my conversion to the Catholic Church including the years I was a teenager, I remember reading/watching news media about the LCWR nuns and their disagreements with the Catholic hierarchy. I considered placing links to these articles in this letter but they are too many. The constant news in the US regarding LCWR – year after year – for decades – is not about the many good deeds done by US sisters/nuns – it is solely about the arguments between the “progressive” nuns and the old curmudgeon bishops who have the audacity to actually believe what the Church teaches. Since I considered myself “progressive” too, I naturally cheered the nuns on in their often public challenges to Church teaching. I used birth control for many years. I thought the Church was backward for not allowing birth control, women priests and for endorsing celibacy. The LCWR and their public dissent gave me an ally in and justification for my unbelief.

    In 1996 I had a conversion experience while reading St Teresa of Avila’s “Life”. She says in this book that she would rather die a thousand deaths than ever break a rule of the Church. I thought this was so stupid for her to say since there are so many stupid Church rules – primarily the three I just mentioned. My conversion experience happened a couple of hours after I reacted after reading this comment by looking up and asking “How can she say this?” God pointed my eyes to a picture of Pope John Paul II on the cover of a Time Magazine and He said “He’s telling you the Truth.” I changed my life to stop using birth control after that experience (replaced by NFP) and it led to the birth of our fourth child whom we named Teresa. She is currently almost 16 years old, an A student who plays soccer and basketball and wants to be a doctor. All of her school friends are Atheists. She is not. She would not have been born if I had listened to the LCWR sisters. She would not have been born if John Paul II had not told me the truth.

    How many other lay people are out there now currently listening to the LCWR sisters and watching them as always – stick it to the bishops by honoring Elizabeth Johnson this coming August? There are at least nine major news organizations who have placed this story prominently. It is worldwide news. Sr Johnson says that the bishops censored her work because they misunderstood it. If bishops (expert theologians) have misunderstood her work (assuming they have) why are LCWR and Elizabeth Johnson not concerned that lay people might misunderstand it as well? What are we to think when they choose to honor her instead of insisting that she work with the bishops to clear up any misunderstandings and humbly make corrections? Why can’t they choose to honor a nun/sister who has done good works and also promoted church unity? Why is the Vatican allowing the August ceremony to go forward? Does no one in the hierarchy or within religious life care about lay people’s Christian formation or the fact that once again, after decades of the same thing year after year, we still have this bad example of religious sisters promoting strange teachings and hatred for Catholic hierarchy? Gosh the bishops who censored Sr Johnson’s work were doing their God given job. I think the good example Sr Johnson could have given would be to get an imprimatur for her book and/or humbly make corrections after meeting with the bishops to address their concerns – not become a public spectacle of more LCWR nun vs bishop scandal.

    I beg you to please put an end to this ridiculousness. Please care about the lay people Jesus sent the Church to preach the Gospel. The Church does not need the LCWR, they are a flat tire on the church bus. Please change the tire and let’s move on. The news can not get worse than it already is.

    Sincerely,
    Nancy Heise

    CC Hard copies of this letter have been mailed to:
    Archbishop Peter Sartain, 710 9th Ave, Seattle WA 98104
    Florence Deacon, OSF 3221 S Lake Drive, St Francis, WI 53235
    Sharon Holland, IHM 610 West Elm Ave, Monroe, WI 48162
    Barbara Blesse, OP 1237 W Monroe, Springfield, IL 62704
    Carol Zinn, SJS 6400 Minnesota Ave, St Louis, MO 63111
    Janet Mock, CSJ 1020 State Street, Baden, PA 15005

    • Nancy Heise,

      Re: In 1996 I had a conversion experience while reading St Teresa of Avila’s “Life”. She says in this book that she would rather die a thousand deaths than ever break a rule of the Church.

      In says in this book … EDITED BY HER SUPERIOR … As I am told by a Catholic Theologian.

      Nancy, I address this not with any doctrinal agenda, as I am not OF Religion, nor am I in any way supporting nun’s agendas (either way), but do you think it at all possible that the RC writes what the RC wants read?

      You post an awful lot of info with your tale. Can I ask if you get paid to post? I ask this because I have read many forums where Roman Catholics/Catholic post and I see a pattern of posting that has many readers wondering. Would you be kind enough to answer this question for us? The question: Do you get paid by the Roman Catholic Bishops/RCC?

      Thank you

  15. Christine Calhoun

    ON, Sister! As a lay member of the Catholic Church, many of the thoughts you articulate are a reflection of the very thoughts I myself have come to believe. My background is a parochial education through college. I feel blessed to have been taught by holy, intelligent, and joyful woman. I was taught to look for the good in all, question injustice , and have faith in an all-knowing God. I think of St.Joan, burned at the stake as a heritic, to be elevated later to sainthood. Have faith !

  16. Where does one begin? Women and cats can do whatever they want whenever they want… Men and dogs simply put; need to get over it! The Catholic church educated the Ladies and now wants to shut em up… Really! The boys club against the girls club? No winners here!

  17. Yes, Sister Elizabeth, hang on. I do believe that the archconservatives appointed as bishops by the last two popes are attacking the dedicated nuns of the LCWR due to a deep-seated misogynist convictions. The hubris of unquestioned authority and control infects the hierarchy; when this hubris is joined with misogyny we witness the present attack of women religious.

    However, while the attack on women religious and a woman theologian are shocking in their blatant and unjust abuse of power, these actions are not egregious, since the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (formerly known as the Holy Office which compiled the Index of Forbidden Books and conducted the Inquisition) have also banned the works of male theologians and forced many distinguished and orthodox male religious theologians out of Catholic universities and seminaries.

    More basic, in my opinion, is the fact that the hierarchy does not encourage or listen to the voices of the laity, despite the fact that in history it was the vox populi which elected bishops. The hierarchy prefers an uninformed laity with an immature understanding of the faith who simply obey unquestioningly and submit wholly to the bishops’ abusive authority.

    I fear that after the last two Popes ignoring Vatican II and suppressing any initiatives growing out of the Council, the hierarchy appointed by them will continue to attack the courageous women who are living the reforms of the Council. The shepherds are too often wolves wearing the pallium and wielding clubs instead of shepherd’s crooks.

  18. I believe that the bishops and church leaders sin when they allow anyone who spreads heresy to remain in the church and infect with lies those searching for truth. How many more months and years do we have to endure this scandal?

  1. Comment marked as low quality by the editors. Show comment
  2. Comment marked as low quality by the editors. Show comment
  3. Comment marked as low quality by the editors. Show comment
  4. Comment marked as low quality by the editors. Show comment
  5. Comment marked as low quality by the editors. Show comment
  6. Comment marked as low quality by the editors. Show comment
  7. Comment marked as low quality by the editors. Show comment
  8. Comment marked as low quality by the editors. Show comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments with many links may be automatically held for moderation.