The saga is finally over and while they aren’t dead yet – last rites have been given. I am speaking of the US LCWR, the Leadership Conference of Women Religious. Beginning under Pope Benedict and continued under Pope Francis, a 7 year effort had been undertaken to return them to the fold. Last week, that effort was abandoned without any significant healing of the LCWR. In all likelihood they are too far gone to be saved.

The LCWR is one of 2 organizations representing religious women in the United States. The other, the Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious (CMSWR) representing faithful Catholic women religious, is solidly loyal to the Magisterium, usually habited and often living in community. Their members are YOUNG, VIBRANT and in GROWING orders such as the Dominican Sisters of St. Cecilia, Dominican Sisters of Mary, Mother of the Eucharist, Sisters of Life, Benedictines of Mary, Queen of Apostles, Franciscan Sisters of the Sorrowful Mother, Disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ, Franciscan Sisters of the Renewal, Servants of the Lord and the Virgin of Matara, Discalced Carmelite Nuns and so many more.

The LCWR in contrast is old, still living a ’60s interpretation of the Vatican II “spirit” (“spirit” = what they wished it said), heavily involved in liberal political causes and severely lacking in vocations. Their members have been known for giving grave scandal such as escorting women into abortion mills, strong support for women’s ordination to the priesthood, backing “gay marriage,” promotion of new age spirituality, radical feminism, publicly opposing and undermining their bishops, protests against the Church and all manner of liberal political activism. Orders such as the Sinsinawa Dominicans, Loretto Community and Grey Nuns of the Sacred Heart.

The liberal media and large political donors (ref: Nuns on the Bus) have frequently used the LCWR. They portrayed the Church in every bad light they could manufacture and the LCWR rescue effort as “punishing nuns”. The media will now have one less avenue of attack open to them. Liberal media have widely hailed this as a great victory. It’s not. In about 10 years or so the LCWR will be mostly gone as their already aged members die-out unreplaced. It is sad what has happened to these once great religious communities but it has been in the making for decades. The bright spot remains the CMSWR, founded as a faithful alternative to the LCWR and who is everything the LCWR is not.

Officially, Rome has put the best possible spin on this. The language is that the LCWR has “accepted Vatican reforms,” but the reality is oversight has ended with the LCWR somewhat promising to maybe do better. No substantive changes have been made in the LCWR. Instead, there are only reports and findings. No wonder the liberal press is all over this as a big victory against the Church. A typical analysis comes from Bustle:

The move isn’t necessarily a surprise. Pope Francis has been much more, shall we say, chill than his predecessor, and much more focused on the Church’s mission to serve the poor and lowly rather than on maintaining doctrinal purity. And given that nuns have historically been rather proactive when it comes to tending the sick, educating children, and generally doing good things for the community, it makes sense he’d be inclined to let them go about their business, even if they might be affected by the dreaded “feminist spirit.”

Because there’s also the fact that nuns have historically been pretty badass. They haven’t just sat by and meekly tended children and nursed the sick and fed the poor – they’ve also advocated on behalf of the people they try to help. Nuns have participated in momentous social movements, like the Civil Rights Movement. Some even openly support abortion rights. There are tons of badass nuns around today, like this one, or these ones, or these. In fact, some of the issues behind the most recent investigation were perceived stances on things like the all-male priesthood, birth control, sexuality, and the centrality of Jesus to the faith that differed from the official Catholic teachings. Can you say badass”

And now it seems the sisters will be able to continue going about their work in peace. So, three cheers for nuns!

Not recommended, but if you must, the entire piece is Vatican Halts Investigation of American Nuns For “Feminist Spirit,” So Score This Victory In The Lady Column!. (Note: its lead image is a stock photo of young habited Brazilian sisters, not an image of actual US LCWR members). There are many, many similar analyses in the MSM.

More useful is Father Zuhlsdorf’s piece: Of the LCWR and the end of the CDF “crackdown”.

For background see my piece American women religious, Fr. Z’s Nuns Gone Wild: A Trip Down Memory Lane and A study of the Sinsinawa Dominicans (hint: LCWR). Read and weep.

Many in the German bishops’ conference have been strongly lobbying against unchangeable doctrine, if not formally then in practice. They have been the primary force behind the widely reported attempts to manipulate the Synod on the Family. As I noted previously, their Cardinal Walter Kasper has led the charge on a non-stop, worldwide media blitz.

Cardinal Kasper has had not only the ear of the liberal media, but also that of the Holy Father. The crux of his proposal is to admit to the Eucharist some who are objectively living in a state of mortal sin. Personally, I do not see how that would be even remotely possible. Neither do many of Kasper’s fellow Cardinals. Fortunately, there are credible reports that his support is finally waning.

Most of us know very little about Cardinal Kasper and what he believes. As a Prince of the Church, you might assume that it is in line with her teaching. It turns out, not so much. Joe Sparks writing for Catholic Household takes a close look at Cardinal Kasper’s statements and in particular his book Jesus the Christ. There, Kasper generally dismisses the transfiguration, walking on water, quieting the storm, raising the dead, the miraculous catch of fish and feeding the multitude as legends. Such a belief is squarely at odds with that which all faithful Catholics must hold.

When Walter Kasper approaches the topic of Jesus Christ, one has the impression that he finds it impossible to know exactly how many of the events related in the Gospels actually transpired. While he defends a “basic stock of historically certain miracles,” he casts considerable doubt on the historical reality of a number of Gospel accounts. In his acclaimed work Jesus the Christ, he wrote regarding some of the Gospel miracle accounts:

“A number of miracle stories turn out in the light of form criticism to be projections of the experiences of Easter back into the earthly life of Jesus, or anticipatory representations of the exalted Christ. Among these epiphany stories we should probably include the stilling of the storm, the transfiguration, Jesus” walking on the lake, the feeding of the four (or five) thousand and the miraculous draught of fishes. The clear purpose of the stories of the raising from the dead of Jairus’s daughter, the widow’s son at Naim and Lazarus is to present Jesus as Lord over life and death. It is the nature miracles which turn out to be secondary accretions to the original tradition.

“The result of all this is that we must describe many of the gospel miracle stories as legendary. Legends of this sort should be examined less for their historical than for their theological content. They say something, not about individual facts of saving history, but about the single saving event which is Jesus Christ. To show that certain miracles cannot be ascribed to the earthly Jesus does not mean that they have no theological or kerygmatic significance…   The probability is that we need not take the so-called “nature miracles” as historical.” (Jesus the Christ, p. 90-91)

One could give many more examples that show a disturbing trend to spiritualize the actions of Our Lord as recounted in the Gospels. Even the Resurrection accounts of Our Lord do not emerge unscathed from Cardinal Kasper’s reductionist hermeneutic, with the story of the empty tomb receiving particular attention from Cardinal Kasper:

“[Mark 16] begins with a definite improbability. The wish to anoint a dead body, which has already been put in its shroud in the tomb, three days later, is not given any explanation, such as being a custom of the time, and is unintelligible in the climatic conditions of Palestine. The fact that the women do not realize until they are already on the way that they would need help to roll back the stone and enter the tomb betrays a degree of thoughtlessness which is not easy to explain. We must assume therefore that we are faced not with historical details but with stylistic devices intended to attract the attention and raise excitement in the minds of those listening…” (Jesus the Christ, p. 127)

There is a great deal more. Read the entire piece: The Gospel According to Cardinal Kasper: Did the Miracles and Prophesies of Jesus Really Happen?

Father Dwight Longenecker also comments on this in Does Cardinal Kasper Believe in Friendly Ghosts?

The Church has always, always been under attack from outside and within. Many of the heresies which had to be resisted originated from her own clergy. It was German priest Martin Luther who led the Protestant schism. One very significant threat today again originates from Germany. That fissure (from which “the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God”) that Pope Paul VI lamented in 1972 continues to widen.

Pope Francis has called for an open discussion to address those who feel estranged from the Church. These are people who have not known, not understood or rejected the truth given to us directly in Christ’s words, recorded in Holy Scripture, passed on in Sacred Tradition, taught by the Magisterium and believed always, everywhere and by everyone Catholic. Instead, some have succumbed to the false teaching of the modern world that taking another wife or acting on same sex attraction is not sinful.

Christ has not given up on them and neither has His vicar. The question at hand is a pastoral one: how our good shepherds may most effectively lead them back. The question is not how to change, modify, adapt, twist or diminish the true teaching of the Church to suit the world. The Church does not have such authority. Yet, there are those within who propose exactly that. Such lies do not help the Body of Christ, but are extremely damaging giving scandal that leads people away from salvation. “The road to Hell is paved with the bones of priests and monks, and the skulls of bishops are the lamp posts that light the path” (attributed to St. John Chrysostom).

Many in the German bishops’ conference have been strongly lobbying for (essentially doctrinal) change, if not formally then in practice. They have been the primary force behind manipulating the Synod on the Family. Their Cardinal Walter Kasper has been on a non-stop, worldwide media blitz to build support for this. The primary player however is the president of their bishops’ conference – Cardinal Reinhard Marx.

Cardinal Marx presides over a diocese which alone is worth more than the Vatican, with revenue ($650M/yr) collected by the state and supports 60,000 well-paid employees — although with near empty churches. He has spent far more money (4x) on luxuries than Bishop Tebartz-van Elst (the so called “bishop of bling”) who inherited expenses from his predecessor and was mostly set-up for his fidelity to the Magisterium. This is hard-ball politics.

Cardinal Marx now appears to be laying the groundwork in the event the fall synod does not make changes to his liking. In recent comments to reporters, his statements hint at schism. To wit:

• “we are not just a subsidiary of Rome”
• (the synod) must lead to “further progress” towards finding a common position on fundamental issues, but it “cannot prescribe in detail what we have to do in Germany”
• the German Church “cannot wait” for synodal statements

These statements suggest a possible unilateral decision to offer the Eucharist to the divorced and remarried and possibly to those in homosexual unions. They are scandalous threats to the Universal Church and in essence, are an offer of continuing communion with Her but only on their own terms. Cardinal Marx is beginning to act as the Pope of Germany. EWTN’s excellent National Catholic Register has the story:

Speaking to reporters Wednesday at the end of the bishops’ plenary meeting in Hildesheim, Cardinal Reinhard Marx said theological questions regarding marriage, the family and sexual morality could not be answered during the three weeks of the synod.

He said he hopes the synod will result in “a further discussion” and said that it must find a text that “would lead to further progress” towards finding a common theological position on fundamental issues.

But concerning pastoral practice, he said the German Church “cannot wait” for synodal statements, as marriage and family ministry has to be undertaken now, according to an article (now removed) in Die Tagespost, translated by the blog Catholic Conclave.

Cardinal Marx, the archbishop of Munich and Freising, said as far as doctrine is concerned, the German episcopate remains in communion with the Church, but on individual issues of pastoral care, “the synod cannot prescribe in detail what we have to do in Germany.”

The German bishops want to publish their own pastoral letter on marriage and family after the synod, the article says.

“We are not just a subsidiary of Rome,? Marx said. “Each episcopal conference is responsible for the pastoral care in their culture and has to proclaim the Gospel in its own unique way. We cannot wait until a synod states something, as we have to carry out marriage and family ministry here.”

Perhaps I can be of some assistance to Cardinal Marx. He cautioned that theological questions regarding marriage, the family and sexual morality could not be answered during the three weeks of the synod. Fortunately, Jesus answered the core questions Cardinal Marx struggles with 2,000 years ago. Those “questions” are settled for all faithful Catholics.

The article goes on to quote German Bishop Heiner Koch (in line with Cardinal Marx), who laments that to “portray homosexuality as a sin is hurtful.” Quite right – it is serious, grave sin and extremely hurtful to one’s eternal life. Should it not be portrayed honestly?

Read the entire article: German Bishops: “We Are Not Just a Subsidiary of Rome”.

I believe that these statements are being made now precisely because the German agenda for the Synod on the Family is failing to lead the Universal Church down this false path. I’ll conclude with thoughts from one of many faithful Cardinals resisting this:

Guinean Cardinal Robert Sarah, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, recently stated that detaching Church teaching from pastoral practice – which critics say the Kasper proposal would do – is a form of “heresy.”

The idea of placing the Magisterium “in a nice box by detaching it from pastoral practice – which could evolve according to the circumstances, fads, and passions – is a form of heresy, a dangerous schizophrenic pathology,” Cardinal Sarah said.

He added that the African Church “will strongly oppose any rebellion against the teaching of Jesus and the Magisterium.”

Being Catholic: to know, love and serve the Lord. I like to add “in that order.” You can not love what you do not know, you will not truly serve what you do not love. If you are loving and serving only what you think (or hope or prefer) the Lord to be, then chances are you are missing the mark…   possibly by a wide margin (our separated liberal Protestant brethren come to mind).

We are called to serve in many ways, but at least in witness to the Lord (evangelization) as we are able. The Church, the bride of Christ in her earthly mission, suffers with poor catechesis. Those who leave typically do so without actually knowing what they have left. Others remain luke-warm. Many are not “ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope” (1 Peter 3:15).

Part of the New Evangelization is utilizing all the modern tools that are available to communicate the Good News in its fullest. Venerable Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen did this on television. Mother Angelica founded EWTN. Today countless folks work for the Kingdom in “new media” in all its diverse forms. This is a wonderful development!

One interesting Internet meme, the “sketching video,” can communicate quite a bit of information in an interesting and engaging manner. A recent example of this comes from the Sophia Institute for Teachers:

Houston, we have a problem. “God became man and took the punishment we deserve.” Nope.

This video is really good and I would recommend it to folks, but it has two problems (at least that I noticed). The most important one is presenting the Atonement as penal substitution. That is (essentially) Jesus bearing the wrath of God for our sins. Some Protestant denominations have this view (e.g. Calvinists) but it is not what we believe and is highly problematic.

One of my favorite apologists and expert on Calvin is Dr. David Anders (a convert). He describes Christ’s sacrifice this way:

Play Penal Substitution vs. Sacrifice

Bryan Cross at Called to Communion has a related piece Catholic and Reformed Conceptions of the Atonement which includes this succinct graphic:

Two other excellent pieces on this topic are Does the Catholic view of Christ’s Atonement permit the Reformed view of “Penal Substitution”? and Why Do So Many Catholics Believe in Penal Substitution?.

The video’s second (but lesser) problem is describing the grace we receive from the Eucharist. It is presented as actual grace (calling it just “grace”) whereas it is primarily sanctifying grace. (See Catholic Answer’s Grace: What It Is and What It Does for a description. Other good descriptions are here and here.)

There is much good in the video, so (these problems not withstanding) I still like and recommend it…

Recently, I gave you my take on Pope Francis (Francis: style, substance, execution). Not that my opinion matters all that much, but I gave high marks on style and substance — not so much on execution. In that section I expressed my concern on how the pope’s message gets twisted by the media (and apparent lack of correction from the Vatican).

In the substance section however, I noted:

What I did not expound upon is what will happen when the media finally figures-out that he is not what they want him to be: a hard-left liberal reformer who will discard and/or disregard previous Church teaching. One popular theory is that they will viciously turn on him, probably attributing his “change of heart” to “Vatican hard-liners” prevailing (or some other such politically inspired nonsense). Such is the lens they see everything through.

George Weigel offers another possibility. He argues that the media has settled on their narrative and will not leave it. The pope will continue to teach faithfully, frequently, but the media will simply “filter” it. A sort of “if you don’t report it then it never happened and is therefore not real” approach.

At the end of last month, he gave these examples in a piece for the National Catholic Register:

Well, things like the Pope’s passionate defense of marriage as the stable union of a man and a woman, which he underscored in an address to the Schoenstatt movement right after the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops on the Family 2014 and in his keynote address to a November interreligious conference at the Vatican on the crisis of marriage in the 21st century.

And things like the Pope’s defense of the gospel of life, a persistent theme in Francis’ November address to the European Parliament. The press reports I read focused on Francis’ concerns for immigrants and the unemployed. Fair enough; that was certainly in the text. But what about the Holy Father’s defense of those whom indifference condemns to loneliness or death, “as in the case of the terminally ill, the elderly who are abandoned or uncared for and children who are killed in the womb?”

What about his insistence that Europe, past, present and future, makes no sense without Christianity? What about his condemnation of those who subject Christians “to barbaric acts of violence” and his plea for support for those Christians who are “evicted from their homes and native lands, sold as slaves, killed, beheaded, crucified or burned alive, under the shameful and complicit silence of so many”? You didn’t read much about that did you?

Nor did you read (unless you read the Pope’s text himself) that Francis, having made a plea for environmental stewardship, went on to “emphasize” (his word) that, “along with an environmental ecology, there is also need of a human ecology, which consists in respect for the person.”

Another aspect of Pope Francis’ preaching that has been too often filtered out of the coverage of his pontificate involves (if you’ll pardon the term) demonology. Before Pope Francis, no pope in decades so regularly referred to Satan.

Read the Weigel’s entire piece: Pope Francis, Filtered.