Nun-The-Less: Pope Tells Nuns to Stop Thinking
by Kathleen A. O’Shea
June 13, 2012
In the latest show of force, the Vatican is attempting to control and punish nuns and all women who think for themselves -- the most radical wave of feminism ever to wash over the Rock of Peter. As a former nun who loved being a nun, I concur with president of the Leadership Conference for Women Religious (LCWR), who said of the latest decision by Rome, "We're stunned."
Since 2008 the LCWR, the body representing over 56,000 nuns in the U.S. today, has been living with an enforced investigation initiated by the Vatican of communities (or "orders" as they once were called) of Religious women in th e U.S. Communities were told they had to participate because of "doctrinally problematic" statements at their annual assemblies of nuns and for "prolonged silence in the face of such errors."
There has never been an equivalent investigation of communities of religious men or priests. Rather, after more than ten years of revelations of sexual abuse of children for which no priest has ever been excommunicated, the current pope actually declared 2011 as "The Year of the Priest."
Two weeks ago in what is, perhaps, the most convoluted misogynistic edict yet, the pope struck again. In his latest attempt to preserve what Angela Bonavoglia rightly termed "Gender Apartheid" in the Catholic Church, the pope has condemned nuns for what they are not doing.
The things that made the Vatican hit list this time are not speaking out about things that the Catholic Church vehemently opposes: abortion, same-sex marriage, homosexuality, euthanasia, ordination of women, contraception -- and President Obama's health care plan. Undoubtedly, nuns are out of control. As further proof, the pope emphasized that the nuns have been introducing radical feminist themes and challenging church teachings.
But Sister Donna Quinn did speak out about abortion. A Dominican sister in the Chicago Archdiocese who volunteered as an escort at the ACU Health Center in Hinsdale, IL, she received a letter from the Cardinal Francis George, condemning her "pro-abortion" activity, which he called a public scandal.
Sister Donna Quinn was not silent. In an attempt to engage the Cardinal in dialogue, she said worked as a peacekeeper to ensure safety for women as they entered the clinic. Groups, often led by priests, appear daily to harass women.
And, surely, the pope remembers Sister Margaret McBride. After all, he allowed Bishop Thomas Olmsted to excommunicate her for not only speaking out, but for making an administrative decision at St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix in May, 2010 to approve the abortion of a woman who was gravely ill. The doctors had told the woman, 27 years old and 11 weeks pregnant with her fifth child, that her risk of mortality was close to 100 percent if she continued with the pregnancy. The woman decided on an abortion, and Sister Margaret approved it. According to Lisa Sowle Cahill, a theology teacher at Boston College, "The official Church position would mandate that the correct solution would be to let both the mother and the child die." Sister Margaret did not keep silence.
A recent addition to the criteria for investigation was failure by nuns to speak out against President Obama's health care insurance law. This may have been in response to Sister Simone Campbell, executive director of the Catholic social justice lobby, NETWORK. It advocated for the reform before Congress, emphasizing that the Affordable Care Act "does not provide federal funding for abortions" but that "tens of thousands of people are dying each year because they don't have access to healthcare, so that is a life issue." After the decision on LCWR, Sister Simone told the press: "I can only infer that there is a strong feeling (in Rome) about the health care position that we took. Our position regarding health care has always been the application of faith to a political document that we read differently than the bishops." But no one is allowed to read things differently from a bishop. In order to resolve the nun-problem and in what the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) calls a "canonical intervention," the pope met with Cardinal Levada in Rome and gave him the "authority" to "show his pastoral concern" for women religious in the U.S. In response, Levada named three men to monitor the LCWR for five years or until they conform. The letter that LCWR received from Cardinal Levata stated that "in this way, the Holy See will offer an important contribution to the future of religious life of women in the Church in the United States." Who are these three? One is Archbishop Peter Sartain of Seattle. While bishop of Joliet, IL, he ordained a seminarian to the priesthood whom he knew had pornography of young boys on his computer. This priest was later convicted of sexual assault of an underage boy. The Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) observed: "Sartain, in our view, had a moral obligation to postpone the ordination, send [the priest] for treatment and inform the public." SNAP president Dave Clohessy later said Sartain "did none of that." There are currently 85 cases of sexual abuse by Catholic priests in the Seattle Archdiocese where Sartain is the nominated leader. The second, Bishop Leonard Blair of Toledo, Ohio, has recently been asked for an explanation about his relationship with a priest in his diocese who was accused of child abuse and convicted of murder. The Blade in Toledo has reported that Bishop Blair had an unexplained "agreement" with this priest. There are currently 133 cases of sexual abuse by priests in the Diocese of Toledo. And, the greatest strength of the third monitor, Bishop Thomas Poprocki of Springfield, IL, is his love of hockey, according to people who know him. With 187 cases of abuse by priests in Illinois, it would seem he also has his docket full. Nun-the-less, this is the Trinity charged with examining three things: the content of speeches at the annual LCWR assemblies; the corporate dissent in women's congregations regarding the church's sexual teachings, and the introduction of radical feminist themes in organizational programs. Can anyone really believe that these are the biggest problems that the Catholic Church needs to resolve at this time? No matter what you call it, this is not about nuns. It is about power; it is about invisibility; it is about the idea that these old men in their linen and silk, wearing their gold rings, want women to be seen and never heard. Sister Laurie Brink, a Dominican nun who delivered an address to the LCWR annual assembly in 2007, is one of the nuns who upset the Vatican. She proposed four models of religious life that nuns need to consider for the future. These were: 1) Death with dignity and grace as congregations disappear or die out; 2) Acquiesence to others' expectations by living according to the options available to women in the Catholic Church today; 3) Sojourning in a New Land not yet Known (living outside the box), and, 4) Reconciliation for the sake of mission (giving in but not agreeing). This was not about doctrine. It was meant only for the nuns present. It had to do with how they might live their lives in the future. But, it really made the Vatican mad. The future of nuns has never been a concern of the Vatican. Priests have always had retirement plans, but not nuns. Therefore, one has to assume that the Vatican's concern is because of what Sister Laurie was doing: thinking and speaking. Meanwhile, the nuns go on doing what they have always done on the front lines of poverty and economic justice. They are feeding the homeless, caring for the sick, teaching the children, protecting the elderly, finding the lost, sheltering the wounded, bringing peace in the midst of turmoil. People often ask me why I left the convent. Like all the reasons we might have for leaving anything after thirty years, it's not something I can cover in a couple of minutes. To solve my own dilemma, I have several different answers. All of them are true, but, in and of themselves, none are complete. One that I often use with students is that, eventually, as a woman who was a nun and a nun who was a woman, I found it impossible to belong to and remain faithful to an organization that did not recognize me as a human being. Usually everyone understands this.
Kathleen A. O’Shea, a former nun and a Pulitzer Prize nominee, is an independent social worker, teacher, activist and lecturer. For the past 15 years, her emphasis has been on women on death row and, now, on aging in prison. A board member of the National Prisons Foundation, O’Shea is the author of “Women and the Death Penalty in the United States:1900-1998” and “Women on the Row: Revelations From Both Sides of the Bars.” She recently completed “Faithful Companions: Nuns and Death Row Inmates,” a collection of 30 stories. Her memoir of religious life,“To All the Nuns I’ve Loved Before,” is trying to find a publisher.
“Women Challenge Gender Apartheid in the Catholic Church” by Angela Bonavoglia in the Summer 2010 edition of On The Issues Magazine.
”Formation of Gender Identity in the Church” by Rev. Rebecca Turner in the Café of the Summer 2010 edition of On The Issues Magazine.
”American Taliban: Sect Controls Women’s Destinies” by Carolyn Jessop and Laura Palmer in the Summer 2009 edition of On The Issues Magazine.
”The Appeal of Fundamentalism” by Frances Kissling in the Winter 1996 edition of On The Issues Magazine.
A Conversation: The Rev. Beatrice Blair and Merle Hoffman in the 1985 Vol.5 edition of On The Issues Magazine.
Annie posted: 2012-06-14 07:57:16
What a thoughtful and well researched article. As a recovering Catholic, I found this informative and true to my own research and understanding. The fact that nuns are in the spotlight for wrongdoing is a prime example of how far the Catholic church will go to protect the men amongst them. This misogynistic cult cares nothing for women, and it is obvious by how they are protecting the illegal and immoral actions of priests, yet demonizing the altruistic, selfless work of the nuns.
Syetan posted: 2013-01-02 15:35:06
May30Kitty Chmielewski Concerning the OK rape victim and rleigious objections this isn't just about contraception, folks. 15 years ago, I worked as a nurse's aide for the geriatric population. On duty one night, a resident kept calling me to complain about various symptoms. I knew that she had not been getting one of her medications because one of the day nurses had rleigious objections to giving narcotics. I went to the night nurse I was working with, and using the desk reference book, pointed out that all of the resident's symptoms were those of morphine withdrawal, consistent with the removal of her meds. The nurse checked the chart and asked me why that pill had not been ordered when it ran out or given as prescribed. Once I explained the reason, she called and got an emergency prescription of the med and gave it to the resident who had been on that medication for over 10 years. You don't just cold turkey someone on that kind of medication and a nurse has no business overriding a doctor's orders, not even for rleigious objections . If your religion won't let you do your job, find a new one. (Job, not religion)The point I'm making here is if contraception can be withheld for rleigious reasons, what happens if you need a narcotic and your nurse doesn't think you should have it because it's against her religion? Or you need a blood transfusion and the doctor doesn't believe in it? Men, this involves you as well. If religion is going to dictate our medical choices, removal of testes for cancer won't be allowed because that's (by definition) a form of contraception. Vasectomies? A thing of the past in our glorious New World Order.Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins, the saying goes. I absolutely protect your right to practice any religion you choose but NOT if it infringes on my right to practice my religion, make medical choices, affects my job and so on. There is an inherent arrogance in the idea that rleigious objections give you the right to choose for me, that your faith somehow imbues you with the knowledge of what is right for me whether I want it or not. As far as I am concerned, this is not just about rleigious objections but the far more insidious concept that anyone with a rleigious objection is somehow more superior than anyone else which gives them the right to deny those who do not agree with them to the basic human rights. It's about equality, the completely equal rights and the total freedom for ALL to live their lives based on personal moral choices without exception.I have rleigious objections to anything else.
Join the conversation. Leave a comment.
All comments will be reviewed before being published. This is a space for thoughtful and critical commentary; any personal attacks, abusive or offensive language, off-topic comments or comments that may be harmful to the conversation or to readers will not be published. *All fields required.*
What’s concerning us, feminists and progressives? From the front lines to the back burners, our angle on vital matters on our minds and popping up in the news.
ENTER HOT TOPICS
The Love of Strangers by Merle Hoffman
"She Had a Heartbeat Too" The Tragic Death of Savita Halappanavar in an Irish Hospital by Ann Rossiter
First Irish Abortion Clinic Opens Amid Controversy, Threats and Confusion by Caelainn Hogan
Forty Years After Roe V Wade, Getting an Abortion is Still a Major Challenge by Eleanor J. Bader
It's Up to Us to Defend Abortion Rights by Mary Lou Greenberg
Back and Forth by Judith Arcana
The Poet's Eye: Curated by Judith Arcana
Suggested Reading by Anna Platt and the Feminist Press
Related Articles, January 2013