Talk:Leadership Conference of Women Religious

Clarification needed

If there are 1500 members, how is that 90% of 59,000? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.122.153.93 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)‎

1500 Leaders, whos congregations (the nuns under them) are ~90% of all religious women in the USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.170.48 (talk) 12:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I know right? LOL. Whoever made that statement has a clear bias. I would like to see someone else correct that information or at least verify it. They are not even a religious order, but a charismatic group only. I hope someone sees this statistical flaw and correct it. HeartyBowl1989 (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)HeartyBowl1989

LCWR is comprised of mothers superior, who run convents. The superiors represent their convent in the organization. 1500 superiors represent 46,451 sisters. You should do a little reading on the organization before you cry bias... It's easier to spot BS in subjects if you actually know something about it. Jwhite85 (talk) 02:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Editorial Comment

Deleted "The final report takes much information out of context and misrepresents facts." comment under "Controversy" section. Arguments in support of this statement may be valid for Wikipedia, but if included statement should include language indicating opinionated nature (e.g. "alleged") and list specific reasons for the disputed conclusion. Geno the Great (talk) 19:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Official version of the Doctrinal Assessment?

Does anyone have a link to an official copy of the Doctrinal Assessment? Everyone links to this copy on uscccb.org, but presumably there is a copy somewhere on the Inquisition's or the Vatican's website also? Oddly I don't see a copy anywhere on http://www.doctrinafidei.va/ ... Orbst (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no Inquisition any more. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Haha, true! They changed the name. Assume I wrote "CDF". Do you know the answer to the question? Orbst (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't a mere name change, and you know it very well. You are misrepresenting reality in an offensive and flamebaiting manner, and this is against the spirit, if not the letter, of Wikipedia civility rules. And no, I don't know any link from the Holy See. But I don't think it is necessary. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 23:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

This is the link to the document. I had also linked to it when I expanded the section on doctrinal issues. See footnotes 21 and 22. Kurt Wagner (talk) 18:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but that's the USCCB copy again. I was just curious that there isn't a Vatican copy. And apologies if referring to the CDF by its old name is offensive, I can retrofit the question if you'd like. Orbst (talk) 22:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I picked some words from the report, appended "site:.va" and put it on Google. Google did not find it. This suggests that we will not find a Vatican copy for it. It is possible that Google hasn't indexed it, but, much more likely, it simply does not exist. It seems the CDF hasn't published it online. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 23:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The report is found on the CDF page here. It is the same text as the PDF published by the USCCB, and was published 18 April 2012. I hope this helps, though am not sure why the USCCB copy is not being considered authoritative here. Kurt Wagner (talk) 17:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I added a citation to the vatican.va location into the existing reference. This should clear up any potential confusion about which is an authoritative version. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 16:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Blogs

Blogs vary enormously, the best blogs have good information but not all. http://www.ncregister.com/blog/tim-drake/register-radio-new-age-influence-at-the-lcwr-assembly and http://www.womenofgrace.com/blog/?p=14020 are both blogs. I think they're probably accurate and certainly the LCWR goes against traditional Roman Catholic teaching in many areas. Better sources would be a good idea. Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Women of Grace, but the National Catholic Register is one of the foremost Catholic newspapers in the United States. Referring to it as a blog is inaccurate. Kurt Wagner (talk) 23:28, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Opposition to feminism

There are plenty of men in the RC Church holding heretical views of various kinds.

1. Why did the pope crack down on the women so early in his reign?
2. Was this opposition to heresy or opposition to feminism?
3. Alternatively did men in the Vatican opposed to feminism simply put this issue into the pope's in-tray rather than issues involving male heretics?

We don't know yet. A year from now we should know whether male heretics face similar restrictions.

1. Looking for evidence whether the women are picked on could get information that improves the article.
2. Looking for evidence whether Vatican insiders are manipulating the pope by deciding what to put into his in-tray could improve many articles.

Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Vincent Nichols said in an interview:
"the old language – of mortal sin, for example – was... a misguided attempt to motivate the faithful." This is a bit ambiguous but the easiest interpretation is that Nichols denies the Roman Catholic doctrine of mortal sin. Nobody had demanded that Nichols retract or clarify his position. Indeed Nichols will become a cardinal. Nichols is one of many RC heretics according to one blog. Vincent Nichols and the others haven't been given the same hard time as the women. Is that because they're men?

Proxima Centauri (talk) 09:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

We should check among other areas whether Dissident male priests face similar problems. Proxima Centauri (talk) 07:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Relevant material

I have read the comment stating, “The reason why CMSWR is here is because many Americans assume that all religious sisters are of LCWR, and the CMSWR is separated, distinct and not the same nuns of same organization.” And I now agree the material about the CMSWR should stay in the text.

Sister Maureen Fiedler wrote.

First, I doubt this issue is on the top of the new pope's agenda or that he had much knowledge of this when he was an archbishop in Argentina. And what does 'affirm' mean? Affirm what? Some general, vague report? Did Müller give him a full explanation, talk about the opposition to it among U.S. Catholics or give him an outline of the actions proposed? Did he talk about the accusation that says U.S. women religious spend too much time on social justice and not enough on other issues? I frankly doubt the new pope would 'affirm' that. Did he even mention the questions raised by LCWR at the meeting several months ago? I doubt he gave both sides. It could be a case of the "good 'ole boys" in the Curia wanting everything to remain the same and trying to make the new pope go along on an issue about which he knows little.

I feel that is also relevant, the National Catholic Reporter has won awards and should be reliable. Proxima Centauri (talk) 19:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

NPOV

The recent deletions made this article fail NPOV woefully. If they are reinstated, we will have a full-scale dispute on our hands and I will tag this article. Elizium23 (talk) 22:34, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Would you please spell out how User 100.38.21.158's recent edits violated NPOV. As I read them they were non-controversial and restored balance to the article, which had previously contained much misleading information about the LCWR. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 22:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

They were unexplained and deleted large swaths of the article. Looking through them individually I can see that some good was done. I can attempt to salvage the good parts of those edits if you will allow me. Elizium23 (talk) 22:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

There needs to be an ongoing sincere effort of neutrality in this article on a contentious topic. A current example of Neutral Point of View failure is the article's commentary on the successful conclusion of the Doctrinal Assessment, for instance the phrase "On April 16, 2015, The Vatican officially concluded the controversial seven-year investigation with a face-saving compromise" The Assessment indeed concluded successfully with affirmations of communion in Jesus Christ and His Catholic Church, something that unfortunately couldn't be assumed before the Assessment when there was so much New Age type talk described by one sister (Sr Laurie Brink, OP) "moving beyond the Church and even beyond Christ" and so many sisters and whole congregations questioning whether they wanted anything to do with what they called "the institutional church." There have been repeated instances of whole groups of sisters leaving canonical religious life and leaving the practice of the Catholic faith entirely, for example the former Benedictine convent near Madison WI that now calls itself "Holy Wisdom Monastery" has a non-Catholic Sunday service, and there has unfortunately been a noticeable problem across many religious congregations of individual sisters who no longer regularly attend Sunday Mass, often citing radical feminist objections or redefined ideas of "eucharist". The LCWR now has a clear commitment to being an "instrument of ecclesial communion" and the importance of that for sisters and their religious congregations remaining Catholic and faithful is likely very significant. This conclusion was positive, period, from the point of view of the sisters and the bishops and the Holy See. Calling it "face saving" is in no way neutral and falsely diminishes the significance of what has been achieved together by the sisters and the CDF. --Elizdelphi (talk) 14:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Info about the investigation no longer belongs in the first paragraph. the investigation is over, viewed by the new Pope and his administration as an embarrassment and annoyance that never should have happened. The summary of it belongs in the later section, but not at the top.VanEman (talk) 20:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

How is it viewed as an embarrassment by the current pope? Do you have any real evidence to say Pope Francis or anyone close to him actually believes anything like that? You only cite opinion pieces by commentators to support your absurd editing of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.125.163 (talk) 01:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

The whole article needs to be completely rewritten. It's written as a "conservative" Benedict XVI bullies nuns while "liberal" Francis defends them. Extremely heavy handed phrases are used to bias the reader and the writer doesn't even feign neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.125.163 (talk) 01:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and I've edited the main section on the investigation, mostly by way of cutting out things like editorializing and hype adjectives. There were some poorly sourced things as well as totally unsourced. VanEman in particular needs to watch his edits because many of them were in violation of WP:NPOV. Elizium23 (talk) 02:35, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

The sources I used included The New York Times, The Huffington Post, USA Today and and Religion News. Wikipedia is not a Catholic encyclopedia, the sources cited don't need to be Catholic, and sources I've cited are respected. The Wikipedia article about Benedict describes him as a "conservative" . The Wikipedia article on Francis describes him as a "liberal". Do I really need to copy the references in those articles? Most general press describes them both that way as well. In any case, now that the investigation has closed, I think the whole section on the particulars of the initial complaint need to be trimmed back considerably, and in a few weeks when conservatives have published their opinions (I looked for some but couldn't find any yet other than some that say the Vatican will just let the nuns' organization "die out" since they're all so old...) we will need to add their reactions.VanEman (talk) 07:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

No, the Wikipedia articles do not describe the two popes uncritically. They used the terms in nuanced ways, which you did not. Elizium23 (talk) 01:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The fact that various bloggers and opinion pieces published by your cited sources make claims about the two popes speaks more about public perception of those two individuals than the actual reality of the LCWR investigation. Again, why is Benedict "conservative" and Francis "liberal"? Both have identical theological and social opinions. More so, none of your edits actually included what those two popes even said about the LCWR or the investigation. You simply based it all on pumped up outrage by commentators and inserted your own heavy handed writing style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.125.163 (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't guarantee that anything covered is true. It strives to make sure that everything covered is well referenced, so you can find out easily what organization or person wrote it. What sources are reliable? Sorry to have to tell some of you this, but Reuters and The New York Times are basically the gold standard. Don't like it? Then cite another source. VanEman (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I think the article includes quite a bit of paternalistic mocking of the group and the church these nuns are members of. For example, in the lead, "When the conclusion was announced in April 2015, Christopher Belitto, a church historian at Kean University, noted, 'Anything coming out of the Vatican this morning is nothing other than a fig leaf because they can't say "oops" in Latin.' ". This group was reformed within the Catholic Church – these nuns, many in their 70s, participated in change and calling their change "oops" is an insult to their participation in a canonical process. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

As I read Belitto's statement, the "oops" he suggested referred to the CDF, which he felt had significantly backed off from its original criticism of the LCWR, not to the LCWR. It seems in no way to represent a paternalistic criticism of the LCWR.

The article does, however, still tend to be overly critical. More balance will probably be achieved as we're beginning to see analyses of recent statements from the LCWR and other participants, since the 30-day moratorium on press statements agreed in the settlement statement has now passed. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

@SteveMcCluskey and VanEman: No, I meant VanEman's editing style in this article not Belitto. I've been going through the article, reading the sources and improving them. I see the "oops" as sensationalizing both. I feel paternalism. There was a reformation of the LCWR and most stories about this provide no analysis about that. Was it analogous to a corporate reorganization? Also, there is very little content in this article outside of the 2008–2015 time frame. That would improve the article. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

BoBoMisiu: Wikipedia's neutrality policy does not mean that you cannot cite a source that has a distinctly positive or negative point of view. It only means that if there is another side to the story, that view should be there are well. If you want more balance, then ADD it. Don't delete referenced material from a reliable source just because you don't agree with it.VanEman (talk) 00:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Closure of Inquiries

Recent edits have involved wholesale deletion of material -- largely that concerning the recent closure of the CDF inquiry into the LCWR. Another related element that needs to be considered concerns the late 2014 Closure of the related (but formally independent) Apostolic Visitation into Women Religious in the United States conducted by Mother Clare Millea, Superior General of the Apostles of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, in response to a 2008 decree from Cardinal Franc Rodé, Prefect of the Vatican’s Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life. Although the article discusses that important visitation, which is related to the LCWR, it says nothing about its conclusions.

Since these two inquiries have wound down, their conclusions should form a larger part of this article and the controversies that led to the inquiries should play a lesser part as historical background. At the moment, press stories range from claims that the CDF has engaged in a face saving way to back out of its inquiry to claims that the LCWR has accepted ongoing supervision of its program and activities. Which it is will by no means clear until we see how the closure works out — the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

It goes without saying that in all cases, discussions of these two inquires should be based on reliable sources and not on an editor's opinion. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 01:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

CDF Inquiry Closure Refs

Here are a few recent publications from the religious media (or from religion writers for the mainstream media) that provide a range of takes on the closure of the inquiry by the CDF into the LCWR. I've arranged them roughly from those that favor the LCWR to those that favor the CDF's investigation.

• Fox, Thomas C. (April 17, 2015), "Going forward: LCWR after the 'doctrinal assessment'", Global Sisters Report

• Gibson, David (April 16, 2015), Vatican ends controversial investigation of US nuns with olive branch, Religion News Service

• McElwee, Joshua J. (April 16, 2015), "Vatican ends controversial three-year oversight of US sisters' leaders", National Catholic Reporter

• Preziosi, Dominic (April 16, 2015). "Vatican ends LCWR oversight: No 'oops' in Latin". Commonweal.

• O'Connell, Gerard (April 17, 2015), "The Vatican Reaches Positive, Amicable Conclusion with Main Leadership of American Sisters", America

• Allen, John L. Jr. (April 16, 2015), "Why the Vatican's crackdown on nuns ended happily", Crux

• Pullella, Philip (April 16, 2015), Activist U.S. nuns make concessions after Vatican investigation, Reuters

• Carey, Ann (April 16, 2015), "LCWR Agrees to Abide by Vatican's Corrections", National Catholic Register

--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 01:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The Catholic World Report has a roundup and analysis of press reports. Elizium23 (talk) 01:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

For another take on the press (and internet) responses to the closure of the oversight see the dotCommonweal piece mentioned above. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 12:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

One more take on media reactions to the closure based on close reading of the joint final report:

• O'Reilly, Mollie Wilson (April 20, 2015), "The CDF vs. the LCWR: postgame analysis", dotCommonweal

--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 03:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Moved beyond Jesus

This text

On 2 August 2007, a former president of LCWR, Sister Laurie Brink O.P, during her keynote address quoted another sister's comment that stated, "I was rooted in the story of Jesus, and it remains at my core, but I've also moved beyond Jesus", a statement that stirred controversy regarding both its sentiment and meaning, particularly among LCWR members.

does not adequately reflect this quote by Brink

As one sister described it, “I was rooted in the story of Jesus, and it remains at my core, but I’ve also moved beyond Jesus.” The Jesus narrative is not the only or the most important narrative for these women. They still hold up and reverence the values of the Gospel, but they also recognize that these same values are not solely the property of Christianity. Buddhism, Native American spirituality, Judaism, Islam and others hold similar tenets for right behavior within the community, right relationship with the earth and right relationship with the Divine. With these insights come a shattering or freeing realization—depending on where you stand. Jesus is not the only son of God. Salvation is not limited to Christians. Wisdom is found in the traditions of the Church as well as beyond it. (pp. 17–18)

Does this represent the group in anyway? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoBoMisiu (talk • contribs) 05:18, 15 May 2015‎

Created an uproar

The quote "created an uproar among American Catholics" appears twice in the article. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Assigned tasks

An IP contributor added in this edit that Florence Deacon "reiterated that LCWR is not responsible in teaching and enforcing Church moral doctrine among its own religious congregations, a position she deems as solely reserved to the Holy Office". I added a reference quote of Farrel, president of LCWR:

told reporters that 'we are charged to enter into a process of dialogue', however, matters of doctrine will not be the LCWR's starting point. Rather, they will start with 'our own lives and our understanding of religious life'. She also said the LCWR would reconsider if it's forced to 'compromise the integrity of its mission'

I'm looking for reliable sources about whether the LCWR, prior to its reform, was able and willing to complete management tasks (of a type that the LCWR considered outside its mission scope?) assigned to it by the Curia. It looks, to me, like:

• 2001 LCWR was assigned a management task by the Curia
• 2001–2008 LCWR did not complete that management task
• 2008–2011 that management task was expanded and reassigned to others
• 2009–2012 a parallel doctrinal assessment of the LCWR
• 2012–2015 a reform/reorganization of the LCWR

Any thoughts about this? Is it just a managers association or is it assigned tasks by the Church? —BoBoMisiu (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Several points come to mind.

1. We still don't know the nature or extent of any reform/reorganization of the LCWR. I haven't seen any comparative studies of the organization's functioning and statutes before and after the doctrinal assessment. One could probably trace down the earlier and current statutes but that wouldn't really address any changes of functioning and in any event, would be Original Research.
2. It's not at all clear what tasks you're referring to when you say that in 2001 LCWR was assigned a management task by the Curia. Could you clarify?
3. Finally there are questions in my mind as to whether religious societies, or an organization of leaders of such societies, is under the executive direction of "the Church" in the sense that it is assigned tasks. (I put "the Church" in quotes because it is also not clear whether you mean the Curia, the bishops, or something else. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 18:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• This book and this book discuss the LCWR quite a bit and I think they would be good to add after reading a physical copy. I think the Google books previews may mis something important.
• What I am thinking about was reported about Levada that, "He noted that officials from the LCWR had met with the CDF in 2001. The officials were invited to report on LCWR members' reception of Church teaching on the sacramental priesthood, the CDF document Dominus Iesus and 'the problem of homosexuality'." (here).
• I mean, what is a conference of major superiors responsibilities under 708 and 709 which was mentioned in the 2012 doctrinal assessment. What kind of canonical thing is it? I have access to a relatively new canon law commentary that I'll look into about that. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Errors on LCWR website

A reference to a page on lcwr.org (this September 2015 version) was added in this edit. The title and date lines on that page are:

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Concludes Mandate Regarding LCWR
April 13, 2015

but a few lines down the page states:

On April 16, 2015, the Vatican Press Office issued the following press release and final report.

Which means the lcwr.org page was posted three days before the Vatican Press Office post? Unfortunately, the PDF of the referenced "Joint Final Report" posted on lcwr.org, which is a WP:SECONDARY source that contains the actual quote from their statutes, is not dated. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Leadership Conference of Women Religious. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140506220027/http://www.orbisbooks.com/lcwr-leadership-conference-of-women-religious.html to http://www.orbisbooks.com/lcwr-leadership-conference-of-women-religious.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)