The final cause of preferring personal freedom over Church doctrine is the desire for independence. Carey writes, “The Leadership Conference of Women Religious emerged as a new entity asserting independence from Rome and openly challenging the Church in many areas” (p. 88).
The problem of separating personal freedom from Church doctrine has the natural result of confusion. Carey writes, “The confusion among members was so great that many members simply did not understand what they supposedly had approved at the special assembly” (89). Personal freedom without Church rules is confusing and painful for a Catholic sister who dedicated her life to the Lord and His Church. Further, Carey writes, “Too many sisters felt they had to discard the traditions and apostolate of their institute in order to become modern Religious attuned to the needs of the world” (151). Thus, because the Leadership Conference asserted “independence from Rome” (88) and some Catholic sisters “felt they had discard the traditions” (151) and Church doctrine, some Catholic sisters failed to connect personal freedom and Church doctrine.The material cause is power and the ability to influence others. Carey writes, “The eventual revision of the statutes actually would give more power to an elite executive committee” (82). The power to influence all Catholic sisters in the United States was stolen by an “elite executive committee” (82) on February 23, 1970 who approved of “a five member executive committee of the national board” and “increased dues” (89). Carey writes, “A new five member executive committee had assumed sweeping new powers” (89). Thus, because some Catholic sisters allowed an “elite executive committee” (82) to direct their personal freedom, some Catholic sisters failed to connect personal freedom and Church doctrine.
The formal cause is subjectivity. Carey writes, “The idea that the documents should be interpreted rather than taken literally also encouraged a variety of subjective renditions” (51). If personal freedom is separated from Church doctrine, then the person feels like he has a better way of doing things than the Church. The problem is that highlighting personal freedom leads to the downplay of Church doctrine and Church history. Carey writes, “Many of these sisters disapprove of what they perceive to be their leadership’s open disrespect for the hierarchy, traditions, and teachings of the Catholic Church” (306). Thus, because some Catholic sisters preferred “subjective renditions” (51) and showed “disrespect for the hierarchy and traditions” (306), some Catholic sisters failed to connect personal freedom and Church doctrine.
The principal agent leading some Catholic sisters to disconnect personal freedom with Church doctrine was “an elite group” (87), an “elite executive committee” (82), and “expert advisors” (36). Carey writes, “An elite group of change-oriented sisters who were in positions of influence was determined to liberate the conference from Rome’s control and create a corporate entity that could exercise the power of women in the Church and in society” (87). Rather than be directed by the Lord, some religious sisters were forced to follow the directions of a “elite executive committee” (82). Sadly, the executive committee had opposite goals of the Lord. The Lord wants sisters to use their personal freedom to love Him and to help those to whom He directs. On the contrary, the executive committee wants sisters to be independent “from Rome” (88) and have “disrespect for the hierarchy, traditions, and teachings of the Catholic Church” (306). Thus, because some Catholic sisters were encouraged by a small “executive committee” (82) to downplay “the teachings of the Catholic Church” (306), some Catholic sisters failed to connect personal freedom and Church doctrine.
Two preparing agents paved the way for an executive committee to separate some Catholic sisters from Church doctrine. Carey writes, “In 1990 at St. Michael’s College in Colchester, Vermont, Sister Marie Augusta Neal expounded on her ideas about ecclesiastical authority… Her remarks offered many insights into the person who constructed and interpreted the Sister’s Survey” (124). Sister Marie Augusta Neal “constructed and interpreted” (124) the Sister’s Survey. Further, Carey writes, “Before she left religious life Muckenhirn edited The Changing Sister, which became the basis for the controversial 1967 Sister’s Survey” (144). Sister Charles Borromeo Muckenhirn edited a book in 1967 which highlighted personal subjectivity and downplayed Church doctrine. Her book, The Changing Sister, “became the basis” for the Sister’s Survey. Thus, because some Catholic sisters were prepared by Sister Neal and Sister Muckenhirn to place personal freedom above “ecclesiastical authority” (124), some Catholic sisters failed to connect personal freedom and Church doctrine.
The assisting agent was Vatican authorities. Carey writes, “Rome seemed to react with surprise that the formerly docile sisters were interested in an agenda that had not been dictated to them by the Vatican” (81). The Vatican authorities were confused and “puzzled” (81) by the confusion from some Catholic sisters. Vatican leaders who obeyed the Lord and defended Church doctrine were surprised that some Catholic sisters rejected their traditions and doctrines. Thus, because some Catholic sisters gave Vatican authorities “surprise” (81), puzzlement and disrespect, some Catholic sisters failed to connect personal freedom and Church doctrine.
The instrument agent of confusion was a 1967 Sister’s Survey. Carey writes, “The Sister’s Survey was sent to nearly active sister in the United States, 157,000 of them” (81). The Sister’s Survey was sent from Conference of “Major Superiors of Women Sisters” which became the “Leadership Conference of Women Religious” (88) in 1967. The Survey contained 649 questions “on topics such as theology, social changes and the Vietnam War” (Dan Stockman, GSR, October 26, 2017). For example, Question 49 asked sisters if they agreed or disagreed with the statement: “14. I prefer to think of Jesus as our Mediator with the Father, rather than as the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity” (120). Every question on the Sister’s Survey was a recommendation about politics rather than a curiosity about a sister’s concerns. Carey writes, The Sister’s Survey “was intended as an indoctrination tool to prepare sisters for the agenda that some of the sister leaders wishes to pursue” (111). Rather than have questions about Church doctrine, the 649 questions focused on personal freedom and politics. Further, Carey writes, “The survey project may arguably be the single most significant factor that can account for the systematic and progressive deconstruction evident among so many institutes for women religious today” (124). Thus, because some Catholic sisters were given 649 recommendations about personal freedom on the Sister’s Survey in 1967 from the “Leadership Conference of Women Religious” (88), some Catholic sisters failed to connect personal freedom and Church doctrine.
Counseling agents are very clear about their wish to disconnect the freedom of Catholic sisters from Church doctrine. Carey writes, “Women’s Ordination Conference board member Karen Schwarz was quoted as saying, ‘Nothing short of major deconstruction of clericalism, patriarchy and hierarchy will do’” (258). Schwarz is very clear. All Catholic sisters should focus on personal freedom and reject Church doctrine. Further, Carey writes, According to the National Assembly of Women Religious, “Rome and America simply do not share the same value systems. American religious women no long look to Rome for directives” (55). The National Assembly of Women Religious is listed as a “social justice organization” (Wikidata) and encourages all Catholic sisters to value personal freedom and to reject Roman “value systems” and “directives” (55). Further, Carey writes, “In 1969 the Sister of Charity of the Blessed Virgin Mary ‘have gone all the way from a monarchial and authoritarian form of government to a complete democracy in which there are no ‘superiors’” (45). The rejection of Rome leads to the rejection of doctrine and hierarchy. Thus, because some Catholic sisters were encouraged to destroy “hierarchy” (258), to separate their personal freedom from “Rome” (55), to reject the need for “superiors” (45), some Catholic sisters failed to connect personal freedom and Church doctrine.
Induction and process of observing effects from causes, the results of the Sister’s Survey are clear. Carey writes, “Some women Religious determined that their own lived experience was more valid for defining religious life than were any of the directives come from the Church” (75) The Survey encourages sister’s to place personal “experience” over “directives” from Rome. Further, Carey writes, “Many members remained confused and suspected they had witnessed a coup d’ etat” (90). Some sisters were “confused” by the Survey and understood it was a tool by a few sisters to gain “sweeping new powers” (89). Further, Carey writes, “There is widespread confusion about the identity of religious life” (227). Some sisters became detached from Church doctrine and had “confusion” about their way of life. Further, Carey writes, “In 1970 sister Alice Anita Murphy expressed ‘deep concern over the sociological and civil character of the conference with power invested in the national board’” (98). Sister Alice Anita Murphy observed how the Survey was used to move Catholic sisters away from Church doctrine which brought about confusion among many sisters and excessive power in “an elite executive committee” (82). Further, Carey writes, “This reaction against rigid structures had a downside, for some Religious and some institutes did not adjust well to new concepts of freedom and personal responsibility” (174). Some Catholic sister felt confused, since they were trained to connect “freedom and personal responsibility” (174) with Church “structures” (174). If the Church “structures” go away, then a sister’s personal freedom is adrift and lost. Thus, because some Catholic sisters accepted personal freedom and rejected Church “directives” (75), “remain confused” (90), and were influenced by “an elite executive committee” (82) rather than the Lord and His Church, some Catholic sisters failed to connect personal freedom and Church doctrine.
History shows how the acceptance of personal freedom and the rejection of Church doctrine leads to the reduction of numbers of Catholic sisters. Carey writes, “In 1965 the Catholic schools had enjoyed over 104,000 teaching sisters. By 1995 fewer than 13,000 sisters were teaching in Catholic schools, an 88% drop in thirty years” (33). Many honest sisters asked themselves, why remain a Catholic sister if we are not going to follow Catholic doctrine? Further, Carey writes, “In 1995 the Sisters of Charity of Nazareth were forced to give up the 164 year old Presentation Academy in Louisville, Kentucky, because of declining enrollments and financial demands” (301). The Catholic sisters were forced by the elite executive committee to reject Catholic doctrine and then “forced to give up the 164 year old Academy” (301). Thus, because some Catholic sisters departed religious life and were “forced” to close an Academy, some Catholic sisters failed to connect personal freedom and Church doctrine.
The elite executive committee sent messages to Rome that some Catholic sisters are separated from Church doctrine. Carey writes, “The National Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Vatican asked the conference to withdraw its invitation to Sisters Margaret, but conference officers refused to do so” (241). In 1985 the executive committee of the Leadership Conference “invited Sister Margaret Foley to be a featured speaker at its annual conference” (241). The elite executive committee invited Foley who publicly rejected the Church doctrine on abortion in a New York Times 1984 article. The American Bishops recommended that the national conference should sponsor another speaker who respects personal freedom and respects Catholic doctrine. But the elite executive committee ignored the American Bishops and sponsored Sister Margaret Foley. Thus, because the elite executive committee signaled to all Catholic sisters that they reject Church doctrine on abortion and rejected the authority of American Bishops, some Catholic sisters failed to connect personal freedom and Church doctrine.
The motive to highlight personal freedom and to downplay Church doctrine is natural. Carey writes, “Many religious women ignore these clear directives and continue to follow their own wishes apparently with impunity” (172). No one likes to be told what to do. And some Catholic sister wanted “to follow their own wishes” (172). The problem is that personal freedom without Church doctrine leads to confusion and ignorance of bad consequences. Further, Carey writes, “Sister S., who described herself as one of the leaders of radical change, said, ‘We redefined the past to accommodate the present we wanted’” (43). Sister S. was motivated to ignore “the past” and ignore Church history in order to do what she “wanted” (43). As a result, Sister S. notice that she was “destroying religious life at its foundation’” (43). Thus, because some Catholic sisters “ignored clear directives” from Rome in order to “follow their own wishes” (172), and because some Catholic sisters “redefined the past” in order to do what they “wanted” (43), some Catholic sisters failed to connect personal freedom and Church doctrine.
I shall now use my freedom to review all the reasons above and then choose my favorite three reasons. Hmm… I have decided that I prefer the final cause, the material cause, the principal agent cause and the instrumental agent cause. I shall now use my freedom to express my choices with a command and enthymeme. Because some Catholic sisters were “influenced” (87) by “an elite executive committee” (82) who used a 1967 “Sister’s Survey” (81) to push the sisters toward “openly challenging the Church in many areas” (p. 88), some Catholic sisters failed to connect personal freedom and Church doctrine.
Final remarks. Church doctrine preserves and increases personal freedom.
© By Theodore Faulders, April 29, 2014.