Rebelling against the Catholic Church - the nuns versus the Cardinals
Posted on Friday, October 28, 2011 at 10:32 AM
Larger Text
Print
E-mail
13 Comments
RSS 
Recent Posts
- 'The Great Gatsby' author F Scott Fitzgerald’s death and burial another Catholic lesson
- Anthony Weiner running for New York mayor and the Italian mob and Irish Americans strong ties
- Victor Navasky lauds Thomas Nast - American cartoonist known for his racist Irish ape-like drawings
- Immigration is not the problem - history of anti-Irish behavior reflecting on the Chechnyan bombs in Boston
- The good old anti-British days - Margaret Thatcher haters and spats in New York during World War II
Archives
 |
| Cardinal James Francis McIntyre |
It seems as if the men in charge cannot keep up with the pace of change, and a widely-read national magazine puts the crisis on the front cover.
The story inside explores “The Catholic Exodus,” and explores the difficulties American parishes are having staffing schools and churches with priests and nuns.
You can be forgiven if you think this is a story from 2011. But it is, in fact, from 40 years earlier.
It was way back in 1970 that Time magazine wrote about the Catholic “exodus,” and tried to explain “why priests and nuns are quitting.”
Indeed, it is easy to believe the crisis in the Catholic Church in the U.S. is a fairly recent thing.
But in some ways, the debate that is going on now is an extension of debates that have their roots in the 1960s.
-------------------
READ MORE:
More stories on the Irish Catholic Church from IrishCentral
Live minute-by-minute coverage of Ireland's presidential election results
Cliffs of Moher seeks new ‘Seven Wonders of the World’ status - POLL
-------------------
This came to mind last week when I read about the death of a 95 year-old nun named Anita Caspary. Her name is no longer a household one, but it was her’s on the cover of Time when the magazine explored the Catholic crisis decades ago.
Caspary came to be seen as a “rebel nun” who had a conflict with one of the most powerful Irish American Catholics, Cardinal James Francis McIntyre, who rose through the ranks of the church under Cardinal Francis Spellman, dubbed by one biographer as the “American Pope.”
In the end, some 300 nuns initiated a series of changes in day-to-day life that they thought were in the spirit of the times.
Cardinal McIntyre, whose mother was born in Kiltormer, Co. Galway, disagreed. When all was said and done, the nuns parted ways with the church. Some see it as one of the largest breakaways in Catholic American history.
The trouble between the cardinals and the nun has its roots in the changes wrought by the reforms which came out of the Second Vatican Council. Spellman had attended the meetings in Rome and feared liberal forces had hijacked the proceedings.
Spellman, whose Irish grandparents had settled in Massachusetts, was named sixth archbishop on New York in early 1939. Later, he would also be named Apostolic Vicar for the U.S. Armed Forces, a key position with World War II looming on the horizon.
Since Spellman had to serve New York and the military, he relied heavily on an auxiliary bishop – James Francis McIntyre.
Both were seen as traditionalists, at a time when many Irish Americans were still familiar with the sting of anti-Catholicism. (In fact, Spellman accused Eleanor Roosevelt of being anti-Catholic. When, however, a Catholic ran for president, Spellman supported Richard Nixon, an early indication of the Irish drift away from the Democratic Party.)
In the late 1940s, McIntyre went west to become the second Archbishop of Los Angeles. The area’s population boom made McIntyre an influential figure.
When the impact of Vatican II became clear, McIntyre and Spellman were seen as opponents.
The Los Angeles-based Sisters of the Immaculate Heart, however, believed that the time was right to propose a series of changes -- nuns would no longer need to wear habits, or follow traditional Vatican guidelines when it came to prayer and even reading material.
The sisters believed they were doing what a good Catholic does -- following the rules that were coming out of the Vatican.
But McIntyre did not accept the nuns’ proposals. If they moved ahead with their changes they would not be allowed to teach in Catholic schools.
“All these changes were taking place without incident in the majority of dioceses around the country. Cardinal McIntyre simply was saying, ‘Not in my diocese,’” Sandra M. Schneiders, a professor emeritus at the Jesuit School of Theology, told The New York Times this week.
The 300 nuns eventually formed a communal Christian organization that served the poor and elderly and still has over 150 members.
So, while the times are rough these days for American Catholics, maybe they’ve been that way for a long time.
(Contact “Sidewalks” at tomdeignan@earthlink.net or facebook.com/tomdeignan)
13 Comments
See all comments
opwatchdog | Dec 22, 2011, 08:49 PM EST
This whole fiasco is really and truly very simple. If you don't believe what the Catholic Church has always believed and taught then HIT THE ROAD! You aren't going to change it and its not going to change to suit you. The church wasn't set up this way.
As for Cardinal McIntyre, he was a very great Cardinal and defender of the Faith. When the IHM "nuns" went off the rail he was well within his rights to give them the boot as I would have done the same thing. Thanks to Vatican 2 there is no more religious life. Wonder why the new church has no vocations and the traditional orders are getting the vocations? Sure, Cardinal McIntyre had enemies, but those enemies were also enemies of Christ and His Church.
May his soul rest in peace!
Report abuse
eiriamach | Nov 09, 2011, 04:30 PM EST
casualMBA, 'been distracted by similar topics on neighboring blogs. I'll leave with this quotation from Franzoni, from the article I mentioned on Neill O'Dowd's blog, one that I think reflects your priorities: "But neither do women want to be priests, since they don’t want men priests. The priesthood, in fact, doesn’t exist in Jesus’ mind. He talks about other things, talks about a community of brothers and sisters, talks about 'reciprocal service'. The New Testament speaks of 'overseers' (bishops), 'presbyters' (elders), 'deacons' (servers). Well, today the hierarchy, which is determined to keep a sexist and patriarchal structure to safeguard its sacred power, is opposed to that Church. Thus, although they want priests, they say 'No' to women priests. We, on the contrary, dream of that Church without priests or priestesses, where women and men, single and married, minister in the service of the ecclesial community. Is this utopia? Is it heresy?" He concludes with a lament for the turning-away from Vatican II and the wish that we "Continue onward with courage, humility and generosity. Oppose ecclesiastical power, but look with mercy on the custodians of this power. Try daily in your communities to build this Church-for-others that has a thousand reasons to be based on Vatican II." It's a beautiful vision. Perhaps as the Vatican II generation leaves this earth, younger Catholics will pull it out, take a fresh look, and realize its timeless value.
Report abuse
casualMBA | Nov 06, 2011, 10:29 AM EST
Ref. Theological Inquiry, noble minded quote, yet it needs implementation if the faith is to be realized in a modern world. The Church is NOT conveying a willingness to adapt, to "evolve" (if you will extend T. de Chardin,) on issues xentral to families, individuals, and society.
Report abuse
casualMBA | Nov 06, 2011, 10:18 AM EST
Eir, ref. women's ordination, I am glad you see the issue as a distraction, because, in my view, it certainly is. It will lead to fruitless discussions, none germane to the core of the Church's core issues - i.e., life issues and life commitments. It is apparent the community strongly favors the latter, insuring the existence of stable marriages to the maximum extent posssible. The present positions on life issues, however, are core issues driving the lack of credibility and exodus and are, basically, UNTENABLE (without T. de Chardin's amelioration toward an "omega") - given the pace of science's advancement of alternatives AND the pace of the Church's Social Disorganization - both in the short, and long term. Untenable as a Position (or set of positions;) as an Institution; and as a response to its Institutional Mission.
Report abuse
eiriamach | Nov 05, 2011, 11:50 AM EDT
"Theological inquiry should pursue a profound understanding of revealed truth; at the same time it should not neglect close contact with its own time that it may be able to help these men skilled in various disciplines to attain to a better understanding of the faith. This common effort will greatly aid the formation of priests, who will be able to present to our contemporaries the doctrine of the Church concerning God, man and the world, in a manner more adapted to them so that they may receive it more willingly. Furthermore, it is to be hoped that many of the laity will receive a sufficient formation in the sacred sciences and that some will dedicate themselves professionally to these studies, developing and deepening them by their own labors. In order that they may fulfill their function, let it be recognized that all the faithful, whether clerics or laity, possess a lawful freedom of inquiry, freedom of thought and of expressing their mind with humility and fortitude in those matters on which they enjoy competence" (Ch. II, Gaudium et Spes: The Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World).
Report abuse
eiriamach | Nov 05, 2011, 11:33 AM EDT
CasualMBA, I did not argue for women's ordination, at least not here, not now. If you read what I wrote, you'll see that I reacted against censorship-- the Pope sacked Bishop Morris simply because he mentioned in a parish newsletter the possibility of ordaining women and non-celibate men. How can any religion remain open to the inspiration of the Spirit while suppressing discussion of growth and change? Where else does that inspiration come from? Sr. Johnson's book "Quest for the Living God" explores metaphors associated with the life experiences of women (birthing, nurturing, etc.) to represent human ways of relating to God. While the bishops have not silenced her or prohibited publication of her book, they've said her interpretations of biblical images contradict doctrine. "Whaaat?" I ask. What happened to the idea that we can grow in understanding of truth through yet-untried ways of expressing it? If you're looking for the least troublesome solution to the current crisis in RCC, then of course you will not find it in issues like women priests, which only complicate the current struggle between progressive and conservative factions. But slapping down women theologians and prohibiting the kind of discussions that make conservatives uncomfortable also will never lead to accord among competing voices. Open dialogue, discussion, free expression, and debate just might achieve agreement on important points. That's the value I see in returning to de Chardin.
Report abuse
casualMBA | Nov 05, 2011, 02:03 AM EDT
Eiriamach, been dealing with logistical hurdles of my own (travelling from overseas,) and find it difficult to be timely. As events would have, however, I thank you for your editorial correction of T. de Chardin, and -without getting into his politics with the Vatican - without getting distracted by the Republic's latest exception to the Vatican's relationship with Ireland, I want to contest your implication the road to correcting the RCC's problems involves an inclusion of women's ordination (as an addendum to needed celibacy reform among priests.) Suffice it to say, appeals to equal women's rights, and women's ordinations will NOT solve, or ameliorate the Church's problems, ot its exodus. This "advancement" of women's rights is no more than a very thinly veiled (under the guise of Dan Brown et al.'s "accountability" and "transparency") attempt to control the RCC's financial assets. It is NOT motivated by a genuine reform to make the RCC's transmission of Christ's redemptive message relevant to this century or millenium. Here T. de Chardin's positive corrections are needed.
Report abuse
eiriamach | Nov 02, 2011, 12:45 PM EDT
Casual MBA, I was without electricity since Sat's storm, so I could not easily reply to your comments. I think the 1962 RCC censorship of Chardin's re-reception of doctrines like original sin and creation, began the resistance to spiritual consciousness that has now taken a mean-spirited turn (targeted at women, for example, by bishops prohibiting female altar servers at EF and making Eucharistic ministers superfluous and canon law now excommunicating clerics supporting women's ordination). The sacking of Bishop Morris and the rewarding of Crd. Law, for example, speaks volumes about the Church veering away from the life of the mind (theology, the Sr. Johnson debacle) and the life of the spirit, as in de Chardin's legacy. I do think that the Vatican's focus is now wholly on authority to the detriment of freedom and growth in spirit. But this focus may prove an incentive. Chardin's "ascent toward consciousness" and his move away from focusing on the individual soul and toward community would be bound to exert influence in such a climate, and that's a good thing. I think Chardin would see ironic symbolism in the American bishops' recent move to withhold the chalice at Mass from the non-ordained, a group that includes ALL women. But a static view of God's work in the world cannot hold sway for long. As Hans Kung said, Pope Benedict would say "'I did not change. I am only interpreting.' But he interprets everything always backwards and not forwards." The Spirit is "hallowing stream" that does not stand still for long.
Report abuse
casualMBA | Oct 30, 2011, 04:51 AM EDT
Eiriamach, I suspect we (Irish--American and frustrated Vatican II Catholics) may be "preaching to the choir," but I will volley over the net a time or two with you. I agree with much of your statement yet it moves me to emphasize a couple of things, and push furhter on an issue (and mistaken conservative Catholic vector, to my mind, heart, and spirit)that provides cause for the (continued) "exodus." Emphasis 1: the purpose of the RCC as an institution, I assert, is to sustain (and convey)Christ's message in a changing and sometimes contrary world. It is not to put "authority behind (unchanging) doctrine." The RCC's purpose is not to issue punitive sanctions for adaptive tradition. It is to Facilitate a person's and/or community's faith, rather than everlasingly Define.
Empahsis 2: Adaption (Limbo, St. Christopher, Meat on Friday, the "new" (or replacement) Nicene Creed!!!) is quite evidently within the purview of options within the RCC heirarchy's self-definition of its role in preserving(?) Christ's message...And,now, for further focus on an issue germane to the mass "exodus" from attending Mass, where is the spirit of inclusiveness from Vatican II in the Church's history of life issues? Rejecting the pill, making virtually every woman on earth an additionally guilt laden sinner; an abortion or a divorce in the family? a petri dish in society? genenome sequences, and their capabilities? Are these going to go away? Biotechnology has its Galileos. Demographics do not lie. Family sizes are not from abstinence. People are getting re-married in the world where not everyone finds their lifemate. The ONLY mechanism is to DENY the VALIDITY of one's First Marriage, and CHILDREN?!?! The church, and faithful Catholics. eiriamach, need to heed the concept of an "evolving theology" (as outlined by T. du Chardin, and others)and get in touch with Christ's message in THIS Millenium.
Report abuse
eiriamach | Oct 29, 2011, 09:56 AM EDT
CasualMBA, there's a rampant mistake among conservative Catholics today. You can see it in IC comments and blogs about the new Missal and elsewhere. They confuse tradition and particular 'disciplines,' such as priestly celibacy, with unerring doctrine. Even Ben XVI has succumbed to or exploited this tendency by trying to work infallibility into papal statements against women's ordination--"back door infallibility" some call it. Vatican II was about adapting tradition to the 'signs of the times' while re-affirming unchanging doctrine. And even doctrine needs re-reception: "This certain and unchanging teaching,... to which the faithful owe obedience, needs to be more deeply understood and set forth in a way adapted to the needs of our time. Indeed, this deposit of the faith, the truths contained in our time-honored teaching, is one thing; the manner in which these truths are set forth ... is something else” (Oct. 1962). Irish and Vatican II-generation Americans like me cannot relinquish its vision of Christians seeking to transform the modern world and return it to the Spirit. Reform aims at scaling away otiose traditions and thus renewing Christian practice. When I read IC comments that Christ set up RCC's hierarchy to put authority behind tradition, I want to howl! At every opportunity, Christ deconstructed hierarchy and authority as controls over the life of the spirit, which needs freedom to flourish. "Who do you say that I am?" he asked the disciples, rather than asserting his authority and control. If you ask a Catholic, "Who is head of the Church?" the answer invariably is "The Pope," a sign that RCC has wandered far from its Founder.
Report abuse
casualMBA | Oct 29, 2011, 04:13 AM EDT
Those principles are to be Catholic principles, eirimach, and Catholic principles have been "highjacked" since Vatican II (by intransigent conservatives) and, hence, the Catholic "exodus." Its reality has been, and continues to be, denied by well meaning Cathoics comfortable with their (unchanged) faith...HELLO...The world has been changing!...Mystical Body, and all that?...in Time...Teillard du Chardin, and the evolution of Theology...Ireland is coming to the party...it's simple, strong, obedience to the reality of unchanging tradition has been rejected...my heartfelt congratulations to the Irish people, and their Taoiseach...they are where MANY American (Irish American) Catholics were forty (40 ) years ago...and, NOW, since Irelannd has its rebeellion against the Catholic Church, does this mean the Fitzgeralds, who rebelled FOR the Catholic church and had OVER 500,000 acres of Irish land CONFISCATED from them for their trouble, will receive the return the sizable lands (or compensation,) and a needed FitzGerald University in southwestern Ireland???
Report abuse
eiriamach | Oct 28, 2011, 01:11 PM EDT
Resistance to the reforms of the Second Vatican Council began while the Council was still in session and grows more aggressive daily. "Traditionalists" write about the devil taking over the Vatican in the 1960s. While rejecting the Council's constitution and teachings, they assert the absolute authority of the popes! One document, issued under Pope Paul VI in Dec. 1965, warns against government intruding on religious freedom. Someone ought to read it to the American bishops, who intrude upon the freedom women need to contribute to theology and to live in community. Its words apply to McIntyre's treatment of Sr. Caspary far better than to any effort of Western government to restrict religion, and they apply to the USCCB's ongoing misogynist treatment of Sr. Johnson: "The freedom or immunity from coercion in matters religious which is the endowment of persons as individuals is also to be recognized as their right when they act in community. Religious communities are a requirement of the social nature both of man and of religion itself.... religious communities rightfully claim freedom in order that they may govern themselves according to their own norms, honor the Supreme Being in public worship, assist their members in the practice of the religious life, strengthen them by instruction, and promote institutions in which they may join together ... ordering their own lives in accordance with their religious principles."
Report abuse
Report abuse