Schneiders' Essays Commentary

Analysis of the NCR essays by Sister Sandra Schneiders, IHM

Note: This is an analysis of the five essays by Sister Sandra Schneiders, IHM, that were published in National Catholic Reporter January 4-8, 2010. The author has given me permission to post the analysis here, but prefers to remain anonymous.

Sister Sandra Schneiders, I.H.M., a professor emerita of the Jesuit School of Theology at Berkeley, has recently concluded a five part essay that offers her commentary on the Holy See’s appointment of a visitator to study women religious in this country, and a visitator to do a doctrinal assessment the Leadership Conference of Women Religious. In a preliminary interview given to the National Catholic Reporter in which her essays were published from January 4-8, Sister Schneiders asserted that there is a danger that candidates to women’s religious life will not pursue vocations “to the following of Jesus in ministerial life” because they will be “struggling with a patriarchal institution which denies their full human and Christian personhood.” Her objective in writing these essays was to “counteract” this and other “dangers” that she perceives in the hope of protecting “the real meaning of religious life.” In describing the visitation, Sister Schneiders in her interview identified it as a “persecution.” It is her contention that the manner in which religious life in the United States is lived and which has prompted the visitation is a resistance to “the ecclesiastical status quo of the Church understood as a divine right absolute monarchy” and to “hierarchical absolutism in general.” In her estimation, this resistance is essential so that religious may “participate[] in the prophetic ministry of Jesus.” She concluded her interview by declaring that “the very heart of ministerial religious life is its participation in the prophetic ministry of Jesus” which generates “tension between the status quo of Church as hierarchical power structure enforcing doctrinal uniformity and moral subordination, and the Church as the Body of Christ...”


Essay 1—January 4, 2010

As will be seen in the following summary, it appears that Sister Schneiders’s positions and underlying arguments conflict with the very authorities, such as the texts of the Second Vatican Council, on which she relies. Moreover, from the outset of her essays, it is clear that she acknowledges no reason or reasons why the Holy See should be concerned about the state of religious life in women’s orders. For her (Essay 1), the visitation of women religious is a “surprise attack”, a “crime”, perpetrated on an “unlikely target.” In her estimation, the Church should be focusing its concern on the “massive and unaddressed problems besetting the clergy and hierarchy.” She fails to acknowledge the recent visitation of seminaries in the United States, the canonical proceedings against clergy accused of a variety of misconducts, and the visitation of the Legionnaires of Christ. She believes that a catalyst for the visitation is from “a small group of extremely conservative women religious” who held a conference at Stonehill College USA in September 2008 whom she labels as “accusers.” Sister Schneiders was not in attendance at this conference. She did not witness the diversity of women religious present nor their numbers nor heard their legitimate concerns about the internal problems of women’s religious life. Moreover, Sister Schneiders fails to register the legitimate concerns raised by her fellow sisters who did attend this conference.

A principal concern raised by Schneiders throughout her five-part series which she introduces in Essay 1 is that the visitation is an “assault” that “enforce[s] conscience-violating policies or practices.” One illustration upon which she relies is the “Catholic Statement on Pluralism and Abortion” paid for by Catholics for a Free Choice published in The New York Times on October 7, 1984. Amongst the claims made by signatories of Ms. Frances Kissling’s advertisement is that, in spite of the Church’s teachings on abortion, there exists “in fact” “a diversity of opinions regarding abortion” “among committed Catholics.” Sister Schneiders appears not to have any difficulties with the advertisement’s substantive content that contravenes the Church’s teachings on abortion. Nevertheless, Sister Schneiders asserts that the signatories were simply “asking for honest discussion (not a change of doctrine or even practice) of the issue of abortion.” However, the Statement published in The New York Times does not support her contention. The statement clearly advocates changes in doctrine and practice by Catholics regarding abortion.

A major thesis presented in Essay 1 and continued throughout her five-part series is the argument that women’s religious life is “a symbolic scapegoat in the power struggle in the contemporary church between the promoters of the renewal initiated by Vatican II and a program of tridentine [sic] restoration.” While relying on the authority of the Second Vatican Council, Sister Schneiders’s allegations are not supported by the texts of the Council as shall be demonstrated in the commentary on the remaining essays.


Essay 2—January 5, 2010

In this installment, Sister Schneiders addresses the “prophetic life form” of religious life that is modeled on “that of Jesus’ original band of disciples.” Interestingly, she claims as her textual support Pope John Paul II’s Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Vita Consecrata of 1996, NN. 84 ff., wherein the Holy Father discussed “the prophetic character of the consecrated life.” However, Sister Schneiders does not rely on an essential point made by John Paul II in his exhortation. For example, the Pope noted that in exercising their charismatic gifts with the faithful, religious will proceed in “full harmony with the Church’s Magisterium and discipline.” Vita Consecrata, N. 85. This point is reiterated in N. 97 where John Paul asserted that religious must “ensure the preservation of their unique Catholic identity in complete fidelity to the Church’s Magisterium.” Sister Schneider’s claims are in conflict with this. For example, in Essay 4, Sister Schneiders demonstrates her failure to follow Vita Consecrata when she contends that religious, in exercising their “prophetic ministry”, are “not an enforcement agency” for the hierarchy’s teaching or practice. She maintains that this status of religious [not being “an enforcement agency for the hierarchy’s teaching or practice”] is particularly important “in situations which touch deeply into the lives of good people trying to live conscientiously and in which the teaching authority of the hierarchy (the magisterium [sic]) has not been able to ‘make its case’ to the Church as the People of God. In such cases, there is genuine (even if forbidden and condemned) pluralism of belief and behavior, and even actual valid (even if forbidden and condemned) dissent in the Church. Church teaching, to be considered authoritative, must not only [be] ‘promulgated’ (announced and adequately explained) but also ‘received’ (accepted by the believing Church).”

She then relies on the illustration of dissent to Humanae Vitae to make graphic her point. But this assertion is in tension and conflicts with a critical text upon which she relies in her series, i.e., Lumen Gentium—The Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, in particular Chapter VI, on Religious. Sister Schneiders appears to develop a “shadow Magisterium” that conflicts with the Magisterium on important matters including those issues treated in Pope Paul’s encyclical Humanae Vitae.

Schneiders misreads or misinterprets Lumen Gentium, and she begins demonstrating this in her second essay. While she claims that religious are not “an enforcement agency” of the Church, Lumen Gentium reminds all that religious are an element of “the militia of Christ”, and their liberty is “strengthened by obedience” to the Church and her teachings. N. 43. While she also suggests that religious are not an “ecclesiastical work force to be deployed by the hierarchy” but are called to a variety of work places including those where “particular groups and peoples of all kinds (some of whom are rejected by the religious institution itself)”, Lumen Gentium, N. 45, is clear that “[i]t is the duty of the ecclesiastical hierarchy to regulate the practice of the evangelical counsels by law.” Moreover, one must not forget that the hierarchy not only approve the rules presented by religious but also has the obligation to adjust them. This section of the Dogmatic Constitution also notes that while religious may be under the jurisdiction of local ordinaries, the Supreme Pontiff reserves the right to subject them to himself “alone.” These points from Lumen Gentium are not relied upon nor acknowledged by Sister Schneiders even though she purports to base her argument on the Dogmatic Constitution.



Essay 3—January 6, 2010

This essay focuses principally on her description of the life of Jesus and his prophetic ministry. Her intention here appears to be that of drawing a parallel between the persecution and criticism Jesus faced from the Jewish authorities and those religious today who also engage in “prophetic ministry.”

While acknowledging that there are “some men of integrity, holiness, and compassion holding office in the Church,” she asserts that “popes can be wrong, even culpably so; bishops can be criminals; priests can be embezzlers or sexual predators. One thing is certain: hierarchical status, office in the Church, is no guarantee that the speaker or his message comes from God.” Schneiders does not concede that religious and their “prophetic ministry” can also share in the sinfulness that she attributes to some members of the hierarchy. She fails to acknowledge that bishops, with the priest and deacon helpers, both serve the community and have the solemn duty to preside in the place of God. Lumen Gentium, N. 20. By contrast, she contends that the prophetic ministry of religious requires no intervening party and is in direct relation with God without any intermediary authority. She further claims that the “essence of prophetic obedience” is not to the will of another, i.e., a member of the hierarchy, but to “[d]iscernment based on attentive listening.” This assertion also appears to be in conflict with the Dogmatic Constitution’s understanding that Episcopal consecration brings the obligation and office of teaching and governing. N. 21. The next section of the Dogmatic Constitution, N. 22, further recognizes that the college of bishops “has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head” and in whom the “power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact” for the Pontiff has “full, supreme and universal power over the Church.” Sister Schneiders’s assertions regarding the independent prophetic ministry of religious fail to accord with these provisions of the Dogmatic Constitution when she concludes this essay with the following statement: “No matter how highly placed in the religious institution they might be, human beings do not take God’s place in the life of believers. To pretend otherwise is blasphemy on the part of those who claim to do so and idolatry on the part of those who accord to humans the obedience that belongs to God alone... Coming to grips, in genuine obedience to God, with the tension between their prophetic vocation and the demands of ecclesiastical authority is at the heart of the current struggle between religious and the Vatican.”

It would thus appear that Lumen Gentium is, for her, a form of blasphemy and idolatry, to use her own words of characterization.


Essay 4—January 7, 2010

This is a particularly fascinating element of the series. It begins with an important recognition that the prophetic ministry of religious life requires humility. However, the essay quickly gives way to more problematic assertions. A notable one is her claim that “The religious today, as religious, is not ordained, not a part of the hierarchical structure of the Church.” In offering this contention, she relies upon N. 43 of Lumen Gentium. But as will be demonstrated, her understanding of this provision is deeply flawed. First of all, Lumen Gentium proclaims that the Church is hierarchical, e.g., N. 8; and, Chapter III On the Hierarchical Structure of the Church and in Particular on the Episcopate. Her reliance on N. 43 is further misplaced because this component of Lumen Gentium clearly states that, “From the point of view of the divine and hierarchical structure of the Church, the religious state of life is not an intermediate state between the clerical and lay states. But, rather, the faithful of Christ are called by God from both these states of life so that they might enjoy this particular gift in the life of the Church and thus each in one’s own way, may be of some advantage to the salvific mission of the Church.” Moreover, the same section proclaims that “Church authority [i.e., including the hierarchy] has the duty, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, of interpreting these evangelical counsels, of regulating their practice and finally to build on them stable forms of living.”

Schneiders’s departure from the Magisterium continues. She contends that while clerics make promises of obedience to their ecclesiastical superiors, “[n]one of this is true of religious. Religious make their vows to God (not to their superiors or Church officials) to live religious life.” [See conflict with discussion of N. 14 of Perfectae Caritatis, below] She implies that there is little or no juridical connection of obedience to the hierarchical authority when she states that, "In the concrete, this means that religious, unlike the clergy, are not agents of the institutional Church as Jesus was not an agent of institutional Judaism. Although, as members of the Church, they are subject to Church authority when it is legitimately exercised, it is not their ‘job’ or responsibility as religious to teach, defend, or enforce Church teaching, law, or policy. Because they make public vows (as do married people) religious are ‘public persons’ in the Church which means they are bound by canon law in relation to the obligations of their state of life. Religious (like any non-cleric), may exercise a ministry, e.g., teaching in the RCIA program, which obliges them to correctly represent, in their official ministerial capacity, the teaching and discipline of the magisterium. [sic] But this obligation arises from the particular ministry they are exercising, not from their state of life in the Church.”

Relying on Canon 586, she maintains that, “The purpose of the life is not to perpetuate particular Congregations nor to staff Church institutions; it is to live intensely the witness to the Gospel to which the Congregation is called and for as long as it is so called. As long as an order and its members are able to live religious life according to its own founding charism and approved constitutions intrusion by ecclesiastical authority into its internal affairs is not only unwarranted; it is unjustifiable and counter-productive.” [Italics added] Nevertheless she has, perhaps inadvertently, recognized that hierarchical authorities do retain the jurisdiction to intercede when an order or its members are not able to live religious life according to the order’s own founding charism and approved constitutions, intervention by ecclesiastical authority into their internal affairs is in order. A large segment of this essay repeats her assertions about “conscience” and “pluralism” and “dissent” which have already been examined in the discussion of previous essays.

Once again, Sister Schneiders reiterates her often-made claim that religious “are not called as part of the hierarchy to act as agents of the institution but as prophets among the People of God.” But this statement is a challenge to the Second Vatican Council’s Decree on the Adaptation and Renewal of Religious Life, Perfectae Caritatis, because N. 2(c) of this Decree specifically states that, “All institutes should share in the life of the Church, adapting as their own and implementing in accordance with their own characteristics the Church’s undertakings and aims in matters biblical, liturgical, dogmatic, pastoral, ecumenical, missionary and social.” To intensify this point, N. 5 further states, “Since the Church has accepted their surrender of self they should realize they are also dedicated to its service.” [Italics supplied] Further tension between her understanding of the nature of religious life and the conception presented by the Second Vatican Council is found in the Council’s proclamation that, “In these communities apostolic and charitable activity belongs to the very nature of the religious life, seeing that it is a holy service and a work characteristic of love, entrusted to them by the Church to be carried out in its name. Therefore, the whole religious life of their members should be inspired by an apostolic spirit and all their apostolic activity formed by the spirit of religion.” N. 8. [Italics added]

Regarding Schneiders’s contrary claims that there is no requirement by religious to submit to authority, N. 14 clearly states that, “Religious, therefore, in the spirit of faith and love for the divine will should humbly obey their superiors according to their rules and constitutions.” The obedience of religious is indeed due to God but through the superior. As Pope John Paul II stated in his Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Vita Consecrata, to which Sister Schneiders refers and relies upon in Essay 2, “In the consecrated life the role of Superiors, including local Superiors, has always been of great importance for the spiritual life and for mission... In an atmosphere strongly affected by individualism, it is not an easy thing to foster recognition and acceptance of the role which authority plays for the benefit of all. Nevertheless, its importance must be reaffirmed as essential for strengthening fraternal communion and in order not to render vain the obedience professed. While authority must be above all fraternal and spiritual, and while those entrusted with it must know how to involve their brothers and sisters in the decision-making process, it should still be remembered that the final word belongs to authority and, consequently, that authority has the right to see that decisions taken are respected.” N. 43.
In spite of her contention that religious “are not called as part of the hierarchy to act as agents of the institution but as prophets among the People of God,” Pope John Paul clearly exhorted in Vita Consecrata that religious life is and must be in communion with the Church and her teachings—sentire cum ecclesia. N. 46. As the Pope said, “The sense of ecclesial communion, developing into a spirituality of communion, promotes a way of thinking, speaking and acting which enables the Church to grow in depth and extension... In founders and foundresses we see a constant and lively sense of the Church, which they manifest by their full participation in all aspects of the Church’s life, and in their ready obedience to the Bishops and especially to the Roman Pontiff... A distinctive aspect of ecclesial communion is allegiance of mind and heart to the Magisterium of the Bishops, an allegiance which must be lived honestly and clearly testified to before the People of God by all consecrated persons, especially those involved in theological research, teaching, publishing, catechesis and the use of the means of social communication. Because consecrated persons have a special place in the Church, their attitude in this regard is of immense importance for the whole People of God. Their witness of filial love will give power and forcefulness to their apostolic activity which, in the context of the prophetic mission of all the baptized, is generally distinguished by special forms of cooperation with the Hierarchy.” N. 46.

Schneiders claims that the charismatic autonomy of religious women is free from the jurisdiction of the Church’s hierarchical authority. Yet her position conflicts with another element of Vita Consecrata where John Paul, in emphasizing the universality of the Church, stated, “Consecrated persons are called to be a leaven of communion at the service of the mission of the universal Church by the very fact that the manifold charisms of their respective Institutes are granted by the Holy Spirit for the good of the entire Mystical Body, whose upbuilding they must serve... This, precisely, is the scope of the particular bond of communion which the different Institutes of Consecrated Life and the Societies of Apostolic Life have with the Successor of Peter in his ministry of unity and missionary universality...” N. 47. John Paul continued his exhortation by declaring that: “The Bishop is the father and pastor of the particular Church in its entirety. It is his task to discern and respect individual charisms, and to promote and coordinate them... For their part, consecrated persons will not fail to cooperate generously with the particular Churches as much as they can and with respect for their own charism, working in full communion with the Bishop in the areas of evangelization, catechesis and parish life. It is helpful to recall that, in coordinating their service to the universal Church with their service to the particular Churches, Institutes may not invoke rightful autonomy, or even the exemption which a number of them enjoy, in order to justify choices which actually conflict with the demands of organic communion called for by a healthy ecclesial life. Instead, the pastoral initiatives of consecrated persons should be determined and carried out in cordial and open dialogue between Bishops and Superiors of the different Institutes. Special attention by Bishops to the vocation and mission of Institutes, and respect by the latter for the ministry of Bishops, with ready acceptance of their concrete pastoral directives for the life of the Diocese: these are two intimately linked expressions of that one ecclesial charity by which all work to build up the organic communion — charismatic and at the same time hierarchically structured — of the whole People of God.” N. 49. Sister Schneiders disavows these important points in her understanding of religious life as explained in Essay 4 and elsewhere.

Some concluding remarks about these essays are in order at this stage. First of all, Sister Scheiders’s five essays require a careful study in their entirety. Second, she concludes her fourth essay with direct and indirect criticisms of Church authorities. Here she criticizes “conservative” religious, bishops, and laity. Furthermore, she characterizes the visitation as the Vatican trying to “rein in” religious who had “gone too far” or “gotten out of control.” She implies a parallel between the Taliban and those who exercise appropriate Church authority and suggests that the “investigation” is “simply a patriarchal crack-down on women’s autonomy.” She further complains that the “hierarchical Church” is “a pyramidal divine right monarchy.” She reserves special criticism for Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI when she claims, “Ecclesiastical authority, at least in the reigns of the last two Popes, often has been an exercise in the suppression of all voices except its own, branding as ‘dissent’ (always understood as sinful disobedience rather than mature critical engagement) any position, and sometimes even the consideration of arguments for any position, at variance with ‘official teaching.’ Religious obedience, however, is precisely an exercise of a prophetic vocation calling its members to carefully discern the meaning of the Word of God in and for a particular situation... [B]eginning seriously with the pontificate of John Paul II, the hierarchical Church began a retrenchment from Vatican II which has become increasingly a tridentine restorationism under the current Pope. These two visions of Church are running, one forward and one backward, on parallel ecclesiological tracks.”

As has already been demonstrated, her attitude expressed in the words just quoted is in conflict with Magisterial texts cited in this executive summary and purportedly relied on by Sister Schneiders throughout this series of essays she has authored. Although she claims that Church authority of recent times has begun “a retrenchment from Vatican II,” she fails to see her own abandonment of the provisions found in the texts of the Second Vatican Council.

Essay 5—January 8, 2010

In her concluding installment, Sister Schneiders reiterates points previously made in the earlier four essays. However, the language used to critique proper ecclesiastical authority is intensified, e.g., a suggestion that it has something in common with the “satanic” world of Jesus’s time. Furthermore she complains about the “re-centralization of power in the Vatican” [she makes many points in all essays about the “power struggle” she sees within the Church]; and, she expresses grave concern regarding “the re-clericalization of ministry.” She observes that religious “do not always have the luxury of choosing whether [they] will suffer at the hands of secular powers or of the Church’s power structure.” She offers no acknowledgment that many in the Church today, including members of the hierarchy, suffer grievously in their labors for the Church. Once again she maintains mistakenly that, “Religious Life is not a grade on the hierarchical ladder; it does not belong to the hierarchical organization of the Church at all. It is a charismatically grounded close following and imitation of Jesus and his itinerant band of disciples. The vocation to prophetic ministry is intrinsic to this life form. This is true of the life form itself and therefore of Congregations and individual members.”

Her parting shot occurs in this paragraph that appears near the end of the final essay: “If, as I believe, [religious life] is the latter [‘job corps’ versus ‘a charismatically grounded prophetic ministry’] then the primary ‘offense’ of ministerial Religious is that they are reading the ‘signs of the times’ as a call to sustain and promote the renewal inaugurated by Vatican II while some officials of the institution itself are trying to restore the tridentine [sic] vision of the Church as a power structure defending itself against a threatening world that is promoting a culture of death. Like the disciples preaching Jesus as the crucified messiah when they had been told by the authorities that that interpretation of the paschal events was false, threatening to the authorities, and not to be proclaimed, Religious are embodying in their lives and proclaiming to others an interpretation of the Council that is not approved by many in the hierarchy. Rather than ‘obediently’ supporting the restoration, they are promoting the ongoing conciliar renewal in their own lives and among the laity.”

As it appears from her interpretations, her understanding of the Second Vatican Council is seriously flawed. END