Double Crossed: Uncovering the Catholic Church's Betrayal of American Nuns

[Geremia]

From what I have read of Double Crossed: Uncovering the Catholic Church's Betrayal of American Nuns by Kenneth Briggs so far, the reason female religious got hit the hardest after Vatican II (teaching sisters down 94%, much worse than priestly vocations!) is because of Vatican II's leveling of the married and religious states (and lay and sacerdotal states):

The most comprehensive was the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium) because, as the U.S. Constitution did for the United States, it provided Catholics a basic understanding of how the Church defined itself. Among its stunning conclusions: Roman Catholicism no longer insisted that it was the “one true church,” and clergy and hierarchy ceased ranking above the laity. Baptism was the ticket that admitted all Catholics equally to the Church as the “people of God”; it was similar to the rights conferred by citizenship in democracies. Other distinctions in the Church, such as ordination, important as they might be, were to be considered secondary to that godly peoplehood. Of most significance to nuns was the startling claim about what it meant to be holy. The bishops scuttled the idea that some (primarily nuns, priests, and bishops) should aim to be holy while most laity need not bother. In its place, they insisted that holiness is the responsibility of every Catholic. Precisely this pursuit of holiness had elevated nuns and priests to a level above that of the laity. Now the mystique was threatened. A single phrase had ended a virtual monopoly.

and because of the difficulty in upholding the vow of obedience (even more difficult than that of chastity), among other reasons.

[Maximilian]

Sounds like a lot of feminist nonsense. Every sentence of the description is pandering to women in one way or another.

How about instead we give credit to women as human beings who are responsible for their own moral choices?

The story that I hear from women religious is that since Vatican II they have made their own choices, they've been in charge of their own destinies, they have taken the initiative instead of being told what to do.

The result is as we see.

[Geremia]

Sounds like a lot of feminist nonsense.

He concludes that Vatican II led to the precipitous decline in nuns. Is that "feminist nonsense"?

Also, I've changed the OP to include a quote from his chapter on Vatican II, which is spot-on. The description I had previously posted was not very representative of the book, and I agree it had a liberal/feminist slant.

[Maximilian]

He concludes that Vatican II led to the precipitous decline in nuns. Is that "feminist nonsense"?

All the pandering to women which you deleted is feminist nonsense.

The description I had previously posted was not very representative of the book, and I agree it had a liberal/feminist slant.

Okay. But now your OP is totally different. You changed every word of the excerpt.

Since the two different versions differ not only in words but also in tone and content and intention, it's hard to know which one is truly representative of the book.

What we have are two radically different conceptions. Are the 94% of nuns who left the religious life:

A. "Victims" of Vatican II, or
B. Active agents of their own destruction?

The book says the answer is "A," but the nuns themselves say the answer is "B."

Did Vatican II deceive women religious?

Or were women religious finally given control of their own decisions and their own lives and their own orders? And we see what they did with it. Like giving the family car to a teenager who promptly crashes it into a tree.

[Maximilian]

The photo on the cover is typical of the fake direct-mail fundraising letters that arrive on a regular basis. They show a picture of a traditional nun, but it's probably a stock photo lifted from decades ago.



If there are any nuns who have been "mistreated" as the book claims, they don't look anything like the woman on the book cover. Here is a much more representative photo of actual nuns look like today:



The photo was taken at their golden jubilee, so they were all in the order prior to the changes of Vatican II.

[Maximilian]

He concludes that Vatican II led to the precipitous decline in nuns.

That's not quite what he says in the book summary:

https://isidore.co/calibre#book_id=6666&panel=book_details

"Kenneth Briggs contends that the rapid disappearance of convents can be traced directly to the Church’s betrayal of the promises of reform made by the Second Vatican Council."

Rather than blaming the collapse of women's religious orders on Vatican II, he's blaming it on the failure to follow through with the radical changes inaugurated by Vatican II. That's the standard party line for the liberal wing of the Catholic Church -- the wing that includes nearly all women religious.

There is no indication that he offers any support at all for the pre-Vatican II model. On the contrary, he attacks it severely:

"Their efforts and successes, however, brought little appreciation from the Church, which demeaned their roles, deprived them of power, and placed them under the absolute authority of the all-male clergy.

Replete with quotations from nuns and former nuns, Double Crossed uncovers a dark secret at the heart of the Catholic Church."

[Maximilian]

Not entirely relevant, but as I was searching for information I found this fascinating newsreel item from 1965:

[Prayerful]

He concludes that Vatican II led to the precipitous decline in nuns.

That's not quite what he says in the book summary:

https://isidore.co/calibre#book_id=6666&panel=book_details

"Kenneth Briggs contends that the rapid disappearance of convents can be traced directly to the Church’s betrayal of the promises of reform made by the Second Vatican Council."

Rather than blaming the collapse of women's religious orders on Vatican II, he's blaming it on the failure to follow through with the radical changes inaugurated by Vatican II. That's the standard party line for the liberal wing of the Catholic Church -- the wing that includes nearly all women religious.

There is no indication that he offers any support at all for the pre-Vatican II model. On the contrary, he attacks it severely:

"Their efforts and successes, however, brought little appreciation from the Church, which demeaned their roles, deprived them of power, and placed them under the absolute authority of the all-male clergy.

Replete with quotations from nuns and former nuns, Double Crossed uncovers a dark secret at the heart of the Catholic Church."

Sounds then like feminist, Conciliar nonsense. Vatican 2 failed because there wasn't enough Vatican 2, something not supported by evidence. Those parts of northern Europe and North America which went full tilt into the Spirit of V2, are now formerly Catholic. I'm sure these woman are good people, although I know of some who adore New Age nonsense, but can they not perceive the V2 was an utter disaster. Part of them must know, but they will never admit it to themselves or others.

[Gardener]

Great posts, Maximilian. Not sure what's up with Geremia's book reviews lately, but this is the 2nd time he's been off base by 180* from the book's actual content.

[Geremia]

That's not quite what he says in the book summary

Read the quote from the actual book I posted in this thread's first post.

I would like to have a discussion about the book, not the publisher's summary of it.

[Geremia]

2nd time he's been off base by 180* from the book's actual content.

The author's description of Lumen Gentium that I put in my first post is spot-on.

[Maximilian]

I would like to have a discussion about the book, not the publisher's summary of it.

I tried to open the book, but I get an error. Perhaps you need to pay first, but I don't see any options for something like that.

[Gardener]

2nd time he's been off base by 180* from the book's actual content.

The author's description of Lumen Gentium that I put in my first post is spot-on.

Where do you want me to kick the ball?