LCWR president Sister Marlene Weisenbeck, FSPA called to Rome

You may remember this betrayal last year when the LCWR lead by Sr. Marlene Weisenbeck endorsed a version of the healthcare reform legislation that forced taxpayers to pay for elective abortions.  They also either intentionally lied or were woefully misinformed and publicly stated that the legislation was "pro-life" and did not fund abortion.  Since then three states have drafted their implementation of the federal healthcare takeover and all three funded elective abortions.  Weisenbeck is no longer president of the Franciscan Sisters of Perpetual Adoration in La Crosse, WI, but still is president of the LCWR. 

Well I have caught wind that Sr Weisenbeck has been called to Rome, and apparently is already there.  I don't know any other details yet.


  1. I didn't know she was a La Crosse nun with the Perpetual Adoration group. They advertising for vocations in the Twin Cities. Don't know if they ever get any.

  2. S.Marlene Weisenbeck is one of the most informed, intelligent women the Catholic Church has ever had lead the Sisters of Perpetual Adoration. I am certain that her opinions on the hotly debated health care issue were misinterpreted, as there is no one more committed to life than Sr.Marlene. I wish her well in Rome.

  3. Tuesday, June 19, 2012
    When the LCWR invites Curran, Hubbard and Schneiders they are saying the Catholic Church is not the one true Church (UR 3) and every one does not need faith and baptism for salvation (AG 7)
    The Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) is rejecting Vatican Council II (AG 7) and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.They are saying that the Catholic Church is not the sole moral authority.

    Statutes are approved of a religious organization which does not believe in exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church and the literal interpretation of the dogma ? The LCWR is Catholic even when it says invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are explicit exceptions to the dogma ? Are these 'exceptions' not always implicit for the SSPX?

    I have mentioned on a blog that if you invite Charles Curran to speak you are telling us all what you believe. If you openly promote New Age you are telling us what you believe. In the case of the LCWR, they represent the Church and so they are saying that this is what the Church teaches. They are also saying that there is no exclusive salvation in only the Catholic Church. When you invite Barbara Marx Hubbard your message is clear. You are saying that the Catholic Church is not the one true Church (UR 3, Vatican Council II) and all people do not need Catholic faith and the baptism of water for salvation (AG 7).Your also saying that there can be an interpretation of Vatican Council II which negates AG 7.

    If a Mother Superior of a community affiliated with the LCWR inquired if their community could hold the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus along with implicit baptism of desire and invincible ignorance etc in accord with Vatican Council II (AG 7), would the LCWR approve?

    They would be saying that all non Catholics in 2012 need to enter the Catholic Church for salvation and if there are any exceptions,' who have not had the Gospel preached to them’ it would be known only to God.

    This is not the ecclesiology of the LCWR which is centered on Jesus and excludes the Church. So an LCWR member can believe in Jesus, according to the Jehovah Witnesses, distribute sacred pictures of Jesus as they do in Rome, and teach according to their religion and still consider oneself in the Catholic Church. This would be Jesus without the Catholic Church which the Bible tells us is His Mystical Body.The LCWR rejects exclusive ecclesiocentrism.
    The CDF could help the sisters by announcing that those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptisms of desire are implicit for us and only explicit for God.

    It is true that only those who know about Jesus and the Church and yet do not enter are oriented to Hell (LG 14) however we cannot judge that someone is really in invincible ignorance or someone is not. This judgement is left to God.The dogma and AG 7 says all need to convert into the Church for salvation.

    If anyone says Fr. Leonard Feeney was wrong for rejecting the baptism of desire they are making a mistake. The baptism of desire is not a known exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma.-Lionel Andrades


Please contact if you have issues commenting.