The article fails to make mention of an important distinction: the LCWR represents leaders of women religious, not the orders themselves. So, the Mother Superior of Our Lady of Perpetual Modernism and the Abbess of St. Binkly the Woeful may converse upon topics together, in like manner. But not the rank and file nuns themselves, so to speak.
There’s no need for dialogue. There’s a need for Obedience, as the vows taken by most religious call for. The LCWR has not been following Catholic teaching, and has caused some of the flock to fall into error, in part because they apparently feel that they are not subject to the Ordinary and Extraordinary Magisterium of the Church. They’re mistaken in that, and this has been, sadly, a long time coming. If the LCWR waffles on such important teachings as those mentioned herein, and will not fall into when instructed upon obedience to do so, then it is a good thing that there is another group analogous to theirs which is faithful, to be used in their stead.
It is certainly worth mentioning that, regarding the last sentence, there are other groups in this country and others, in need of similar correction of error. Pray for them, and pray that the Vatican continues to clean house of these errors. Hopefully, without the loss of either these souls, or others.
>>”Sister Farrel highlighted one fundamental question: is it possible to be part of the Church but be in favour of dialogue and discussion?”
As you well know, sister, the answer to that question is yes, of course.
What is not possible is to be part of the Church, in an organization created by the Church, and promote and foster teaching in opposition to Church dogma - and in opposition to all Christianity.
To call this “being in favour of dialogue and discussion” is preposterous.