As in, keep "dialoguing" longer, and just continue to do what it wants. Or, if you want a metaphor, hide in the corner under some coats and hope the bishops just go away.
The Review has a more in-depth piece, and has remarks from the outgoing head of the LCWR, including this excerpt that cuts to the chase:
"What would a prophetic voice to the doctrinal assessment look like?" asked Sister Pat. "I think it would be humble, but not submissive; [SLC Note: Boom. There is where I check out. Submission to a Doctrinal assessment of the Holy Catholic Church's Doctrinal authority requires an attitude of submission. That is the only attitude a Catholic can have. Real dialogue, where, in an an attitude of submission, the group asks questions and requests clarification so there may be understanding-- that I get. But that isn't what they mean. The rest of the quote is more of their typical psychotheologicobabble:] rooted in a solid sense of ourselves, but not self righteous; truthful, but gentle and absolutely fearless," she said. "It would ask probing questions. Are we being invited to some appropriate pruning, and would we be open to it? ... Does the institutional legitimacy of canonical recognition empower us to live prophetically? Does it allow us the freedom to question with informed consciences?"
In case you doubt my shorthand take on what these ladies mean by dialogue, or are just a glutton for punishment, read this story where Jennifer Brinker was forced to: 1) endure listening to an LCWR sister drone on about it; and, 2) write it all down.
On the ongoing revision of the penal law of the Church
14 minutes ago