I’m glad to read this. Bp Olsen is a good prayerful bishop and has been through the wringer. And wonderful to hear about a new community. We will never know the significance of their prayer until heaven
My hope is that the new Carmel will succeed and the old one will eventually come back into communion with the Church (maybe after the Bishop and Mother Gerlach have both moved on) and then the diocese will have Two Carmels instead of just one.
Forgive my cynicism, but this move has an "anything you can do I can do better" feel to it. I'm surprised that a Carmel is willing to be a part of this. I hope they will flourish, I fear they are being used. What a chaotic mess this whole saga has been. But then, anyone who has had any dealings with the chancery here isn't suprised by the chaos.
I've been informed that nuns are coming to this new Texas Carmel from a Minnesota Carmel. It may be in part a desire or even a need for a more hospitable climate for some of them.
As a former Minnesotan now living in Texas, I can assure you that the true Minnesotan believes he could never put up with the Texas heat. And the true Carmelite strives for a life of assiduous prayer and penance, putting up with both heat and cold.
One sister who I've been told is moving from Minnesota to Texas has only been in Minnesota a short time (transferred from elsewhere) and is an older lady. I am sure she strives for penance but it's also good to be realistic about what your body can tolerate as you age.
I hope this is the last we hear of the Carmelites in Texas---that they can be in peace and quiet, serving the Lord. (though i would welcome news of a future saint coming from there!)
I would be curious to know more about the legality of the title transfer and why the Church is allowing the alienation of its property so easily. That seems like a poor precedent to set.
That could very well be a consideration, but they could get around such objections by having the religious order pursue the case instead of the diocese (though I do not actually know if that is feasible either as I am unclear on who actually owned the property prior).
The Church has a fiduciary duty to the people of God to ensure that its assets are properly managed and disposed of, allowing a renegade group (whether you agree with them or not), to take control of assets that do not rightly belong to them is a failure of that duty.
A Texas nonprofit corporation called Discalced Carmelite Nuns, Inc., which (per the scanned document from mid-1980s attached to the lawsuit document that I just googled) was set up decades ago to have a board of 5 directors which were five nuns from that monastery (they all had the same address, and OCD after their names), though I don't know if it was further amended later to some.other number. (The document also said that if the nonprofit was disbanded (this is the sort of thing that happens if a monastery has no vocations and everyone gets old) that the directors would select another Catholic Texas nonprofit or if none existed, another Texas nonprofit also of their choice, to hand off any remaining assets to. But that is moot since they sold the property for $10 to "Friends of" etc.) With a new group of actual nuns in the area, hopefully the former nuns will not be attracting new would-be vocations (i.e. souls would be my concern rather than property). They would not be a healthy organization to enter.
There was a scanned bylaws also, I'll take a look. Members of the nonprofit are the nuns (former nuns, now) of the monastery. The board of directors is appointed or elected from the Members. So the qualification is just that they are themselves.
Matthew Bobo: “The bishop wants the property for himself!”
Also Matthew Bobo: *arranges to have the property transferred to a foundation whose board he chairs and is registered at the address of his law office.*
I get that it’s probably not anything done with ulterior motives, but it’s a weird look, to be sure.
So happy to hear the nuns called by their real names, "nuns", instead of the general "sister", which so many people repeatedly wrongly refer to them as.
I’m glad to read this. Bp Olsen is a good prayerful bishop and has been through the wringer. And wonderful to hear about a new community. We will never know the significance of their prayer until heaven
My hope is that the new Carmel will succeed and the old one will eventually come back into communion with the Church (maybe after the Bishop and Mother Gerlach have both moved on) and then the diocese will have Two Carmels instead of just one.
Forgive my cynicism, but this move has an "anything you can do I can do better" feel to it. I'm surprised that a Carmel is willing to be a part of this. I hope they will flourish, I fear they are being used. What a chaotic mess this whole saga has been. But then, anyone who has had any dealings with the chancery here isn't suprised by the chaos.
I've been informed that nuns are coming to this new Texas Carmel from a Minnesota Carmel. It may be in part a desire or even a need for a more hospitable climate for some of them.
As a former Minnesotan now living in Texas, I can assure you that the true Minnesotan believes he could never put up with the Texas heat. And the true Carmelite strives for a life of assiduous prayer and penance, putting up with both heat and cold.
One sister who I've been told is moving from Minnesota to Texas has only been in Minnesota a short time (transferred from elsewhere) and is an older lady. I am sure she strives for penance but it's also good to be realistic about what your body can tolerate as you age.
I hope this is the last we hear of the Carmelites in Texas---that they can be in peace and quiet, serving the Lord. (though i would welcome news of a future saint coming from there!)
I would be curious to know more about the legality of the title transfer and why the Church is allowing the alienation of its property so easily. That seems like a poor precedent to set.
Probably because trying to take back the property would play into the narrative that the whole investigation was a pretext for seizing their land.
That could very well be a consideration, but they could get around such objections by having the religious order pursue the case instead of the diocese (though I do not actually know if that is feasible either as I am unclear on who actually owned the property prior).
The Church has a fiduciary duty to the people of God to ensure that its assets are properly managed and disposed of, allowing a renegade group (whether you agree with them or not), to take control of assets that do not rightly belong to them is a failure of that duty.
> who actually owned the property prior
A Texas nonprofit corporation called Discalced Carmelite Nuns, Inc., which (per the scanned document from mid-1980s attached to the lawsuit document that I just googled) was set up decades ago to have a board of 5 directors which were five nuns from that monastery (they all had the same address, and OCD after their names), though I don't know if it was further amended later to some.other number. (The document also said that if the nonprofit was disbanded (this is the sort of thing that happens if a monastery has no vocations and everyone gets old) that the directors would select another Catholic Texas nonprofit or if none existed, another Texas nonprofit also of their choice, to hand off any remaining assets to. But that is moot since they sold the property for $10 to "Friends of" etc.) With a new group of actual nuns in the area, hopefully the former nuns will not be attracting new would-be vocations (i.e. souls would be my concern rather than property). They would not be a healthy organization to enter.
Neat find.
It sounds like the non-profit has been the owner from the beginning, which would explain why Church authorities have no interest in it.
I wonder if there were qualifications to be a director though?
For example, directors must remain in good-standing with the Church to be legitimate.
There was a scanned bylaws also, I'll take a look. Members of the nonprofit are the nuns (former nuns, now) of the monastery. The board of directors is appointed or elected from the Members. So the qualification is just that they are themselves.
But where do the nuns get their “authority” to become, and remain, nuns?
That is derived from their Ordinary, is it not? (Not being rhetorical here, actually asking).
Which, if that is the case, would make good-standing with the Church an implied requirement to maintain their positions as directors.
Sounds like a resolution of loose ends. I hope and pray for the best for parties. May we all get to heaven.
Matthew Bobo: “The bishop wants the property for himself!”
Also Matthew Bobo: *arranges to have the property transferred to a foundation whose board he chairs and is registered at the address of his law office.*
I get that it’s probably not anything done with ulterior motives, but it’s a weird look, to be sure.
The word that springs to mind, perhaps undeservedly, is projection.
Anybody try to interview the president of Gonzaga about his role in all of this? That'd be interesting.
Fr. Spitzer, SJ, correct? I can't imagine he has much to do with the nonsense.
Incorrect. The (now former) president in question is Spitzer's successor Thayne McCulloh, as documented in https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/gonzaga-president-on-board-of-arlington
Thanks for the clarification!
Maybe the rogue Carmelites’ 15 minutes of fame is winding down.
So happy to hear the nuns called by their real names, "nuns", instead of the general "sister", which so many people repeatedly wrongly refer to them as.