At this late stage, being vindicated on the most extreme and absurd part of the case will do little to restore trust for the sisters--understandably so, given fallen human sentiments. Perhaps with heroic fealty, obedience and abandonment, the sisters could embrace whatever comes next and accept the new superior appointed by the Dicastery. That, however, is quite unlikely. It is very difficult to be mistreated, and then have full reconciliation and trust.
Which points out a difficulty in the practice of the law and authority in the Church. How does the authority of the church offer their own proactive measures to re-establish trust? The decision alone, which is often rather sterile, only says to the one whose rights had been violated, “Ok. We’re not going to throw you out of the monastery.” There’s comfort in that, but then after such grave offense was committed to say, “Now, do the rest of these very difficult things we’re asking of you,” one still feels hurt, still feels deeply offended, and, in a way, still feels the adrenaline hangover of their whole way of life having just been threatened.
I don’t know how this can be accounted for in the law. Perhaps just an understanding, slow moving administrator/superior can allow copious amounts of time for things to heal. It’s why charity, patience and prudence from those who are given the responsibility to resolve situations like these is most needed. Just because one might have the authority, and just because one might know what canonical and administrative steps need to be taken, doesn’t mean those for whom that authority exists are going to listen or follow right away. Since both sides caused the breakdown, both sides must take responsibility to reconcile and restore that relationship which was unjustly broken.
> Perhaps with heroic fealty, obedience and abandonment, the sisters could embrace whatever comes next and accept the new superior appointed by the Dicastery.
Perhaps they could recall St. Teresa of Jesus being sent to the monastery of the Incarnation as its superior.
There is also still the issue of the monastery property. If the Association mother superior is "working closely" with Bishop Olson, there is no trust that the monastery lands and life will be protected. If I am reading all of the legal documents correctly, if they let her in and give her authority, it really will be a back door into muddying the property ownership issue. I am not on either the "left" or the "right" - just an ordinary, faithful Catholic who has had a bad experience with the diocese of Fort Worth. We need an apostolic visitation. That is the only way this mess is going to get solved. The bishop's actions were abusive and his relationship with his diocesan inner circle is autocratic, to say the least. No one will stand up to the bishop for fear of repercussions.
"Many of the issues flagged by the Dicastery for Consecrated Life were flagged last year by canonists assessing the case." Many? There were 2 issues in the diocese case flagged by the Dicastery:
1. They did not agree with the Bishop that her use of technology that only she had access to by right of her office constituted an abuse of authority. They also did not find that she had any real or imagined authority over her accomplice because he was...a grown man and a cleric. Brain tumors aside, I think it's arguable that having evidence of violations of the 6th commandment of the decalogue by a cleric could be seen as conveying a sort of authority over that cleric. Both sides have valid arguments.
2. The nuns didn't get 15 full days to respond so the case is tossed out on a procedural technicality. First warning was served on April 26, the nuns responded May 8. Second warning was served on May 11, the nuns appealed to the Vatican on May 25, the decree of dismissal was issued by the bishop on June 1. I'm very confused by how we're counting days. Are we talking business days? Or did the response from the bishop that was served on May 11 restart the clock (warning, 15 days to respond to the bishop, rejection of the warning, 15 days to respond, expulsion) since he elaborated on the penalties?
Of serious concern to me is this bit of the article: "canon lawyers advising the nuns told The Pillar last year that Olson’s lack of specificity made it especially difficult to understand Olson’s actions, or to understand if the bishop had other, as-yet-unspoken concerns about the monastery." Why would canon lawyers advising the nuns not have access to the documents with which the community was served? The Dicastery seems to think those documents sufficiently specific, and there's a recording of the conversation on April 24th which makes clear that the diocese is literally following the Safe Environment procedures!!!!! What's my point? Either said canon lawyers were not in fact advising the nuns and were responding to the bishop's public statements, or the nuns lied to these canon lawyers big time, and/or these canon lawyers are grossly incompetent.
Ultimately I'm really not sure how I feel about the whole thing - it looks to me like that community is a mess and was a mess before all of this started, it also looks like the Vatican will find any excuse to let people off the hook, and my radically different perception of the case from my fellow Catholics really worries me.
I say that because I listened to the recording which makes clear that the conversation is the initiation of an investigation of a report of sexual misconduct and that the director of the safe environment office is there in the room with them. You don’t have to trust me, you can listen to the recording. The procedure in all diocese is that when the office receives a report of misconduct they’re supposed to conduct an investigation to determine if the allegations are true, during the investigation the subject of the investigation is placed on leave.
Do I think the prioress is a predator? I think there is something gravely wrong with the prioress, I’m shocked that anyone could possibly disagree with that assessment at this point. The only way to say whether or not she’s a predator is to conduct an investigation, though I’m not sure why you think that an investigation into violations of canon law should be predicated on a subjective opinion formed before an investigation as to whether or not someone is a predator. Ultimately to fail to investigate an allegation would be evil. Anyone arguing against conducting an investigation of reports because of a subjective opinion on its credibility should do penance for the clergy abuse crisis because that’s exactly the thinking that empowered abusers. In my experience of these sorts of investigations, they’re handled quietly behind closed doors so that no one’s reputation is damaged unnecessarily. Also in my experience, the subjects of these investigations don’t file civil lawsuits against the diocese making the whole dirty business public because they generally have a modicum of sense. Something that can’t be said about the prioress.
No, the vicar general for the diocese reported the misconduct, the specifics of which he didn’t know, because she made several disclosures, one implying a potential pregnancy, to him. The prioress confirmed the misconduct during the initial meeting notifying her of the investigation. She also both downplays and plays up the seriousness of her misconduct in that conversation. To not confirm her account, and thereby assume she is telling the truth, would be evil for the reasons I mentioned earlier. Once again, I’m not seeing why you think investigations into reports of violations of canon law should be predicated on predation. Given the medical states of both parties, they both could be considered vulnerable adults and only by conducting an investigation can one establish if that is involved. For all the bishop knew, the prioress could have been the victim of abuse by a priest who came in to hear confessions. Only by conducting an investigation could that be ruled out. Or did that not even occur to you?
Thanks for this. The due process and fairness issues had bothered me too, especially since this Bishop seems to have a track record of persecuting other clergy and religious, but most other Catholics don't seem to care.
When this came up last year, I did an internet search just for some background and to my surprise found a group calling for the removal of the current bishop of Fort Worth that seems to be independent of this case. And being on the internet, I'm sure it was 100% accurate and reliable, or — you know — not. I decided I didn't have any basis for deciding if they had any justification or not, nor any particular reason to pursue it further, and let it go.
Do you Pillar-people know anything about this other situation? Are they crackpots, is this part of a larger worrisome pattern, or is it one of those nuanced "well on the other hand" sort of situations?
At least this a new starting point for negotiations.
At this late stage, being vindicated on the most extreme and absurd part of the case will do little to restore trust for the sisters--understandably so, given fallen human sentiments. Perhaps with heroic fealty, obedience and abandonment, the sisters could embrace whatever comes next and accept the new superior appointed by the Dicastery. That, however, is quite unlikely. It is very difficult to be mistreated, and then have full reconciliation and trust.
Which points out a difficulty in the practice of the law and authority in the Church. How does the authority of the church offer their own proactive measures to re-establish trust? The decision alone, which is often rather sterile, only says to the one whose rights had been violated, “Ok. We’re not going to throw you out of the monastery.” There’s comfort in that, but then after such grave offense was committed to say, “Now, do the rest of these very difficult things we’re asking of you,” one still feels hurt, still feels deeply offended, and, in a way, still feels the adrenaline hangover of their whole way of life having just been threatened.
I don’t know how this can be accounted for in the law. Perhaps just an understanding, slow moving administrator/superior can allow copious amounts of time for things to heal. It’s why charity, patience and prudence from those who are given the responsibility to resolve situations like these is most needed. Just because one might have the authority, and just because one might know what canonical and administrative steps need to be taken, doesn’t mean those for whom that authority exists are going to listen or follow right away. Since both sides caused the breakdown, both sides must take responsibility to reconcile and restore that relationship which was unjustly broken.
> Perhaps with heroic fealty, obedience and abandonment, the sisters could embrace whatever comes next and accept the new superior appointed by the Dicastery.
Perhaps they could recall St. Teresa of Jesus being sent to the monastery of the Incarnation as its superior.
I thought of that immediately when I read this.
There is also still the issue of the monastery property. If the Association mother superior is "working closely" with Bishop Olson, there is no trust that the monastery lands and life will be protected. If I am reading all of the legal documents correctly, if they let her in and give her authority, it really will be a back door into muddying the property ownership issue. I am not on either the "left" or the "right" - just an ordinary, faithful Catholic who has had a bad experience with the diocese of Fort Worth. We need an apostolic visitation. That is the only way this mess is going to get solved. The bishop's actions were abusive and his relationship with his diocesan inner circle is autocratic, to say the least. No one will stand up to the bishop for fear of repercussions.
Thank you for giving the actual diocesan perspective, which I think is the most credible.
"Many of the issues flagged by the Dicastery for Consecrated Life were flagged last year by canonists assessing the case." Many? There were 2 issues in the diocese case flagged by the Dicastery:
1. They did not agree with the Bishop that her use of technology that only she had access to by right of her office constituted an abuse of authority. They also did not find that she had any real or imagined authority over her accomplice because he was...a grown man and a cleric. Brain tumors aside, I think it's arguable that having evidence of violations of the 6th commandment of the decalogue by a cleric could be seen as conveying a sort of authority over that cleric. Both sides have valid arguments.
2. The nuns didn't get 15 full days to respond so the case is tossed out on a procedural technicality. First warning was served on April 26, the nuns responded May 8. Second warning was served on May 11, the nuns appealed to the Vatican on May 25, the decree of dismissal was issued by the bishop on June 1. I'm very confused by how we're counting days. Are we talking business days? Or did the response from the bishop that was served on May 11 restart the clock (warning, 15 days to respond to the bishop, rejection of the warning, 15 days to respond, expulsion) since he elaborated on the penalties?
Of serious concern to me is this bit of the article: "canon lawyers advising the nuns told The Pillar last year that Olson’s lack of specificity made it especially difficult to understand Olson’s actions, or to understand if the bishop had other, as-yet-unspoken concerns about the monastery." Why would canon lawyers advising the nuns not have access to the documents with which the community was served? The Dicastery seems to think those documents sufficiently specific, and there's a recording of the conversation on April 24th which makes clear that the diocese is literally following the Safe Environment procedures!!!!! What's my point? Either said canon lawyers were not in fact advising the nuns and were responding to the bishop's public statements, or the nuns lied to these canon lawyers big time, and/or these canon lawyers are grossly incompetent.
Ultimately I'm really not sure how I feel about the whole thing - it looks to me like that community is a mess and was a mess before all of this started, it also looks like the Vatican will find any excuse to let people off the hook, and my radically different perception of the case from my fellow Catholics really worries me.
I say that because I listened to the recording which makes clear that the conversation is the initiation of an investigation of a report of sexual misconduct and that the director of the safe environment office is there in the room with them. You don’t have to trust me, you can listen to the recording. The procedure in all diocese is that when the office receives a report of misconduct they’re supposed to conduct an investigation to determine if the allegations are true, during the investigation the subject of the investigation is placed on leave.
Do I think the prioress is a predator? I think there is something gravely wrong with the prioress, I’m shocked that anyone could possibly disagree with that assessment at this point. The only way to say whether or not she’s a predator is to conduct an investigation, though I’m not sure why you think that an investigation into violations of canon law should be predicated on a subjective opinion formed before an investigation as to whether or not someone is a predator. Ultimately to fail to investigate an allegation would be evil. Anyone arguing against conducting an investigation of reports because of a subjective opinion on its credibility should do penance for the clergy abuse crisis because that’s exactly the thinking that empowered abusers. In my experience of these sorts of investigations, they’re handled quietly behind closed doors so that no one’s reputation is damaged unnecessarily. Also in my experience, the subjects of these investigations don’t file civil lawsuits against the diocese making the whole dirty business public because they generally have a modicum of sense. Something that can’t be said about the prioress.
No, the vicar general for the diocese reported the misconduct, the specifics of which he didn’t know, because she made several disclosures, one implying a potential pregnancy, to him. The prioress confirmed the misconduct during the initial meeting notifying her of the investigation. She also both downplays and plays up the seriousness of her misconduct in that conversation. To not confirm her account, and thereby assume she is telling the truth, would be evil for the reasons I mentioned earlier. Once again, I’m not seeing why you think investigations into reports of violations of canon law should be predicated on predation. Given the medical states of both parties, they both could be considered vulnerable adults and only by conducting an investigation can one establish if that is involved. For all the bishop knew, the prioress could have been the victim of abuse by a priest who came in to hear confessions. Only by conducting an investigation could that be ruled out. Or did that not even occur to you?
Thanks for this. The due process and fairness issues had bothered me too, especially since this Bishop seems to have a track record of persecuting other clergy and religious, but most other Catholics don't seem to care.
When this came up last year, I did an internet search just for some background and to my surprise found a group calling for the removal of the current bishop of Fort Worth that seems to be independent of this case. And being on the internet, I'm sure it was 100% accurate and reliable, or — you know — not. I decided I didn't have any basis for deciding if they had any justification or not, nor any particular reason to pursue it further, and let it go.
Do you Pillar-people know anything about this other situation? Are they crackpots, is this part of a larger worrisome pattern, or is it one of those nuanced "well on the other hand" sort of situations?