Oh of course. I think people saw the laundry list of health issues and assumed she was older. I’ve seen comments in lots of com boxes assuming she’s elderly. Which perhaps would be more sad, but I’m not sure. It’s not my place to say more than the newspapers of course, but if people knew everything she has gone through they would realize she is not “of Jesus Crucified” for nothing. May our prayers support her & accompany her.
The Church’s law is protective and aimed at repentance. Sadly that is not always obvious in the way it is handled. But if you read Canon law you will find the staff of a Good Shepherd, not a club to clobber the weak.
A tidbit for anyone interested-
Canon 695 says: “A religious must be dismissed from the institute for the delicts mentioned in can. 1395, 1397, and 1398, unless… the superior decides that dismissal is not COMPLETELY NECESSARY [my emphasis] and that correction of the religious, restitution of justice, and reparation of scandal can be resolved sufficiently in another way.”
Canons 1395,97,&98 cover things like kidnapping, wounding someone, attempting to get married, having an abortion, or committing PUBLIC sins against the 6th commandment. Even in these cases, as Canon 695 points out, dismissal is to be a last resort.
In cases where dismissal IS warranted there is still a procedure for how it should happen & that includes multiple documented warnings, lack of any signs of repentance on the religious’ part, proof that the sin not only happened but that the religious was fully aware & morally responsible (not delirious following a seizure and heavily-medicated surgery, for example) and sufficient opportunity for the religious to defend herself.
I am a civil lawyer in the U.S. I readily admit the legal climate has gotten worse during my nearly 27 years as an attorney.
But watching how canon law is so easily circumvented with the scratch of a connected cleric's pen makes me grateful for genuine due process and the checks and balances that come with it.
Canon law should be made obsolete since it always covers the bishops. Let civil law rule at least there is a chance for true justice. Jesus did NOT institute canon law.
I disagree with you there. Canons are as old as the councils of the Church, and in the absence of some agreed-upon written guarantees of rights and process, you just have might-makes-right.
The problem with Roman canon law is that the absolute power conferred upon the pope makes a mockery of the rest of the canons. The CIC is a despotic system that empowers functionaries to re-write the law at will, "sanating" abuses of power with pen scratches.
It's always a good time to pray for everyone involved (to become great saints!, which is my favorite thing to pray, let God sort out the details), and in the case of a dramatic developing news story, to include in one's prayers everyone who has heard about it such as your own self. (Is this just a gimmick to get more people to pray for me, since I also have heard about it? no because I had not thought of it during the first sentence, but it does seem like the best kind of pyramid scheme. I include this parenthetical remark at the risk of sounding flippant when I am wholly serious.)
Not much of a surprise I guess. I highly doubt the appeals will go anywhere, so she is likely done as a religious. The sad thing is we will probably never know for sure what actually happened as the diocese is unlikely to ever disclose the exact crime she is accused of. The shroud of uncertainty and the stench of corruption is going to linger over this whole saga, even in the unlikely event that the bishop does have a really good reason for what he is doing.
Of course we will never know but a sick nun has lost her reputation and home. Exactly what Jesus woul do!!! She will be dead before the Signatora acts and how do men 6,000 miles away who don’t know Sister from a frog make a judgement that will affect her life? Just asking.
Heartbreaking. This poor, seriously ill Nun who has spent her entire adult life cloistered… is stripped of her way of life, support system, friends, community, and everything familiar to her. Where will she go? To a nursing home or hospice where no one can visit her because everyone who loves her is still cloistered? I am beyond appalled.
I have begun praying to St. Padre Pio for this Nun as I’m beginning to suspect she is a ‘victim soul’ asked by Christ to embody the physical suffering & emotional / spiritual anguish of Christ’s Passion in a profound way bespeaking heroic holiness. How else can we make sense of the confounding horror of this debacle??
Here's how I make sense of it (early morning thoughts).
Small events in our lives have meaning (small meaning but still worth praying about and asking God "so what are you saying to me here". If he is saying something extraordinary, run it by someone else first, though. But usually it's something we already knew; like when my kids hear me say "pick up your dirty socks", not a surprise really.)
If I as a lay person see a particular kind of event (someone accused of a sin against chastity with no details and I don't know whether they even did anything or not) culminating on a particular day that begins a month with two broad meanings in the milieu in which I'm embedded (a celebration of modern lifestyles, and a reminder of God's passionate and self sacrificing love for us all the way to vicarious atonement on the cross), and in a particular religious order (who everyone associates with a specific popular saint who describes a "little way") perhaps what I conclude is 1. Vicarious atonement is not just for religious or those called to be a "victim soul". We are all the body of Christ. Otherwise why would a victim soul not be totally hidden, which is the NORMAL thing, or conversely, why would a repentant sinner not be totally hidden. God is super into hiddenness. So if he puts something where we can see it, I would probably take it as a hint. 2. Do not be specific about the type of sin against chastity for which we are atoning. We like to focus on the ones that bug us most, but we could let that go for a bit. Because there were no details in this "reminder". 3. Do not make a big deal about it. Do ORDINARY things (carry ordinary tiny, tiny crosses willingly) with great love and saying to God that I am doing this also to atone for sins against chastity. Do not say to God that I want to be a victim soul, do not make big plans to fast or do anything unusual. 4. Obedience is the hardest evangelical counsel and the laity are called to tend toward perfection too although it looks different for us. Therefore I would especially look for tiny moments to give up one's own will in a way that is presented to us by the Holy Spirit. Like stopping when the light is yellow instead of deciding I can make that left turn before the crosstraffic gets a green (I am picking on the sort of thing that happens to me) especially if I am already running late. (And now I have to go drive a kid to school - bets on what the traffic lights will be like ? :) i'm doomed haha.). edit: they were green. A reminder to me that God knows we are very little and can only do very little things, and that I should not worry that he does not know that.
I really only have three options (because my self-image has a much stronger attachment to the Discalced Carmelite order than most other commenters' probably do, for reasons that are not very interesting right now), and two are bad. 1. I could allow myself to be scandalized by the fact of the nuns suing the bishop. But this is self-love (vanity). It is a perceived wound to my image of myself and that is the reason I would be upset. So that is not a good option. 2. I could allow myself to be distressed by whatever the bishop is doing. But this is self-love also. It is me being defensive because I perceive an attack on something that I associate with my self. So that is also not a good option. 3. I could take the words "do not let your hearts be troubled" (somewhere in a Gospel... one moment while I google it... John 14:1) completely literally. Jesus does not ask his friends to do something that is impossible, so with his help it must be possible to do some third thing. But, we are all in this together and it is also my job to try to strengthen the people around me (face to face, or here) and to allow them (such as you; I see your virtues) to strengthen me also.
I do not understand the with holding of Sacraments as a form of punishment. I understand a Bishop may decide a person is in grave sin and cannot receive Holy Communion - but to deny all the nuns daily Mass and restrict the Sacrament of Reconciliation - and at the same time accuse of grave sin - which would mean a need for the Sacrament, not restriction. I'm not understanding the use of the Sacraments this way or how this is "accompanying" or "pastoral". Is there a canon lawyer explanation on the "right" to restrict the Sacraments?
I’m not a canon lawyer so I can’t explain. But I can quote:
Can. 843 §1. “Sacred ministers cannot deny the sacraments to those who seek them at appropriate times, are properly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them.”
With the end-of-career for any priest or nun Bishop Olson doesn’t like? It’s so easy to allege & expel… wheee!! No one above him seems to expect proof or due process, so the sky’s the limit now!
So other than the title of the article, really nothing else reported in this article other than a recap of everything that has already been reported?
I alternate between thinking “yes we should know more to reduce scandal” and “this is none of our business, but we should let the bishop and nuns work it out with appeals etc”
It’s our business because vulnerable spiritual sisters (these Nuns) were being bullied behind closed doors & had no one to protect them. It’s our business because the needs of the vulnerable are always the business of those stronger and able to help.
I disagree of the use of the word bullying here. We have no evidence there was bullying. Using inflammatory words like this is not productive. If the nuns felt there was something going on there are things in place that they can do, as it seems they are doing with appealing to the pope.
A man yelling at a group of women is bullying in my book. The Nuns have said more than once they were yelled at and doors were slammed. They have also said M. Teresa Agnes was interrogated directly post-surgery while in severe pain. Perhaps we have different concepts of when & how it is appropriate to communicate. In my opinion yelling is to be reserved for life-threatening emergencies & post-surgical contact should be limited to whatever is nurturing and soothing. Even if the patient were the worst criminal. Hours of post-surgical interrogation is no way to treat a human being. As a mother, I am adamant about this. We give the BEST CARE to those who are weakest and most vulnerable. This is how the human family rolls & the Church family should be no different. Alleged crimes can be dealt with just as well after M. Teresa Agnes has had a good nap and a minute to get her bearings. She’s not going anywhere & the Bishop knows where to find her.
It’s possibly not. I don’t know all the details. So rather than use words like bullying I think we should all just wait. The sisters aren’t benefited by our posting things with vitriol online.
Odd she was dismissed not from her position as superior, but from religious life entirely for a sixth commandment violation. If she's repentant of the sin, wouldn't it make sense for her to stay and, maybe, live the rest of her life in prayer and penance? The bishop still cares for the disabled woman's soul, no?
In some cases, priests have been practically sent *into* religious life to atone for grievous sexual sins. For the sake of salus animarum and all that.
In his diocese, is Bp. Olson to dismiss every priest and religious found to have violated the sixth commandment?
So much is puzzling about this story. Prayers and sacrifices for all involved.
[Edit: I just emailed the diocese with a polite recommendation to let her remain a religious.]
A wise friend of mine commented in another forum that the bishop's action reminded him of that of the mob in Saint John's Gospel for the woman caught in adultery.
Sure seems to be the case--and has been noted, the guilty man is absent and safely anonymous. Ordination has its privileges.
It seems to me that the benefit of the doubt should be given the Bishop not the alleged perpetrator. No Bishop would undertake actions of this nature without grave reasons for doing so. I imagine there is an abundance of documentation that cannot be released. From what I have read, Bishop Olsen is a straight arrow on orthodoxy. As the Apostle of the local Church, he is bound by his office to act in the best interests of his flock. The public suit says all one needs to know about the motives of this convent. The public spectacle is a veiled attack on the Church and its governance. It is not of God.
If you want to ensure that you never serve on a criminal jury, keep that first sentence handy. You'll be booted for cause every time.
Lest we forget, Bernard Law, Fabian Bruskewitz and Robert Finn were each straight arrows in the quiver of orthodoxy. And each made dubious (understatement) decisions they deemed as in the best interests of their flocks as the apostolic successors in charge of said local churches.
No, it is incumbent on the bishop to be 100% transparent here. We're not an episcopal power cult. The episcopate maxxed out their benefit-of-the-doubt credit cards for lack of transparency and pure exercises of power back in 2002.
What does 100% transparency mean? Your notion of an “episcopal power cult” ignores common sense. One either believes in the authority given bishops for governance of the Church or one doesn’t. Citing the unfortunate misjudgment of some on issues of sexual abuse is an easy shot often promulgated by those who wish to disregard/discredit the more difficult teachings of the Church. Using it as a brush to color negatively the proper oversight of religious institutes by their bishops accommodates a culture already at odds with the Church. And, yes, I have already served on a jury of a criminal court as a Catholic. Further, I knew Bernard Law. He was a good man, and despite his errors in judgement, a faithful priest.
She’s 43. I don’t know why it matters but everyone seems curious & I saw it in print so I guess she’s okay with the info being public.
Oh of course. I think people saw the laundry list of health issues and assumed she was older. I’ve seen comments in lots of com boxes assuming she’s elderly. Which perhaps would be more sad, but I’m not sure. It’s not my place to say more than the newspapers of course, but if people knew everything she has gone through they would realize she is not “of Jesus Crucified” for nothing. May our prayers support her & accompany her.
It’s correct.
Re: “canon law may permit it”
The Church’s law is protective and aimed at repentance. Sadly that is not always obvious in the way it is handled. But if you read Canon law you will find the staff of a Good Shepherd, not a club to clobber the weak.
A tidbit for anyone interested-
Canon 695 says: “A religious must be dismissed from the institute for the delicts mentioned in can. 1395, 1397, and 1398, unless… the superior decides that dismissal is not COMPLETELY NECESSARY [my emphasis] and that correction of the religious, restitution of justice, and reparation of scandal can be resolved sufficiently in another way.”
Canons 1395,97,&98 cover things like kidnapping, wounding someone, attempting to get married, having an abortion, or committing PUBLIC sins against the 6th commandment. Even in these cases, as Canon 695 points out, dismissal is to be a last resort.
In cases where dismissal IS warranted there is still a procedure for how it should happen & that includes multiple documented warnings, lack of any signs of repentance on the religious’ part, proof that the sin not only happened but that the religious was fully aware & morally responsible (not delirious following a seizure and heavily-medicated surgery, for example) and sufficient opportunity for the religious to defend herself.
“My yoke is easy and My burden light.”
I am a civil lawyer in the U.S. I readily admit the legal climate has gotten worse during my nearly 27 years as an attorney.
But watching how canon law is so easily circumvented with the scratch of a connected cleric's pen makes me grateful for genuine due process and the checks and balances that come with it.
AMEN!!
Canon law should be made obsolete since it always covers the bishops. Let civil law rule at least there is a chance for true justice. Jesus did NOT institute canon law.
I disagree with you there. Canons are as old as the councils of the Church, and in the absence of some agreed-upon written guarantees of rights and process, you just have might-makes-right.
The problem with Roman canon law is that the absolute power conferred upon the pope makes a mockery of the rest of the canons. The CIC is a despotic system that empowers functionaries to re-write the law at will, "sanating" abuses of power with pen scratches.
"Might make right. " Ahem: exactly what do we have now? Canon law might be great, but it would need to be observed.
I guess that would require someone to enforce repercussions for breaking it. Canon law police?
It's always a good time to pray for everyone involved (to become great saints!, which is my favorite thing to pray, let God sort out the details), and in the case of a dramatic developing news story, to include in one's prayers everyone who has heard about it such as your own self. (Is this just a gimmick to get more people to pray for me, since I also have heard about it? no because I had not thought of it during the first sentence, but it does seem like the best kind of pyramid scheme. I include this parenthetical remark at the risk of sounding flippant when I am wholly serious.)
Bridget, I love your prayer suggestions. Your comments are a valuable corrective to my instinct to set my hair on fire :)
Thank you for that reminder. I just offered a chaplet of divine mercy for all involved. Pray pray pray!
Not much of a surprise I guess. I highly doubt the appeals will go anywhere, so she is likely done as a religious. The sad thing is we will probably never know for sure what actually happened as the diocese is unlikely to ever disclose the exact crime she is accused of. The shroud of uncertainty and the stench of corruption is going to linger over this whole saga, even in the unlikely event that the bishop does have a really good reason for what he is doing.
Of course we will never know but a sick nun has lost her reputation and home. Exactly what Jesus woul do!!! She will be dead before the Signatora acts and how do men 6,000 miles away who don’t know Sister from a frog make a judgement that will affect her life? Just asking.
The bishop’s actions seem very extreme. Hard to imagine a scenario where they are warranted. It’s a bad look.
As a religious priest I know used to quip, "Oh well, he'll burn in Hell, except for the mercy of God."
This is so sad.
Heartbreaking. This poor, seriously ill Nun who has spent her entire adult life cloistered… is stripped of her way of life, support system, friends, community, and everything familiar to her. Where will she go? To a nursing home or hospice where no one can visit her because everyone who loves her is still cloistered? I am beyond appalled.
I have begun praying to St. Padre Pio for this Nun as I’m beginning to suspect she is a ‘victim soul’ asked by Christ to embody the physical suffering & emotional / spiritual anguish of Christ’s Passion in a profound way bespeaking heroic holiness. How else can we make sense of the confounding horror of this debacle??
Here's how I make sense of it (early morning thoughts).
Small events in our lives have meaning (small meaning but still worth praying about and asking God "so what are you saying to me here". If he is saying something extraordinary, run it by someone else first, though. But usually it's something we already knew; like when my kids hear me say "pick up your dirty socks", not a surprise really.)
If I as a lay person see a particular kind of event (someone accused of a sin against chastity with no details and I don't know whether they even did anything or not) culminating on a particular day that begins a month with two broad meanings in the milieu in which I'm embedded (a celebration of modern lifestyles, and a reminder of God's passionate and self sacrificing love for us all the way to vicarious atonement on the cross), and in a particular religious order (who everyone associates with a specific popular saint who describes a "little way") perhaps what I conclude is 1. Vicarious atonement is not just for religious or those called to be a "victim soul". We are all the body of Christ. Otherwise why would a victim soul not be totally hidden, which is the NORMAL thing, or conversely, why would a repentant sinner not be totally hidden. God is super into hiddenness. So if he puts something where we can see it, I would probably take it as a hint. 2. Do not be specific about the type of sin against chastity for which we are atoning. We like to focus on the ones that bug us most, but we could let that go for a bit. Because there were no details in this "reminder". 3. Do not make a big deal about it. Do ORDINARY things (carry ordinary tiny, tiny crosses willingly) with great love and saying to God that I am doing this also to atone for sins against chastity. Do not say to God that I want to be a victim soul, do not make big plans to fast or do anything unusual. 4. Obedience is the hardest evangelical counsel and the laity are called to tend toward perfection too although it looks different for us. Therefore I would especially look for tiny moments to give up one's own will in a way that is presented to us by the Holy Spirit. Like stopping when the light is yellow instead of deciding I can make that left turn before the crosstraffic gets a green (I am picking on the sort of thing that happens to me) especially if I am already running late. (And now I have to go drive a kid to school - bets on what the traffic lights will be like ? :) i'm doomed haha.). edit: they were green. A reminder to me that God knows we are very little and can only do very little things, and that I should not worry that he does not know that.
Your mercy and faith are a blessing and commendable as well as edifying.
Please especially remember us who don't have these (or might have rejected) holy virtues as we should.
I am saddened and beyond words (believe it or not) at this point regarding this situation.
I really only have three options (because my self-image has a much stronger attachment to the Discalced Carmelite order than most other commenters' probably do, for reasons that are not very interesting right now), and two are bad. 1. I could allow myself to be scandalized by the fact of the nuns suing the bishop. But this is self-love (vanity). It is a perceived wound to my image of myself and that is the reason I would be upset. So that is not a good option. 2. I could allow myself to be distressed by whatever the bishop is doing. But this is self-love also. It is me being defensive because I perceive an attack on something that I associate with my self. So that is also not a good option. 3. I could take the words "do not let your hearts be troubled" (somewhere in a Gospel... one moment while I google it... John 14:1) completely literally. Jesus does not ask his friends to do something that is impossible, so with his help it must be possible to do some third thing. But, we are all in this together and it is also my job to try to strengthen the people around me (face to face, or here) and to allow them (such as you; I see your virtues) to strengthen me also.
And the priest with whom she violated the Sixth Commandment, surely he's been given the boot, too--right?
Surely the bishop would not kick a disabled woman to the curb and let her adult male partner in sin get off scot-free?
Surely not.
It’s a bad look.
The priest isn’t from that diocese so who knows what his bishop is doing
How fortunate for him!
Maybe he is the guilty one?
I do not understand the with holding of Sacraments as a form of punishment. I understand a Bishop may decide a person is in grave sin and cannot receive Holy Communion - but to deny all the nuns daily Mass and restrict the Sacrament of Reconciliation - and at the same time accuse of grave sin - which would mean a need for the Sacrament, not restriction. I'm not understanding the use of the Sacraments this way or how this is "accompanying" or "pastoral". Is there a canon lawyer explanation on the "right" to restrict the Sacraments?
I’m not a canon lawyer so I can’t explain. But I can quote:
Can. 843 §1. “Sacred ministers cannot deny the sacraments to those who seek them at appropriate times, are properly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them.”
Bishops. Sorry, I try to avoid language like that, but every now and then I slip up.
So we are expelling religious for alleged illicit sexual relationships? Where will this end?
With the end-of-career for any priest or nun Bishop Olson doesn’t like? It’s so easy to allege & expel… wheee!! No one above him seems to expect proof or due process, so the sky’s the limit now!
Happening in our diocese with a good and holy priest. Bishop- the last word! Only the Pope can change it.
So other than the title of the article, really nothing else reported in this article other than a recap of everything that has already been reported?
I alternate between thinking “yes we should know more to reduce scandal” and “this is none of our business, but we should let the bishop and nuns work it out with appeals etc”
It’s our business because vulnerable spiritual sisters (these Nuns) were being bullied behind closed doors & had no one to protect them. It’s our business because the needs of the vulnerable are always the business of those stronger and able to help.
I disagree of the use of the word bullying here. We have no evidence there was bullying. Using inflammatory words like this is not productive. If the nuns felt there was something going on there are things in place that they can do, as it seems they are doing with appealing to the pope.
A man yelling at a group of women is bullying in my book. The Nuns have said more than once they were yelled at and doors were slammed. They have also said M. Teresa Agnes was interrogated directly post-surgery while in severe pain. Perhaps we have different concepts of when & how it is appropriate to communicate. In my opinion yelling is to be reserved for life-threatening emergencies & post-surgical contact should be limited to whatever is nurturing and soothing. Even if the patient were the worst criminal. Hours of post-surgical interrogation is no way to treat a human being. As a mother, I am adamant about this. We give the BEST CARE to those who are weakest and most vulnerable. This is how the human family rolls & the Church family should be no different. Alleged crimes can be dealt with just as well after M. Teresa Agnes has had a good nap and a minute to get her bearings. She’s not going anywhere & the Bishop knows where to find her.
Robert look at the behavior and then tell me it is not bullying.
It’s possibly not. I don’t know all the details. So rather than use words like bullying I think we should all just wait. The sisters aren’t benefited by our posting things with vitriol online.
Odd she was dismissed not from her position as superior, but from religious life entirely for a sixth commandment violation. If she's repentant of the sin, wouldn't it make sense for her to stay and, maybe, live the rest of her life in prayer and penance? The bishop still cares for the disabled woman's soul, no?
In some cases, priests have been practically sent *into* religious life to atone for grievous sexual sins. For the sake of salus animarum and all that.
In his diocese, is Bp. Olson to dismiss every priest and religious found to have violated the sixth commandment?
So much is puzzling about this story. Prayers and sacrifices for all involved.
[Edit: I just emailed the diocese with a polite recommendation to let her remain a religious.]
Bless you for reaching out politely & respectfully to request this. It’s a good idea and I will do the same.
God bless you.
Let he or she without sin cast the first stone.
This whole thing stinks like a pile of rotten fish and the odor is coming from the Bishops office.
A wise friend of mine commented in another forum that the bishop's action reminded him of that of the mob in Saint John's Gospel for the woman caught in adultery.
Sure seems to be the case--and has been noted, the guilty man is absent and safely anonymous. Ordination has its privileges.
Not all ordained share such a privilege. “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others” (Animal Farm)
True. There is no shortage of ordained "white martyrs" in our time. But the disparity in treatment here is a bone in my throat.
It seems to me that the benefit of the doubt should be given the Bishop not the alleged perpetrator. No Bishop would undertake actions of this nature without grave reasons for doing so. I imagine there is an abundance of documentation that cannot be released. From what I have read, Bishop Olsen is a straight arrow on orthodoxy. As the Apostle of the local Church, he is bound by his office to act in the best interests of his flock. The public suit says all one needs to know about the motives of this convent. The public spectacle is a veiled attack on the Church and its governance. It is not of God.
If you want to ensure that you never serve on a criminal jury, keep that first sentence handy. You'll be booted for cause every time.
Lest we forget, Bernard Law, Fabian Bruskewitz and Robert Finn were each straight arrows in the quiver of orthodoxy. And each made dubious (understatement) decisions they deemed as in the best interests of their flocks as the apostolic successors in charge of said local churches.
No, it is incumbent on the bishop to be 100% transparent here. We're not an episcopal power cult. The episcopate maxxed out their benefit-of-the-doubt credit cards for lack of transparency and pure exercises of power back in 2002.
What does 100% transparency mean? Your notion of an “episcopal power cult” ignores common sense. One either believes in the authority given bishops for governance of the Church or one doesn’t. Citing the unfortunate misjudgment of some on issues of sexual abuse is an easy shot often promulgated by those who wish to disregard/discredit the more difficult teachings of the Church. Using it as a brush to color negatively the proper oversight of religious institutes by their bishops accommodates a culture already at odds with the Church. And, yes, I have already served on a jury of a criminal court as a Catholic. Further, I knew Bernard Law. He was a good man, and despite his errors in judgement, a faithful priest.
Then there's the matter of the valuable property held by the Carmelites: 20 million dollars worth.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/texas-bishop-accused-sick-nun-180215147.html
There we go!! Want an answer,follow the $$$$$$
Disgusting.