I’m not sure what you mean about “inherent in the canonical process,” given that the process isn’t being followed. My main source of information about canon law is this site, so take this for what it’s worth, but the failure to actually use the law is intended seems like the more pervasive problem in the Church than the flaws in the law. And so it is in this case. But praise be to God for the Pillar to shed light on ugly situations like these.
On a serious note, this is a hard one. There has for several years been lots of talk among the Old Church Lady community about how controlling Bp. Olsen can be, but the Carmelites also inspire a weird kind of loyalty among the people who go to mass there all the time
There is a lot in this story that confuses me, but one question I have is this: Is it reasonable to believe that the bishop (whatever his motives or the justice of his conduct) would be doing all this to get a donor list? That seems pretty extreme.
It also wouldn't be a very useful list after he has become the enemy of everyone on the list.
I do not know this bishop, but I have known similar actions by bishops. They are not used to being told no. They consider canon law as something they can use to persecute, not something that can be used against them, so they have no interest in what the law actually says. The misuse of a canon that only applies to clerics against a religious sister is exactly the sort of thing I have seen. It is difficult to refute it because it looks like you are arguing for a technicality. They reach a certain point where it doesn't matter what the original issue even was. They will not be told what they can and cannot do. When anyone tries to defend themself, they are being "disobedient" and will even be accused of sinfulness.
We see this attitude again and again: Hoeppner and Stika are two clear examples. Religious authority has made them see their own selfishness as if it were a defense of the Church.
So it is not about the donor list. It may be about the fact that he asked for the donor list and was told no, and then decided that he would show them what it is like to tell a bishop no.
Father, this is an excellent summary of a very real situation. Bishops don't like to be told "no" and use canon law to dodge and weave, so much so that the original issue is buried. And, sadly, the Church supports that, either explicitly or implicitly, by canonical action that takes place thousands of miles away, under a cloak of secrecy and anonymity, and that takes so long that eventually people forget about it and the person or persons appealing are rendered impotent merely by the passage of time. One thing that, in my view, is clearly wrong here, is how the Diocese has made what should have been a confidential inquiry into a public scandal. Reputations are destroyed merely in the accusation. And once out there, it's difficult, if not impossible, to retract or restore.
It seems that, in light of the current scandals in the church, there is no place for confidential inquiry, and concern for damage to reputation of the innocent becomes impossible. But in contrast, concern for damaged reputations is what led to many of the cover ups in the past. What a dilemma.
Let us imagine that the accusation is true. An 80 year old nun, nearing death, delusional under drugs, confesses a sin and regret in her life that she had an impure telephone conversation with a priest. Definitely a sin! No investigation is necessary unless the diocese is suggesting that this was merely the tip of the iceberg or that the community has some serious structural problems. This is matter for Confession and repentance, not for news articles and diocesan investigations.
So true. But sadly, it's become the fodder for discussion even among us Pillar readers. Just hope it isn't an avenue to destroy this group of prayerful nuns. And it maybe gives us a bit of insite into the spiritual struggles of even cloistered nuns.
Yes, I suppose it is a dilemma. But I also believe that the claim of "transparency" is used when it is convenient. Secular communications teams call it "controlling the narrative." There is still respect for confidentiality and reputations when certain others are involved.
It would not be very useful for the *ordinary* purpose of a donor list - but it's also not very good to think about "what I could or would do with data from an information security breach" as a means of recreation (to think about it while doing my job, if infosec is part of my job, is another matter and so my reflex is "nah I could think of a use (so we do need to secure that)".)
Many bishops believe exactly that. And Rome too often supports that very notion. A bishop's judgment is generally held up as beyond question. So why wouldn't they rule like tyrants?
Sin is irrational because it is opposed to God. But also temptation presents a bad choice to us as a good (sometimes a "necessity" or a "lesser of two evils"). So on the one hand, we can't expect bad actions to make sense but on the other hand we can mostly expect bad choices to have appeared good to the person who made them. E.g. curiosity is a vice. It appears good to me to dig into news coverage and try to make sense of this by finding out information about the people and institutions involved. But really it is dumb for me to do that (it's not my job, I just want the feeling of power that comes from understanding something instead of the feeling of powerlessness and confusion that comes from only being able to pray; but reading more web pages will not make me powerful and will lead me away from turning to God), and in a different way it would be dumb for me to take things that don't belong to me in order to get information that I think will produce money or power but that would not actually produce money or power. I think commonly there is a daisy chain of bad choices that lead up to a choice that, if considered on its own, is obviously a bad idea, because the enemy engages in something akin to "grooming" and does not try to get people to leap directly to something obviously unreasonable. Whatever the reason, it will have been just as silly as getting a donor list and if the enemy is having a good day, then everyone involved will have made some errors (differing in quantity and kind and degree) in reaction to one another.
The nuns are being denied daily Mass and Communion? Much of this story (and thank you for diving in) is confusing and upsetting, but this fact seems the most egregious. How can a bishop deny the entire community access to the sacrament? This feels cruel and vengeful.
Did this group of Carmelites practice the original rule for Carmelites? Were they using Traditional Latin Mass or the original mass form of Carmelites? I've learned Carmelite orders aren't all on the same page, so to speak. There's a variety of "rules a convent/monastery might choose to live by. Some Bishops, also the Vatican will suppress the use of TLM by religious orders
Some bishops feel they can do whatever they want, with little impunity, care for the welfare of souls and total disregard of the theological virtue of charity.
From the little I know, Communion can be denied to "notorious public sinners" (everyone knows they are not in communion with the Church and their sin is "grave"), hence they cannot receive what makes them "in communion" with the Church.
"Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion." Canon 915
I don't think any of this applies to the nuns, certainly not the excommunication part, or "after imposing a penalty part."
It seems to me that Bp. Olson has "invented" a "quasi-interdict" by refusing the nuns access to confession (they're cloistered, they can't just hop in the car and go to the nearest parish church for confession) and restricting Mass only to Sundays.
The nuns probably shouldn't have sued the bishop in civil court but they are not, "obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin" except in the mind of the bishop. But different bishops have different ideas about what the canon means.
Archbishop Cordileone has inhibited Nancy Pelosi from receiving Holy Communion in her home diocese of San Francisco but Cardinal Gregory has not in his diocese while she is in DC.
Any canonists want to comment on the nun's situation, especially in light of Rome's making Bp. Olson the "pontifical/papal commissary."
This treatment pretty shocking even if the allegations the diocese is making were true.
I mean allegations of sexual misconduct among clerics and people in the religious life aren't actually unheard of nowadays. An aggressive and public investigation and accusation seems an extreme reaction to a situation like this where the worst thing being alleged is an improper relationship and not abuse of any kind.
If there were such a relationship, shouldn't intervening be done in a more delicate manner, both to find out if the alleged facts were true and to attempt to salvage the vocations of these people, if possible? What is the harm in proceeding gently?
Do not, I repeat, do not challenge the authority of some bishops…you will see all charity thrown out the window and the heavy weight of a crozier on your neck.
For now I refuse to get mad that a bishop is actually aggressively investigating a case of sexual misconduct, it's what I've been asking for since 2018. But hopefully the details what what they are accusing are clarified very soon, the lack of info made available to the nuns by the diocese seems untenable.
Why would we want bishops investigating things like this? At best it was a personal failing of a nun, at worst she is the victim of sexual abuse by a spiritual director. Nothing that has been spoken about could justify what is being done.
But what business does the bishop have investigating something that isn't actually criminal in a canonical or civil sense? If this did actually occur, then the person who needs to be charged is the priest, not the Mother Superior, and the diocese has already said they don't have jurisdiction over him. So what is he looking into then that requires this heavy handed behavior towards not just the Mother Superior, but her entire community?
Whether or not it is a crime depends on details not yet made public, actually. I don't know why they haven't been yet and I hope they are soon. That's what I just said upthread.
I’m 1000% in favor of aggressively investing (and prosecuting!) allegations of “grave sexual misconduct,” but it doesn’t sound like that is the case here. Let’s presume (for sake of argument) that the Mother Superior is in fact guilty of what she is accused of- having a sexual relationship with another priest. That’s not a civil or canonical crime- and clerics/religious violating both their vows and the 6th commandment is, sadly, not uncommon. Prosecuting and investigating such misdeeds is uncommon.
If Mother Superior was accused of sexually abuse- either of her fellow nuns or anyone!- then this would all seem reasonable. But the Bishops actions seem at the very least heavy handed.
The convent has simultaneously claimed that Mother Superior is accused of a sexual relationship with a priest and also that the details of the accusation have been withheld from them. It's impossible for them to both claim ignorance of the accusations details and ensure the world that the accusation isn't serious enough to warrant this response. Depending on what was done to cover it up, as well as if the priest was a vulnerable adult at the time, it's entirely possible this is all necessary. Which is why I would say it's best to withold judgement until more details are known. (And also why the diocese has some obligation to reveal those details)
I will ask the Little Flower to drop some roses on the monastery and ask her to beseech the Holy Spirit to drop some sense into the Bishop's head and heart. Seriously.
It’s just interesting, the priest in the case gets to be anonymous, as priests with consensual slip ups usually do. But the woman gets a press release naming her and her alleged sin. Fascinating.
I find some bothersome missing information from this story - how much of what the writer was told by the nuns' representatives is 'alleged' by the sisters, and how much of what the nuns claim has actually been affirmed by the Diocese? Usually news stories like this repeatedly state that what one side says happened is to have 'allegedly' occurred -- but I don't think this story has a single claim by the sisters to have an 'allegedly' attached to it. Their side is stated as fact - but is it? Did the writer confirm that's exactly how everything happened? If so, why doesn't the writer say he received confirmation from the Diocese?
"The news" is at its core just formalized and privileged gossip. Hearsay. It is always necessary to read, watch, and listen to it with several grains of salt. Important elements are *always* missing and some bias is inevitable. Perhaps the best we can do is to read widely, not only about the specific story but also about how contingent things develop elsewhere and have developed through history.
Amy, you made me re-read the article. I disagree with you. This article is written the way journalism should be. Allow me to explain what I mean by that:
1. I read facts - dates, times, etc.
2. I read what one side said
3. I read what the other side said
4. Everyone that needed to be attributed a comment were properly attributed. However there are some anonymous sources. Why were they anonymous? I don't need an explanation and trust the author with his reasons and discretion
5. I did read one "alleged" where the attorney was paraphrased and was not a direct quote
I'm wondering why the need to do the "politically correct" thing of using the "alleged" every other sentence. That is a PC tool to try to appear woke. It's boring to read and it's a tiresome tool to use.
6. Why is it that you believe it's the author's responsibility to figure all out?
7. I might have misread the article, but what the diocese said, was stated as fact.
Do you find the article biased in any way? If so, what is your basis for finding it biased?
Woke is slang derived from the past tense of "to wake up" (intransitive, i.e. "I woke up" and not "I woke him.up") so it's a verb that has been converted to an adjective. To the group that made this slang word, it is a positive term because it means "you are aware of and concerned about the socioeconomic things that I want you to be aware of and concerned about, and we probably like the same kinds of promises from the same party of politicians". It is a little bit like when people on the internet who are into sci fi movies start talking about some color of pills in the movie The Matrix (I forget which colors mean what). It is not much like when people who are into Buddhism talk about enlightenment (completely different really). Sometimes stodgy adults try to use recent slang to appeal to kids (or claim to like Rage Against the Machine without apparently reading any lyrics) ... accusing some for-profit concern (in the context above, a hypothetical newspaper that says "allegedly" a lot) of "appearing woke" basically means "I think you (the hypothetical newspaper) are embarrassing yourself by trying to look like a group you're not fully part of (in this case, whatever group is currently using the slang word "woke" in earnest), in order to get more customers". But, in the present context, with a side order of "the aims of that group are not fully aligned with my aims so now I don't like you for two reasons", I think. As a stodgy adult who avoids impersonating the young of either political party, I may be off the mark in some of this.
Thoroughly disgusting. Humans who have power over other humans are always tempted to ignore limits and exercise power that is not theirs. This is an ongoing danger in any organization, certainly not excepting the Church. To make it worse, we are living in a time when widespread authoritarianism is running wild. Bishop see, bishop do.
Canon Law requires that the "good name" of a person must be respected. The Bishop has clearly violated that requirement. Normally, the first stages of an investigation are conducted confidentially in order to protect the reputation of the accused. How will the Bishop ever restore the good reputation of the superior? and of the community? It seems that the Bishop is simply out of control.
Excellent point Fr Joe. But it seems more than one bishop has decided that such an important principle can regularly be ignored. And who holds them accountable?
Only God, on the Day of Judgement when all things will be revealed and when innocent "cancelled" clergy, religious and laity will be vindicated, all things being restored in Christ.
In the meantime, no human.
As wise and holy monastic said to me, "The greatest bloodless persecution of the Church is caused by her members, bishops and priests taking the lead."
As a.wise and holy monastic once said to me, "The greatest bloodless persecution of the Church is caused by her members, bishops and priests taking the lead."
Which came first, the public lawsuit brought by the monastery or the public statement made by the diocese? It wasn’t clear to me but sounded like the suit was filed first
Obviously there are a number of concerning points about this, but one I've not seen mentioned is that many of the comments from the Nun's lawyer (Bobo... a little on the nose, eh?) would make me distrust him in the court of public opinion (maybe slightly less than I'd trust the Bishop in this case). Offhand comments about the donor list and liturgical/traditionalist repression just don't sit well.
While they might not sit well with you there is truth there at least regarding the liturgical customs of the monastery, these have been a source of contention even before TC.
As far as donor lists go that might be an overeach.
Mr. Bobo, aside from ridiculing his name, has an excellent record in Tarrant County (Basically the FW metro area). He is known for doing right by his clients and you'd want him on your side in litigation...despite what you think of his name that is.
You can believe *all sorts of things* under the influence of medications. I'd believed that I was starring on Broadway and that I had to get to the theater or I'd be fired. I thought I was a professional fisherman. You cannot take what is said under the influence of these medications seriously, full stop.
I’m not sure what you mean about “inherent in the canonical process,” given that the process isn’t being followed. My main source of information about canon law is this site, so take this for what it’s worth, but the failure to actually use the law is intended seems like the more pervasive problem in the Church than the flaws in the law. And so it is in this case. But praise be to God for the Pillar to shed light on ugly situations like these.
love to see my hometown in the news, this is great
On a serious note, this is a hard one. There has for several years been lots of talk among the Old Church Lady community about how controlling Bp. Olsen can be, but the Carmelites also inspire a weird kind of loyalty among the people who go to mass there all the time
Why would you say that their Carmelite loyalty is "weird"? Just wondering. . .
when someone defends a community or person unquestioningly as if there is no possible way they can do wrong, it raises eyebrows.
Not necessarily.
This is such a strange story. Thank you for clearing it up (as much as it could be).
There is a lot in this story that confuses me, but one question I have is this: Is it reasonable to believe that the bishop (whatever his motives or the justice of his conduct) would be doing all this to get a donor list? That seems pretty extreme.
It also wouldn't be a very useful list after he has become the enemy of everyone on the list.
I do not know this bishop, but I have known similar actions by bishops. They are not used to being told no. They consider canon law as something they can use to persecute, not something that can be used against them, so they have no interest in what the law actually says. The misuse of a canon that only applies to clerics against a religious sister is exactly the sort of thing I have seen. It is difficult to refute it because it looks like you are arguing for a technicality. They reach a certain point where it doesn't matter what the original issue even was. They will not be told what they can and cannot do. When anyone tries to defend themself, they are being "disobedient" and will even be accused of sinfulness.
We see this attitude again and again: Hoeppner and Stika are two clear examples. Religious authority has made them see their own selfishness as if it were a defense of the Church.
So it is not about the donor list. It may be about the fact that he asked for the donor list and was told no, and then decided that he would show them what it is like to tell a bishop no.
Father, this is an excellent summary of a very real situation. Bishops don't like to be told "no" and use canon law to dodge and weave, so much so that the original issue is buried. And, sadly, the Church supports that, either explicitly or implicitly, by canonical action that takes place thousands of miles away, under a cloak of secrecy and anonymity, and that takes so long that eventually people forget about it and the person or persons appealing are rendered impotent merely by the passage of time. One thing that, in my view, is clearly wrong here, is how the Diocese has made what should have been a confidential inquiry into a public scandal. Reputations are destroyed merely in the accusation. And once out there, it's difficult, if not impossible, to retract or restore.
It seems that, in light of the current scandals in the church, there is no place for confidential inquiry, and concern for damage to reputation of the innocent becomes impossible. But in contrast, concern for damaged reputations is what led to many of the cover ups in the past. What a dilemma.
Let us imagine that the accusation is true. An 80 year old nun, nearing death, delusional under drugs, confesses a sin and regret in her life that she had an impure telephone conversation with a priest. Definitely a sin! No investigation is necessary unless the diocese is suggesting that this was merely the tip of the iceberg or that the community has some serious structural problems. This is matter for Confession and repentance, not for news articles and diocesan investigations.
So true. But sadly, it's become the fodder for discussion even among us Pillar readers. Just hope it isn't an avenue to destroy this group of prayerful nuns. And it maybe gives us a bit of insite into the spiritual struggles of even cloistered nuns.
I don't know where I read that she was older, but I finally found a source that says she is 45.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12125495/Texas-Mother-Superior-slams-bishops-claim-violated-vow-chastity.html
This doesn't change what I have said here, but I wanted to correct the error.
Yes, I suppose it is a dilemma. But I also believe that the claim of "transparency" is used when it is convenient. Secular communications teams call it "controlling the narrative." There is still respect for confidentiality and reputations when certain others are involved.
It would not be very useful for the *ordinary* purpose of a donor list - but it's also not very good to think about "what I could or would do with data from an information security breach" as a means of recreation (to think about it while doing my job, if infosec is part of my job, is another matter and so my reflex is "nah I could think of a use (so we do need to secure that)".)
Or Father, would it be that some bishops simply believe their power is above and beyond canon law?
Many bishops believe exactly that. And Rome too often supports that very notion. A bishop's judgment is generally held up as beyond question. So why wouldn't they rule like tyrants?
Sin is irrational because it is opposed to God. But also temptation presents a bad choice to us as a good (sometimes a "necessity" or a "lesser of two evils"). So on the one hand, we can't expect bad actions to make sense but on the other hand we can mostly expect bad choices to have appeared good to the person who made them. E.g. curiosity is a vice. It appears good to me to dig into news coverage and try to make sense of this by finding out information about the people and institutions involved. But really it is dumb for me to do that (it's not my job, I just want the feeling of power that comes from understanding something instead of the feeling of powerlessness and confusion that comes from only being able to pray; but reading more web pages will not make me powerful and will lead me away from turning to God), and in a different way it would be dumb for me to take things that don't belong to me in order to get information that I think will produce money or power but that would not actually produce money or power. I think commonly there is a daisy chain of bad choices that lead up to a choice that, if considered on its own, is obviously a bad idea, because the enemy engages in something akin to "grooming" and does not try to get people to leap directly to something obviously unreasonable. Whatever the reason, it will have been just as silly as getting a donor list and if the enemy is having a good day, then everyone involved will have made some errors (differing in quantity and kind and degree) in reaction to one another.
Good words Bridget. Makes me see the need to pray for the Religious. Also pray that reporting like this illuminates instead of confusing the issue.
The nuns are being denied daily Mass and Communion? Much of this story (and thank you for diving in) is confusing and upsetting, but this fact seems the most egregious. How can a bishop deny the entire community access to the sacrament? This feels cruel and vengeful.
Did this group of Carmelites practice the original rule for Carmelites? Were they using Traditional Latin Mass or the original mass form of Carmelites? I've learned Carmelite orders aren't all on the same page, so to speak. There's a variety of "rules a convent/monastery might choose to live by. Some Bishops, also the Vatican will suppress the use of TLM by religious orders
No these are the Discalced Carmel that follow St. Teresa & St. John Delacruz. The OCD friars in Dallas nearby use the Novus Ordo.
Some bishops feel they can do whatever they want, with little impunity, care for the welfare of souls and total disregard of the theological virtue of charity.
I thought the Church was not supposed to deny communion...at least that's what I hear in regard to politicians who support the Culture of Death.
From the little I know, Communion can be denied to "notorious public sinners" (everyone knows they are not in communion with the Church and their sin is "grave"), hence they cannot receive what makes them "in communion" with the Church.
"Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion." Canon 915
I don't think any of this applies to the nuns, certainly not the excommunication part, or "after imposing a penalty part."
It seems to me that Bp. Olson has "invented" a "quasi-interdict" by refusing the nuns access to confession (they're cloistered, they can't just hop in the car and go to the nearest parish church for confession) and restricting Mass only to Sundays.
The nuns probably shouldn't have sued the bishop in civil court but they are not, "obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin" except in the mind of the bishop. But different bishops have different ideas about what the canon means.
Archbishop Cordileone has inhibited Nancy Pelosi from receiving Holy Communion in her home diocese of San Francisco but Cardinal Gregory has not in his diocese while she is in DC.
Any canonists want to comment on the nun's situation, especially in light of Rome's making Bp. Olson the "pontifical/papal commissary."
And bishops wonder why nobody trusts them...
This treatment pretty shocking even if the allegations the diocese is making were true.
I mean allegations of sexual misconduct among clerics and people in the religious life aren't actually unheard of nowadays. An aggressive and public investigation and accusation seems an extreme reaction to a situation like this where the worst thing being alleged is an improper relationship and not abuse of any kind.
If there were such a relationship, shouldn't intervening be done in a more delicate manner, both to find out if the alleged facts were true and to attempt to salvage the vocations of these people, if possible? What is the harm in proceeding gently?
Do not, I repeat, do not challenge the authority of some bishops…you will see all charity thrown out the window and the heavy weight of a crozier on your neck.
For now I refuse to get mad that a bishop is actually aggressively investigating a case of sexual misconduct, it's what I've been asking for since 2018. But hopefully the details what what they are accusing are clarified very soon, the lack of info made available to the nuns by the diocese seems untenable.
Why would we want bishops investigating things like this? At best it was a personal failing of a nun, at worst she is the victim of sexual abuse by a spiritual director. Nothing that has been spoken about could justify what is being done.
We don't know who is guilty of what, that's why investigations are a thing. Lets just hope the resolution is as public as the initial outcry.
But what business does the bishop have investigating something that isn't actually criminal in a canonical or civil sense? If this did actually occur, then the person who needs to be charged is the priest, not the Mother Superior, and the diocese has already said they don't have jurisdiction over him. So what is he looking into then that requires this heavy handed behavior towards not just the Mother Superior, but her entire community?
Whether or not it is a crime depends on details not yet made public, actually. I don't know why they haven't been yet and I hope they are soon. That's what I just said upthread.
I’m 1000% in favor of aggressively investing (and prosecuting!) allegations of “grave sexual misconduct,” but it doesn’t sound like that is the case here. Let’s presume (for sake of argument) that the Mother Superior is in fact guilty of what she is accused of- having a sexual relationship with another priest. That’s not a civil or canonical crime- and clerics/religious violating both their vows and the 6th commandment is, sadly, not uncommon. Prosecuting and investigating such misdeeds is uncommon.
If Mother Superior was accused of sexually abuse- either of her fellow nuns or anyone!- then this would all seem reasonable. But the Bishops actions seem at the very least heavy handed.
The convent has simultaneously claimed that Mother Superior is accused of a sexual relationship with a priest and also that the details of the accusation have been withheld from them. It's impossible for them to both claim ignorance of the accusations details and ensure the world that the accusation isn't serious enough to warrant this response. Depending on what was done to cover it up, as well as if the priest was a vulnerable adult at the time, it's entirely possible this is all necessary. Which is why I would say it's best to withold judgement until more details are known. (And also why the diocese has some obligation to reveal those details)
Absolutely!
Amen, Father, Amen!!!
alleged "sexual misconduct".
I will ask St. John of the Cross to pray for the situation.
I will ask the Little Flower to drop some roses on the monastery and ask her to beseech the Holy Spirit to drop some sense into the Bishop's head and heart. Seriously.
It’s just interesting, the priest in the case gets to be anonymous, as priests with consensual slip ups usually do. But the woman gets a press release naming her and her alleged sin. Fascinating.
In this case the woman immediately filed a public lawsuit and her lawyer spoke to the press.
Like our mothers always said...it takes two to tango.
If in fact there was a "tango."
I find some bothersome missing information from this story - how much of what the writer was told by the nuns' representatives is 'alleged' by the sisters, and how much of what the nuns claim has actually been affirmed by the Diocese? Usually news stories like this repeatedly state that what one side says happened is to have 'allegedly' occurred -- but I don't think this story has a single claim by the sisters to have an 'allegedly' attached to it. Their side is stated as fact - but is it? Did the writer confirm that's exactly how everything happened? If so, why doesn't the writer say he received confirmation from the Diocese?
"The news" is at its core just formalized and privileged gossip. Hearsay. It is always necessary to read, watch, and listen to it with several grains of salt. Important elements are *always* missing and some bias is inevitable. Perhaps the best we can do is to read widely, not only about the specific story but also about how contingent things develop elsewhere and have developed through history.
Amy, I appreciate the feedback. Could you give me an example of what you’re getting at so I can address your question?
Amy, you made me re-read the article. I disagree with you. This article is written the way journalism should be. Allow me to explain what I mean by that:
1. I read facts - dates, times, etc.
2. I read what one side said
3. I read what the other side said
4. Everyone that needed to be attributed a comment were properly attributed. However there are some anonymous sources. Why were they anonymous? I don't need an explanation and trust the author with his reasons and discretion
5. I did read one "alleged" where the attorney was paraphrased and was not a direct quote
I'm wondering why the need to do the "politically correct" thing of using the "alleged" every other sentence. That is a PC tool to try to appear woke. It's boring to read and it's a tiresome tool to use.
6. Why is it that you believe it's the author's responsibility to figure all out?
7. I might have misread the article, but what the diocese said, was stated as fact.
Do you find the article biased in any way? If so, what is your basis for finding it biased?
What’s “appearing woke”?
Woke is slang derived from the past tense of "to wake up" (intransitive, i.e. "I woke up" and not "I woke him.up") so it's a verb that has been converted to an adjective. To the group that made this slang word, it is a positive term because it means "you are aware of and concerned about the socioeconomic things that I want you to be aware of and concerned about, and we probably like the same kinds of promises from the same party of politicians". It is a little bit like when people on the internet who are into sci fi movies start talking about some color of pills in the movie The Matrix (I forget which colors mean what). It is not much like when people who are into Buddhism talk about enlightenment (completely different really). Sometimes stodgy adults try to use recent slang to appeal to kids (or claim to like Rage Against the Machine without apparently reading any lyrics) ... accusing some for-profit concern (in the context above, a hypothetical newspaper that says "allegedly" a lot) of "appearing woke" basically means "I think you (the hypothetical newspaper) are embarrassing yourself by trying to look like a group you're not fully part of (in this case, whatever group is currently using the slang word "woke" in earnest), in order to get more customers". But, in the present context, with a side order of "the aims of that group are not fully aligned with my aims so now I don't like you for two reasons", I think. As a stodgy adult who avoids impersonating the young of either political party, I may be off the mark in some of this.
TY. It is clearly a pejorative and an insult.
Thoroughly disgusting. Humans who have power over other humans are always tempted to ignore limits and exercise power that is not theirs. This is an ongoing danger in any organization, certainly not excepting the Church. To make it worse, we are living in a time when widespread authoritarianism is running wild. Bishop see, bishop do.
This is bonkers. I'm completely riveted by the drama. Soap operas don't have this level of melodrama!
Remember to avoid malicious delictation.
Canon Law requires that the "good name" of a person must be respected. The Bishop has clearly violated that requirement. Normally, the first stages of an investigation are conducted confidentially in order to protect the reputation of the accused. How will the Bishop ever restore the good reputation of the superior? and of the community? It seems that the Bishop is simply out of control.
Excellent point Fr Joe. But it seems more than one bishop has decided that such an important principle can regularly be ignored. And who holds them accountable?
Only God, on the Day of Judgement when all things will be revealed and when innocent "cancelled" clergy, religious and laity will be vindicated, all things being restored in Christ.
In the meantime, no human.
As wise and holy monastic said to me, "The greatest bloodless persecution of the Church is caused by her members, bishops and priests taking the lead."
As a.wise and holy monastic once said to me, "The greatest bloodless persecution of the Church is caused by her members, bishops and priests taking the lead."
Which came first, the public lawsuit brought by the monastery or the public statement made by the diocese? It wasn’t clear to me but sounded like the suit was filed first
Obviously there are a number of concerning points about this, but one I've not seen mentioned is that many of the comments from the Nun's lawyer (Bobo... a little on the nose, eh?) would make me distrust him in the court of public opinion (maybe slightly less than I'd trust the Bishop in this case). Offhand comments about the donor list and liturgical/traditionalist repression just don't sit well.
While they might not sit well with you there is truth there at least regarding the liturgical customs of the monastery, these have been a source of contention even before TC.
As far as donor lists go that might be an overeach.
Mr. Bobo, aside from ridiculing his name, has an excellent record in Tarrant County (Basically the FW metro area). He is known for doing right by his clients and you'd want him on your side in litigation...despite what you think of his name that is.
I'm sure he's a great guy and good lawyer. I just know I would not want my legal counsel making off the cuff remarks like this.
Okay, makes sense
You can believe *all sorts of things* under the influence of medications. I'd believed that I was starring on Broadway and that I had to get to the theater or I'd be fired. I thought I was a professional fisherman. You cannot take what is said under the influence of these medications seriously, full stop.