I appreciate the update. I hope there is more clarity regarding this case in the near future. I’ve attached this link only because it describes the replacement of Archbishop Jose Rodríguez Carballo.
I do take issue with the reporting, here and elsewhere, that Mother Gerlach “admitted” to some sin against the sixth commandment. She is the one who reported it and it troubles me that she is accused of deception.
I would like to know from a canonist whether the sisters should have expected to be consulted (they say no one talked to them) and whether the oversight by the federation is as damning as the Sisters seem to fear. The bishop, as usual, seems to be most concerned about who is in charge and who is not.
I get that they don't like their bishop (and vice versa), but they also don't like their own association that they belong to? When the decree came out I thought "oh good, they will be willing to talk to other nuns in their order that they have a pre-existing relationship with" but evidently I was wrong.
I would think of a penance to do on their behalf but God has reminded me that it would be better to start with "doing the things I am supposed to do" before tacking on something else of my own choosing (fair cop). ... ah! I'll ask Bl. Teresa Maria of the Cross Manetti to pray for them (as the thing I was supposed to do right now is pray office of readings for tomorrow.)
Having lost the trust in both the local bishop (who, the Vatican confirmed, did act unlawfully though those actions were 'cleansed') and in the dicastery (because they cleansed the bishop's unlawful actions), it is unsurprising that they don't trust the dicastery appointing anyone external to govern them. A little common sense here wouldn't hurt. While their petitions and appeals are pending, the Pope could always appoint another sister from within the community itself to govern them. Let the canonical proceedings resolve, and then figure out how to resolve their status. If it's not about getting their money or forcing compliance immediately, a little patience and indulgence might go a long way. Think Traditiones, Louisiana Deacon, etc... Isn't that the running theme in so many stories in the church today?
So much dysfunction. A priest friend says, "Nuns are like bees. Leave them alone and they will make honey. Mess with them and they will sting you." The bishop had definetely been stung. But the BIshop's original canonical case was poorly conceived. Hopefully, he's fired his canonical advisor (although I think the bishop has a degree in canon law). No one is coming out of this looking great.
Teresa of Avila was careful in establishing her reform. She wanted small monasteries, originally twelve sisters although later she got to twenty-one. She wanted to re-establish the contemplative tradition in her Order, which had become obscured; so she legislated two hour-long periods of quiet prayer, in common in choir, and a simpler rendition of the Divine Office than was customary at the time. The sisters ideally would have simple tasks for their work which they could perform in their cells or at least in solitude. Each monastery was to be independent, governed by the prioress and her council, although there would be periodic visitations during which each sister would be asked by the Visitor about the state of the monastery and its observance.
I think it is natural for the Carmelite nuns to want to use the traditional breviary and missal that Teresa and John of the Cross used, and to want to observe the Rule that Teresa left for them. They are, after all, contemplatives, and the fuller, richer Divine Office of the traditional Carmelite Rite is their heritage. I was privileged to offer Mass each day for a local group of Carmelite nuns, and happily acceded to their request for the Traditional Mass and the feasts of the Carmelite saints. My practice when being invited in to serve a Religious community is to take my instructions from the Mother; I am there to serve them, not dictate their observance.
The “Federation of Carmelite Monasteries” is a sore point with some contemplatives. Teresa’s legislation provided for autonomous monasteries. Federation gatherings involving travel, and endless discussions that might infringe upon the autonomous governance of the monastery, seem to at least some of the nuns to be foreign to their vocation and way of life.
And this pontificate is obviously hostile to traditionalists, in complete contradiction of the previous Pope. Add to this the perception that this is not a particularly good time to be a contemplative community in the Church, and it’s no surprise that we have a volatile situation. The Holy See’s letter to the Bishop commiserates with him on the ‘thankless task’ he had as convent commissary and the bad publicity he garnered — but note that when appointing him commissary the Holy See SANATED the previous actions of the Bishop, thereby healing and approving any overreach on his part. Interesting that they found that necessary.
The nuns are perhaps like the rest of us. Nobody likes to be bullied.
This is such a tough situation. It's hard to argue the sisters haven't become a law unto themselves, which is incompatible with the religious life. For those who want to stamp out trads or lean towards ultramontanism it's easy to stop there.
However, it's also impossible to ignore the bishop's heavy hand and the Vatican sanating and even applauding it. Yes the bishop has lawful oversight, but religious houses have traditionally been self governed. A bishop exercising his authority over a religious house should do so with the proper respect to its nature. In modern times we tend to clericalize all religious, and so we think of nuns and monks just like secular priests who make a promise of obedience to their bishop. But this is a distortion. Nuns and Monks take vows of obedience but not (directly) to the local bishop. This obedience is focused on the Rule and the prior - not the bishop.
To those who only care about "do what you're told" these things don't matter. But it is exactly this sort of abuse of power that destroys religious life. Whether these nuns are in the wrong is one thing. Whether religious life can flourish under a bishop like Olsen or a Vatican operating in this manner is another thing.
I would have thought Rome would send visitators (including a canonist familiar with the canons and particular law on OCD cloistered religious life) from the Federation or other religious to investigate and speak to the nuns as well as the bishop.
As it is, the bishop being made, "commissary" only made the situation worse.
Where was "pastoral" and "transparent" in this action?
Part of the problem is that the Dicastery for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life simply issued a blunt letter siding with the bishop and putting the convent under the control of the Association of Christ the King without any explanation. One would that a decent respect for those involved as well as the general public calls for a careful description of the evidence and reasoning that was the basis for this conclusion and such a drastic move. However, that Dicastery, as is common in the Church, seems to think that the public should simply take it on blind trust that its conclusions are reasonable and just. If that Dicastery, or the Vatican in general, thinks that they command such complete and unquestioning trust, they should know that that ship (if it ever existed) sailed a long time ago and is in a far distant harbor.
Is there already secular legal precedent for essentially one part of the Church asking the government to correct another part of the Church, or would the community’s pursuit of a civil case create a potentially dangerous new feature of the secular v Church religious landscape?
Their monastery is on a 56 acre tract of extremely valuable undeveloped land surrounded by residential and mixed use properties. Can someone look into the pay off for the diocese in the attempt to evict this community? What is the land worth? And why would a Diocese allegedly need that big chunk of cash? If not cash, what do they hope to put there?
It might appear that this is a blatant exercise of CLERICALISM! Women again abused and overridden by male clergy. Will we as church EVER move beyond this. It is a scourge on society but on women religious in particular. An Apostolic “ visitor” sent out to check on women’s religious financial status at a time when the abuse situation was at its height and dioceses could not cover abuse payments! Do they think we are all stupid? Just because these women wear a habit doesn’t mean they left their brain at the door of the cloister. Canon law and Bishops in general need a re- do. I encourage all to pray for these brave women and for the male dominated clergy that they may begin to act as Jesus. Imbued with LOVE not LAW
Are they on their way to the SSPX?
https://aleteia.org/2023/10/08/pope-appoints-nun-as-no-2-of-dicastery-for-consecrated-life/
I appreciate the update. I hope there is more clarity regarding this case in the near future. I’ve attached this link only because it describes the replacement of Archbishop Jose Rodríguez Carballo.
I do take issue with the reporting, here and elsewhere, that Mother Gerlach “admitted” to some sin against the sixth commandment. She is the one who reported it and it troubles me that she is accused of deception.
I would like to know from a canonist whether the sisters should have expected to be consulted (they say no one talked to them) and whether the oversight by the federation is as damning as the Sisters seem to fear. The bishop, as usual, seems to be most concerned about who is in charge and who is not.
Can we say now it seems the nuns are the ones acting in bad faith?
I get that they don't like their bishop (and vice versa), but they also don't like their own association that they belong to? When the decree came out I thought "oh good, they will be willing to talk to other nuns in their order that they have a pre-existing relationship with" but evidently I was wrong.
I would think of a penance to do on their behalf but God has reminded me that it would be better to start with "doing the things I am supposed to do" before tacking on something else of my own choosing (fair cop). ... ah! I'll ask Bl. Teresa Maria of the Cross Manetti to pray for them (as the thing I was supposed to do right now is pray office of readings for tomorrow.)
Having lost the trust in both the local bishop (who, the Vatican confirmed, did act unlawfully though those actions were 'cleansed') and in the dicastery (because they cleansed the bishop's unlawful actions), it is unsurprising that they don't trust the dicastery appointing anyone external to govern them. A little common sense here wouldn't hurt. While their petitions and appeals are pending, the Pope could always appoint another sister from within the community itself to govern them. Let the canonical proceedings resolve, and then figure out how to resolve their status. If it's not about getting their money or forcing compliance immediately, a little patience and indulgence might go a long way. Think Traditiones, Louisiana Deacon, etc... Isn't that the running theme in so many stories in the church today?
So much dysfunction. A priest friend says, "Nuns are like bees. Leave them alone and they will make honey. Mess with them and they will sting you." The bishop had definetely been stung. But the BIshop's original canonical case was poorly conceived. Hopefully, he's fired his canonical advisor (although I think the bishop has a degree in canon law). No one is coming out of this looking great.
Teresa of Avila was careful in establishing her reform. She wanted small monasteries, originally twelve sisters although later she got to twenty-one. She wanted to re-establish the contemplative tradition in her Order, which had become obscured; so she legislated two hour-long periods of quiet prayer, in common in choir, and a simpler rendition of the Divine Office than was customary at the time. The sisters ideally would have simple tasks for their work which they could perform in their cells or at least in solitude. Each monastery was to be independent, governed by the prioress and her council, although there would be periodic visitations during which each sister would be asked by the Visitor about the state of the monastery and its observance.
I think it is natural for the Carmelite nuns to want to use the traditional breviary and missal that Teresa and John of the Cross used, and to want to observe the Rule that Teresa left for them. They are, after all, contemplatives, and the fuller, richer Divine Office of the traditional Carmelite Rite is their heritage. I was privileged to offer Mass each day for a local group of Carmelite nuns, and happily acceded to their request for the Traditional Mass and the feasts of the Carmelite saints. My practice when being invited in to serve a Religious community is to take my instructions from the Mother; I am there to serve them, not dictate their observance.
The “Federation of Carmelite Monasteries” is a sore point with some contemplatives. Teresa’s legislation provided for autonomous monasteries. Federation gatherings involving travel, and endless discussions that might infringe upon the autonomous governance of the monastery, seem to at least some of the nuns to be foreign to their vocation and way of life.
And this pontificate is obviously hostile to traditionalists, in complete contradiction of the previous Pope. Add to this the perception that this is not a particularly good time to be a contemplative community in the Church, and it’s no surprise that we have a volatile situation. The Holy See’s letter to the Bishop commiserates with him on the ‘thankless task’ he had as convent commissary and the bad publicity he garnered — but note that when appointing him commissary the Holy See SANATED the previous actions of the Bishop, thereby healing and approving any overreach on his part. Interesting that they found that necessary.
The nuns are perhaps like the rest of us. Nobody likes to be bullied.
Obedience is so old fashioned.
This is such a tough situation. It's hard to argue the sisters haven't become a law unto themselves, which is incompatible with the religious life. For those who want to stamp out trads or lean towards ultramontanism it's easy to stop there.
However, it's also impossible to ignore the bishop's heavy hand and the Vatican sanating and even applauding it. Yes the bishop has lawful oversight, but religious houses have traditionally been self governed. A bishop exercising his authority over a religious house should do so with the proper respect to its nature. In modern times we tend to clericalize all religious, and so we think of nuns and monks just like secular priests who make a promise of obedience to their bishop. But this is a distortion. Nuns and Monks take vows of obedience but not (directly) to the local bishop. This obedience is focused on the Rule and the prior - not the bishop.
To those who only care about "do what you're told" these things don't matter. But it is exactly this sort of abuse of power that destroys religious life. Whether these nuns are in the wrong is one thing. Whether religious life can flourish under a bishop like Olsen or a Vatican operating in this manner is another thing.
What a mess.
What's missing here is the story beyond the public statements. The statements alone are simply "he said" versus "she said".
This is all so complicated and convoluted.
I would have thought Rome would send visitators (including a canonist familiar with the canons and particular law on OCD cloistered religious life) from the Federation or other religious to investigate and speak to the nuns as well as the bishop.
As it is, the bishop being made, "commissary" only made the situation worse.
Where was "pastoral" and "transparent" in this action?
Part of the problem is that the Dicastery for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life simply issued a blunt letter siding with the bishop and putting the convent under the control of the Association of Christ the King without any explanation. One would that a decent respect for those involved as well as the general public calls for a careful description of the evidence and reasoning that was the basis for this conclusion and such a drastic move. However, that Dicastery, as is common in the Church, seems to think that the public should simply take it on blind trust that its conclusions are reasonable and just. If that Dicastery, or the Vatican in general, thinks that they command such complete and unquestioning trust, they should know that that ship (if it ever existed) sailed a long time ago and is in a far distant harbor.
Is there already secular legal precedent for essentially one part of the Church asking the government to correct another part of the Church, or would the community’s pursuit of a civil case create a potentially dangerous new feature of the secular v Church religious landscape?
Their monastery is on a 56 acre tract of extremely valuable undeveloped land surrounded by residential and mixed use properties. Can someone look into the pay off for the diocese in the attempt to evict this community? What is the land worth? And why would a Diocese allegedly need that big chunk of cash? If not cash, what do they hope to put there?
It might appear that this is a blatant exercise of CLERICALISM! Women again abused and overridden by male clergy. Will we as church EVER move beyond this. It is a scourge on society but on women religious in particular. An Apostolic “ visitor” sent out to check on women’s religious financial status at a time when the abuse situation was at its height and dioceses could not cover abuse payments! Do they think we are all stupid? Just because these women wear a habit doesn’t mean they left their brain at the door of the cloister. Canon law and Bishops in general need a re- do. I encourage all to pray for these brave women and for the male dominated clergy that they may begin to act as Jesus. Imbued with LOVE not LAW