Looks like these nuns are toast now. I'd imagine that Olson could simply order them to withdraw the lawsuit and they'd have to obey?
Also, I'm wondering if the apparent contradiction to the canon law revisions could simply be explained away by saying that it's not the bishop who's being allowed to make the decisions here, but rather the Pontifical Commissary, who just happens to be the territorial bishop. Certainly not within the spirit of the law, but possibly technically within the bounds? Either way I doubt anyone in Rome is losing sleep over the inconsistency.
It should. I know that someone did observe that this may have originated because the Romans hate it whenever bishops are dragged to civil court by religious communities, and acted against them. Still, it feels like it'd be more reasonable for the metropolitan to intervene.
Not in the Church in today...remember the priests "cancelled" by their bishops?
We're not talking about sexual abusers, but priests that got cross ways with their bishops. Ninety nine.eight% of the time if a priest really angers his bishop (not all, but many) and the priest is going to lose.
With some bishops a priest doesn't even have to be "disobedient" according to what is defined as such in canon law.
Canon law can simply be ignored, made "malleable" or circumvented...it happens quite often.
According to the revisions of canon law made last year by Francis, a bishop cannot do what Bp. Olson did. But...he is appointed "pontifical commissary" and basically he can do whatever he likes. He's not functioning as the Ordinary but as "pontifical commissary."
And let's face facts, Rome has had the long practice of ignoring issues, taking forever to decide or process said issues and by doing so shows not compassion or charity to these seeking relief.
IMHO, Rome prefers to drag out resolution hoping tje situation will go away, those seeking relief would die or a new ruling/revision will be made to accommodate the one in power.
In example, the Vatican financial trial is just getting started after all these years.
Bishops are left in place when it has been proven they are incompetent, divisive or just plain mean.
Why did Rome not choose an OCD cleric or prioress as commissary, someone not tied to the situation?
Would it be wrong to say, Rome can do whatever Rome wants, there are enough creative men there to "fix" any situation.
While the nuns should not have filed a civil suit, I'm sure feeling backed into a corner and with some bad legal advice they did what they did.
But the bishop is going to deprive them of the Sacrament of Repentance and only allow Mass on Sundays?
There seems to be a key piece of information missing. It looks like a blatant conflict of interest to appointment Olson to this position. Surely there's more to this story... it would be so helpful to have insight from a diocesan source who can speak anonymously but candidly. Maybe we ask for Sr. Wilhelmina's intercession.
My sister in Christ, with all due charity, the bishop of this nation and around the world had no qualms about transferring child rapists from parish to parish so that they could abuse children for decades, until they got caught by the secular press. Is it really so hard to believe that a bishop would screw over some nuns for money and because his ego is bruised?
They do acknowledge his acts were unlawful, since they had to sanate them.
Seems the good ole boys club is still running smoothly. Rather than correct a bishop for overstepping, they just wave their canonical wand and retroactively make it all better. Justice for the sisters and an impartial mediator? "Ugh. That's too embarrassing to one of our own."
And it undermines the bishop in civil court with the million dollar lawsuit. If even the Vatican said he overstepped, then why wouldn't a civil court respect that decision? Of course, no US Court wants to get involved. But, "Well, we better be safe than sorry! Too bad sisters! Your canonical rights are too expensive!"
No a, civil court is not bound by an internal ecclesiastical decision. The nuns sued for conversion of their personal property. To prevail on conversion, the nuns must prove (i) the personal property belonged to them, (ii) the bishop took it from them without authority to do so and (iii) refused to return it on demand.
The first element is satisfied easily because the nuns, not the diocese, purchased the phone. The second element hinges on whether the bishop had authority, which explains why he hastily sought a letter from the Vatican after realizing his foolish mistake of acting like a tyrant and forcibly taking the phone from the nuns under various verbal threats. He'll also argue he had consent, which is why the mother superior was wise to file an affidavit explaining her consent was not voluntary. From a civil standpoint, his actions are a day late and he lacked a good faith basis to believe he could legally confiscate the phone.
The third element is easily established because the bishop held on to the phone for several weeks before returning it, and there is a legal argument that he still hasn't returned it because he downloaded all of the contents before returning it. So the nuns can easily win the conversion claim (and should) in front of a jury of civilians not Roman clerics.
By the way, conversion is an intentional tort, which means that the jury can award punitive damages to the nuns for the wrongful conduct of this tyrant. I'd pay $ to see this trial because the bishop will no doubt show up at the Tarrant County courthouse in his clerical garb with pectoral cross and zucchetto (he can't get his shepherd's crook through the security checkpoint) and will play the part of the pious cleric in a convincing fashion...until the testimony of his temper tantrum. Most jurors will be appalled by his bullying behavior, especially when they see the victim, a bedridden Carmelite nun with an IV drip in her arm. It's the modern day equivalent of a college football player assaulting his frail grandmother. It should be a large payout, which could be God's way of using irony to deliver the largest single contribution to this monastery ever, and from the man who intended to shut it down! Man plans and God laughs...
Supposedly the priest that was involved in this is not a priest in the diocese of Fort Worth and supposedly this took place over the phone with a person who is in ill health and was on heavy medication after a medical procedure.
With serenity I will ask St. John of the Cross to intercede in this increasingly confusing situation. He will know what to pray for, because I don't. (Well, I will also ask him to pray for final perseverance, for *me*, while I am asking for things. That's always a good one.)
Office of Readings for Thursday = highly recommend. Unless I have misplaced my ribbons and am praying the wrong thing (the funniest times are when I do that and it was what I ought to hear and then I realized the ribbon was in the wrong place, like, Lord, you are truly the lord even of my mistakes).
I'd be interested in hearing the bishop's side of the story. So much of his behavior in this matter looks unhinged and utterly unchristian. Coercing an admission of sin out of a heavily medicated lady? Publicizing someone's sin against the sixth commandment without good cause, and prior to a completed investigation? Seizing their property to "investigate" such sins? And wasn't it Pope Francis who taught that we shouldn't use the Eucharist as a stone to throw against sinners? And withholding confession from *all* the sisters until a lawsuit is withdrawn?
Surely I'm missing something. Maybe the sisters were running some big scheme and cheating the Church out of hundreds of millions of dollars. Oh wait...no, offenses like that take over three years to deal with.
Anyway, setting him as commissary--without any serious attempt to "set the record straight" about the above questions--makes the top look really rotten.
Somehow, some way, God will make this work for the good for those who love Him. Prayers for all involved. May His most glorious will be done.
As I’ve been saying on here and in comments, someone, either the Bishop himself or his comms team need to get out in front on this, because this has quickly turned into a PR disaster. Everything about this seems, as you say, unhinged and unchristian. I oddly hope there is more to this story that we don’t know... otherwise, the actions of the Bishop are just insane and all the crap he is getting (and will continue to get) are completely justified.
Frederick Faber has a great poem on the will of God. One part goes, "I love to see thee [i.e. God's will] bring to naught the plans of wily men. When simple hearts outwit the wise, oh thou art loveliest then."
"Surely I'm missing something...it can't be that the bishop knowingly covered for a child rapist for decades by moving him around and buying the silence of victims."
We're not missing anything. Remember that 8.3% of the Apostles betrayed Our Lord into the hands of his executioners for cash money and then committed suicide. Another 8.3% repeatedly denied him publicly, and the rest booked it at the first sign of trouble. Are our bishops holier and more faithful than the original Twelve?
If I'm not mistaken, wasn't Olson involved in some other "issue" not that many years ago?
He sounds to be - more than a bit - on the pompous side, impressed with what he perceives as his Episcopal Rights, completely ignoring or forgetting what the First Shepherd of the flock said of himself, "I have come not to be served, but to serve." If, indeed, there is an issue at stake here - involving any of the nuns of the monastery - there is a polite, private and very proper way to go about handling the matter, all while preserving the dignity of the community, diocese, and even the bishop. The "I'll show you" method he has chosen shows him only to be concerned with maintaining or establishing his authority and prerogatives. Does his background include any time serving in any Roman office, giving him contact and connections to people in powerful positions? Does the protocol number if the case indicate that he has "had it out" for this community for some time? The Dicastery for Consecrated Life would/should be there to protect any community from the aggressive action of anyone, especially a bishop, against a community in his diocese. Too many things, from the head down, stink in this matter!
Probably apples and oranges, and Idk who’s right or wrong, but I can’t help comparing the speed of this to something like the Stika situation. When does “Rome” *ever* respond this quickly? To anything…
"The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice. They bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger." - Matthew 23:2-4
Uncertain, though I imagine Our Lord meant it metaphorically, since multiple people cannot occupy a physical seat at the same time.
But regardless, Holy Mother Church teaches that every word of Sacred Scripture is divinely inspired and profitable for instruction in our own day and our own lives. Since there are no scribes and Pharisees around, but plenty of corrupt religious authorities who nonetheless possess true dignity of office (even as they abuse it), it seems safe to read the Scriptures as referring to these latter.
Power is what they are thinking, who has it and how it can be used.
Looks like these nuns are toast now. I'd imagine that Olson could simply order them to withdraw the lawsuit and they'd have to obey?
Also, I'm wondering if the apparent contradiction to the canon law revisions could simply be explained away by saying that it's not the bishop who's being allowed to make the decisions here, but rather the Pontifical Commissary, who just happens to be the territorial bishop. Certainly not within the spirit of the law, but possibly technically within the bounds? Either way I doubt anyone in Rome is losing sleep over the inconsistency.
I’m kind of at a loss for words on this one... and sadly, I’m rarely shocked by news in the Church.
I continue to be dismayed (though not shocked) how petty beauracrats seem to carry favor in Rome. This is simply sad.
How disappointing.
This is appalling. Doesn't justice demand someone *impartial* be appointed?
It should. I know that someone did observe that this may have originated because the Romans hate it whenever bishops are dragged to civil court by religious communities, and acted against them. Still, it feels like it'd be more reasonable for the metropolitan to intervene.
Not in the Church in today...remember the priests "cancelled" by their bishops?
We're not talking about sexual abusers, but priests that got cross ways with their bishops. Ninety nine.eight% of the time if a priest really angers his bishop (not all, but many) and the priest is going to lose.
With some bishops a priest doesn't even have to be "disobedient" according to what is defined as such in canon law.
Canon law can simply be ignored, made "malleable" or circumvented...it happens quite often.
According to the revisions of canon law made last year by Francis, a bishop cannot do what Bp. Olson did. But...he is appointed "pontifical commissary" and basically he can do whatever he likes. He's not functioning as the Ordinary but as "pontifical commissary."
And let's face facts, Rome has had the long practice of ignoring issues, taking forever to decide or process said issues and by doing so shows not compassion or charity to these seeking relief.
IMHO, Rome prefers to drag out resolution hoping tje situation will go away, those seeking relief would die or a new ruling/revision will be made to accommodate the one in power.
In example, the Vatican financial trial is just getting started after all these years.
Bishops are left in place when it has been proven they are incompetent, divisive or just plain mean.
Why did Rome not choose an OCD cleric or prioress as commissary, someone not tied to the situation?
Would it be wrong to say, Rome can do whatever Rome wants, there are enough creative men there to "fix" any situation.
While the nuns should not have filed a civil suit, I'm sure feeling backed into a corner and with some bad legal advice they did what they did.
But the bishop is going to deprive them of the Sacrament of Repentance and only allow Mass on Sundays?
Is the bishop going to "starve" them out?
Pathetic.
This really surprised me; and I agree it does not bode well for the sisters
There seems to be a key piece of information missing. It looks like a blatant conflict of interest to appointment Olson to this position. Surely there's more to this story... it would be so helpful to have insight from a diocesan source who can speak anonymously but candidly. Maybe we ask for Sr. Wilhelmina's intercession.
My sister in Christ, with all due charity, the bishop of this nation and around the world had no qualms about transferring child rapists from parish to parish so that they could abuse children for decades, until they got caught by the secular press. Is it really so hard to believe that a bishop would screw over some nuns for money and because his ego is bruised?
No, it's what I've come to expect.
Yes, we should pray.
But "candid", "transparent", "competent", and "compassionate" are all foreign words in these situations.
There is always some excuse (a few might be valid) not to share the whole story.
The laity and lower clergy do not have the right to the truth.
Cutting off the nuns from daily Mass and Confessions is out and out appalling.
Are they under some half baked form of interdict?
I've always known there is evil inside the church, plenty of it from me. But this is truly shocking and disconcerting.
They do acknowledge his acts were unlawful, since they had to sanate them.
Seems the good ole boys club is still running smoothly. Rather than correct a bishop for overstepping, they just wave their canonical wand and retroactively make it all better. Justice for the sisters and an impartial mediator? "Ugh. That's too embarrassing to one of our own."
And it undermines the bishop in civil court with the million dollar lawsuit. If even the Vatican said he overstepped, then why wouldn't a civil court respect that decision? Of course, no US Court wants to get involved. But, "Well, we better be safe than sorry! Too bad sisters! Your canonical rights are too expensive!"
Good point.
Doesn't sanation imply something was wrong, illicit or missing in an action?
I'd like to see what the magical canonical wand looks like.
Any canon lawyers out there want to weigh in on what sanation is? I've only heard of it in the context of marriages.
No a, civil court is not bound by an internal ecclesiastical decision. The nuns sued for conversion of their personal property. To prevail on conversion, the nuns must prove (i) the personal property belonged to them, (ii) the bishop took it from them without authority to do so and (iii) refused to return it on demand.
The first element is satisfied easily because the nuns, not the diocese, purchased the phone. The second element hinges on whether the bishop had authority, which explains why he hastily sought a letter from the Vatican after realizing his foolish mistake of acting like a tyrant and forcibly taking the phone from the nuns under various verbal threats. He'll also argue he had consent, which is why the mother superior was wise to file an affidavit explaining her consent was not voluntary. From a civil standpoint, his actions are a day late and he lacked a good faith basis to believe he could legally confiscate the phone.
The third element is easily established because the bishop held on to the phone for several weeks before returning it, and there is a legal argument that he still hasn't returned it because he downloaded all of the contents before returning it. So the nuns can easily win the conversion claim (and should) in front of a jury of civilians not Roman clerics.
By the way, conversion is an intentional tort, which means that the jury can award punitive damages to the nuns for the wrongful conduct of this tyrant. I'd pay $ to see this trial because the bishop will no doubt show up at the Tarrant County courthouse in his clerical garb with pectoral cross and zucchetto (he can't get his shepherd's crook through the security checkpoint) and will play the part of the pious cleric in a convincing fashion...until the testimony of his temper tantrum. Most jurors will be appalled by his bullying behavior, especially when they see the victim, a bedridden Carmelite nun with an IV drip in her arm. It's the modern day equivalent of a college football player assaulting his frail grandmother. It should be a large payout, which could be God's way of using irony to deliver the largest single contribution to this monastery ever, and from the man who intended to shut it down! Man plans and God laughs...
Where is the priest who supposedly took part in this? No Vos Estis for him? Is this not an abuse by him?
Supposedly the priest that was involved in this is not a priest in the diocese of Fort Worth and supposedly this took place over the phone with a person who is in ill health and was on heavy medication after a medical procedure.
I got so frustrated reading this that I actually forgot these details. Thank you for the reminder.
Vos Estis is only for select bishops. Priests, don't have the protection that Vos Estis offers.
With serenity I will ask St. John of the Cross to intercede in this increasingly confusing situation. He will know what to pray for, because I don't. (Well, I will also ask him to pray for final perseverance, for *me*, while I am asking for things. That's always a good one.)
Office of Readings for Thursday = highly recommend. Unless I have misplaced my ribbons and am praying the wrong thing (the funniest times are when I do that and it was what I ought to hear and then I realized the ribbon was in the wrong place, like, Lord, you are truly the lord even of my mistakes).
Unscheduled readings are the best!
I'd be interested in hearing the bishop's side of the story. So much of his behavior in this matter looks unhinged and utterly unchristian. Coercing an admission of sin out of a heavily medicated lady? Publicizing someone's sin against the sixth commandment without good cause, and prior to a completed investigation? Seizing their property to "investigate" such sins? And wasn't it Pope Francis who taught that we shouldn't use the Eucharist as a stone to throw against sinners? And withholding confession from *all* the sisters until a lawsuit is withdrawn?
Surely I'm missing something. Maybe the sisters were running some big scheme and cheating the Church out of hundreds of millions of dollars. Oh wait...no, offenses like that take over three years to deal with.
Anyway, setting him as commissary--without any serious attempt to "set the record straight" about the above questions--makes the top look really rotten.
Somehow, some way, God will make this work for the good for those who love Him. Prayers for all involved. May His most glorious will be done.
As I’ve been saying on here and in comments, someone, either the Bishop himself or his comms team need to get out in front on this, because this has quickly turned into a PR disaster. Everything about this seems, as you say, unhinged and unchristian. I oddly hope there is more to this story that we don’t know... otherwise, the actions of the Bishop are just insane and all the crap he is getting (and will continue to get) are completely justified.
Frederick Faber has a great poem on the will of God. One part goes, "I love to see thee [i.e. God's will] bring to naught the plans of wily men. When simple hearts outwit the wise, oh thou art loveliest then."
May we see that happen in this case.
Amen!
"Surely I'm missing something...it can't be that the bishop knowingly covered for a child rapist for decades by moving him around and buying the silence of victims."
We're not missing anything. Remember that 8.3% of the Apostles betrayed Our Lord into the hands of his executioners for cash money and then committed suicide. Another 8.3% repeatedly denied him publicly, and the rest booked it at the first sign of trouble. Are our bishops holier and more faithful than the original Twelve?
If I'm not mistaken, wasn't Olson involved in some other "issue" not that many years ago?
He sounds to be - more than a bit - on the pompous side, impressed with what he perceives as his Episcopal Rights, completely ignoring or forgetting what the First Shepherd of the flock said of himself, "I have come not to be served, but to serve." If, indeed, there is an issue at stake here - involving any of the nuns of the monastery - there is a polite, private and very proper way to go about handling the matter, all while preserving the dignity of the community, diocese, and even the bishop. The "I'll show you" method he has chosen shows him only to be concerned with maintaining or establishing his authority and prerogatives. Does his background include any time serving in any Roman office, giving him contact and connections to people in powerful positions? Does the protocol number if the case indicate that he has "had it out" for this community for some time? The Dicastery for Consecrated Life would/should be there to protect any community from the aggressive action of anyone, especially a bishop, against a community in his diocese. Too many things, from the head down, stink in this matter!
Probably apples and oranges, and Idk who’s right or wrong, but I can’t help comparing the speed of this to something like the Stika situation. When does “Rome” *ever* respond this quickly? To anything…
When they're protecting their friends.
"The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice. They bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger." - Matthew 23:2-4
Did Moses' seat look like a cathedra?
Uncertain, though I imagine Our Lord meant it metaphorically, since multiple people cannot occupy a physical seat at the same time.
But regardless, Holy Mother Church teaches that every word of Sacred Scripture is divinely inspired and profitable for instruction in our own day and our own lives. Since there are no scribes and Pharisees around, but plenty of corrupt religious authorities who nonetheless possess true dignity of office (even as they abuse it), it seems safe to read the Scriptures as referring to these latter.