I’ve just resigned myself to not care about this story until Hollywood makes a dark comedy satire about the ridiculously escalating tensions in this case.
I mean this whole situation has just been people responding to massively bad actions with ”massiver, badder” actions until they all look like fools and reinforce every stereotype of corrupt clergy and fanatical religious.
Cui bono? Every enemy of the Church and especially enclosed religious life, unfortunately.
The Catholic principle of subsidiary ought to have operated. If nuns in one convent have a problem they cannot handle by themselves, a regional superior or neighbouring convents should help them out. Thus (in theory) they are assisted sympathetically by people who understand and are totally committed to their way of life. If a more remote authority is forced to intervene, the chance of clumsy mishandling multiplies.
I don’t disagree with you, but my main beef with it is that it’s pretty easy for everyone to see what ought to have transpired at any given point in this mess, except for the parties actually involved.
At every inflection point, it’s like they saw the right path to take and turned to run in the opposite direction.
The path that should have ended in Rome has rather circuitously ended somewhere between Timbuktu and the moons of Jupiter.
Hopelessly complicated. Human beings in the modern West are increasingly unable to live together peaceably. The ego of the individual versus the ego of the autocrat. Regulations and laws make it worse.
Mother Marie of the Incarnation has a hard job, for sure.
For a while I was reading books on negotiation (Getting to Yes; Getting Past No; Having Difficult Conversations; etc), but it seems that these are only helpful when you have someone who is willing to *have* a conversation, difficult or otherwise, and in the end (when someone will not have a conversation) it was only possible to 1. clearly state in writing my expectations, and what I intended to do if those expectations were ignored, and a (perhaps coldblooded) estimate of what the "cost" of that would be, and then 2. to carry out what I had said I would do. Rationally, no one wants things to get to the point of 2 because the cost is high for both parties, and yet sometimes that's what happens (and the reason it happens, logic suggests, is that for one party the *perceived cost* of repairing the relationship is much higher than the estimated cost of waiting to see if the other party will really do what they had said they would, possibly tempered by an expectation "they won't really", or by "if they do, then they are the bad guys and I will feel absolutely justified in everything I have ever done and I can feel reassured that I have never done anything wrong" which is a heck of a drug. So, why is the *perceived cost* of repair high? Because *vulnerability* is necessary; exercise left for reader.) Rationally, no one even wants to get to the point of clearly stating the consequences because this sounds (to the receiving party who can't think clearly about the sending party's motives) like emotional manipulation, or a power struggle, or a threat.
So if the nuns continue, for their part, to stonewall, then my coldblooded expectation is that somebody is going to state some consequences (danger: there is a cliff) and a deadline (danger: the cliff is in 2 miles) and that whoever is driving is just going to drive right off the cliff like a Looney Tunes cartoon [brief pause while I look up how to spell loony tunes], but I would like to be proven wrong by events.
It would be interesting to see how many priests and bishops could no longer serve. Were they to be removed for violating the sixth Commandment. It’s odd that it is only in this case with a nun that a Bishop seems concerned about this sixth commandment thing. The church hierarchy hasn’t been all that interested in punishing these kinds of cases over the last 60 years or so when they involve the priesthood.
“However, until the sisters accept her appointment as their legitimate superior, I am unable to grant permission or faculties for the celebration of the sacraments to any priest of the Diocese of Fort Worth or from another diocese or religious institute.”
Siege tactics.
The Bishop forced their hand right into the Society of St. Plus X.
Siege tactics indeed. But not unexpected from Bishop Olson. This isn't his first rodeo. What he can't see is that his own flock trusts him less and less with each passing year. I assume the sisters' property is now out of his reach. Of course, they may find that the SSPX are only too happy to help them with their prime acreage.
Lord, grant us your counsels: Poverty, Chastity, and Obedience.
This is a failure of everyone involved. Just a nasty situation that will lead to another schismatic group living in limbo
I’ve just resigned myself to not care about this story until Hollywood makes a dark comedy satire about the ridiculously escalating tensions in this case.
I mean this whole situation has just been people responding to massively bad actions with ”massiver, badder” actions until they all look like fools and reinforce every stereotype of corrupt clergy and fanatical religious.
Cui bono?
The entire thing does have the tenor of a Cohen Brothers movie, doesn't it?
Exactly!
Cui bono? Every enemy of the Church and especially enclosed religious life, unfortunately.
The Catholic principle of subsidiary ought to have operated. If nuns in one convent have a problem they cannot handle by themselves, a regional superior or neighbouring convents should help them out. Thus (in theory) they are assisted sympathetically by people who understand and are totally committed to their way of life. If a more remote authority is forced to intervene, the chance of clumsy mishandling multiplies.
> a regional superior or neighbouring convents
That would be the role of Carmelite Association of Christ the King, in this case.
I don’t disagree with you, but my main beef with it is that it’s pretty easy for everyone to see what ought to have transpired at any given point in this mess, except for the parties actually involved.
At every inflection point, it’s like they saw the right path to take and turned to run in the opposite direction.
The path that should have ended in Rome has rather circuitously ended somewhere between Timbuktu and the moons of Jupiter.
Hopelessly complicated. Human beings in the modern West are increasingly unable to live together peaceably. The ego of the individual versus the ego of the autocrat. Regulations and laws make it worse.
Mother Marie of the Incarnation has a hard job, for sure.
For a while I was reading books on negotiation (Getting to Yes; Getting Past No; Having Difficult Conversations; etc), but it seems that these are only helpful when you have someone who is willing to *have* a conversation, difficult or otherwise, and in the end (when someone will not have a conversation) it was only possible to 1. clearly state in writing my expectations, and what I intended to do if those expectations were ignored, and a (perhaps coldblooded) estimate of what the "cost" of that would be, and then 2. to carry out what I had said I would do. Rationally, no one wants things to get to the point of 2 because the cost is high for both parties, and yet sometimes that's what happens (and the reason it happens, logic suggests, is that for one party the *perceived cost* of repairing the relationship is much higher than the estimated cost of waiting to see if the other party will really do what they had said they would, possibly tempered by an expectation "they won't really", or by "if they do, then they are the bad guys and I will feel absolutely justified in everything I have ever done and I can feel reassured that I have never done anything wrong" which is a heck of a drug. So, why is the *perceived cost* of repair high? Because *vulnerability* is necessary; exercise left for reader.) Rationally, no one even wants to get to the point of clearly stating the consequences because this sounds (to the receiving party who can't think clearly about the sending party's motives) like emotional manipulation, or a power struggle, or a threat.
So if the nuns continue, for their part, to stonewall, then my coldblooded expectation is that somebody is going to state some consequences (danger: there is a cliff) and a deadline (danger: the cliff is in 2 miles) and that whoever is driving is just going to drive right off the cliff like a Looney Tunes cartoon [brief pause while I look up how to spell loony tunes], but I would like to be proven wrong by events.
I love how you spelled it "Looney" and "loony" in your last line...
It would be interesting to see how many priests and bishops could no longer serve. Were they to be removed for violating the sixth Commandment. It’s odd that it is only in this case with a nun that a Bishop seems concerned about this sixth commandment thing. The church hierarchy hasn’t been all that interested in punishing these kinds of cases over the last 60 years or so when they involve the priesthood.
“However, until the sisters accept her appointment as their legitimate superior, I am unable to grant permission or faculties for the celebration of the sacraments to any priest of the Diocese of Fort Worth or from another diocese or religious institute.”
Siege tactics.
The Bishop forced their hand right into the Society of St. Plus X.
Siege tactics indeed. But not unexpected from Bishop Olson. This isn't his first rodeo. What he can't see is that his own flock trusts him less and less with each passing year. I assume the sisters' property is now out of his reach. Of course, they may find that the SSPX are only too happy to help them with their prime acreage.