A judge has ruled that a district court does not have jurisdiction to hear a lawsuit brought by a monastery of Carmelite nuns against the Bishop of Fort Worth
“We” have a problem with the truth. Probably the most honest thing this bullying man has uttered in a long time. The Vatican is protective of bishops- Gross understatement! Canon law? If the law doesn’t fit they change the rules. Another bully demeaning a woman. Can’t follow this rule slinging church much longer.What’s missing? Jesus.
Now that the courts are out of this, we will never know why Rome and Olsen are doing this. But don’t worry Fort Worth Catholics, he will soon be asking for more of your money for who knows what. Sure won’t be for the daughters of St. Teresa. Here’s a question for his excellency. You booted a Carmelite nun out of a cloister who is in a wheelchair. What’s your plan to help her?
How on earth does Bishop Olson get away with revealing a persons confessed sins. That alone should have removed him from his own priestly vocation. Shame shame on him for bringing this into the public forum if it’s a Church matter.
He needs to apologize to the Nuns. Evidently the police found nothing illegal in the place. So that either makes the photos fraudulent or there was some kind of satisfactory explanation for them. When will he blast this on his diocesan page for all to see?
I don't think it's been reported that she confessed this sin, but rather told it to someone outside of the confessional. Therefore, there is no seal. If she had decided to confess the sin, then it could have been dealt with in confidentiality. This is a point where some clarification would be beneficial.
I agree with your reply and understand this possibility, but considering she was under the influence of mind altering drugs, she may well have believed her statement was confidential. My understanding is he secretly recorded her. While that is not illegal, it is certainly underhanded. If that is true that act alone was not in good faith on his part. What ever the situation BP Olson handled this very poorly as he does many other things. May God’s Will be done.🙏
Did he really just say he felt vindicated? So cringe. Why does this man continue seeing himself as the aggrieved party? Apparently he literally holds full authority from Rome over the Nuns. He can’t also play the mistreated underdog card at the same time.
I find myself in a strange position when it comes to the Church/state issue when it comes to defamation cases. Theoretically, I want the state to stay out of Church affairs, especially when it comes to ministry. But I am seeing more and more situations where Church leadership is emboldened to say whatever they want about priests and religious regardless of objective truth. The priest or religious can't say anything in response contradicting the bishop even if what the priest or religious says is true; doing so is perceived in canon law as causing division and a canonical offense, and the bishop is more "credible" because, well, he is a bishop. If the person defamed files a civil suit, the courts throw it out due to "lack of jurisdiction." So, the defamed party has no recourse. Well, I guess that's not technically correct. He/she has recourse in canon law for defamation in theory, but good luck pursuing it. By the time it makes its way through the canonical process and its appeals, the defamed person is ruined from a practical perspective. And there is no consequence for the bishop.
This is a situation where we either need to get our own act together or we need the civil authorities to step in. Isn't the Church supposedly about JUSTICE?
Justice, and… get this!… mercy, too. But let’s just start by getting the justice part right. Then we can try delivering the message with concern for the well-being of the whole person & their salvation.
On another note, it’s a real problem all this throwing around of “Canon law says.” People need to pick up Canon Law and start reading. There’s even a website called Canon Law Made Easy. As long as Bishops can toss around the word Canon Law like “wait till your father gets home!” people are going to shrink back and give up without ever realizing Canon Law doesn’t even say half this stuff!
Exactly! There ARE canons about being innocent until proven guilty and protecting the name of an accused person until investigations are complete and conclusive. But sister is sick and not a canon lawyer. So she can’t fight back.
We are living this very situation right now. There is no recourse but the bishop or Rome and we all know how lily white they are. No one has a life long enough to survive this injustice and nonsense.
I said in another context (which of course was Germany) that my Bible study group had recently read 1 Cor 6. I am still reflecting on it, because it is very countercultural (especially since we got to it in "June"). But if I am going to take seriously St. Paul's admonition in the second half of the chapter to people who are thinking about returning to the slavery of sin (instead of deciding that it's fine to write books that say this old stuff doesn't apply to us now), then I think I also have to take seriously his admonition in the first half of the chapter which concludes with something like "To have lawsuits at all with one another is defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded?" (the alternative to taking it seriously and thinking about it to see how my perspective on the world ought to change and how my actions ought to change is to claim that this old stuff doesn't apply to us now).
"Why not" is the start of a conversation (and like the conversation with Abraham about whether to destroy Sodom, or Moses about whether to destroy the chosen people and start over, the roles have been reversed, we are the ones advocating for mercy, leaving God as the one to advocate for justice; but this time, because we ought to know how to argue for mercy by now, we took the initiative.)
Ordinarily I just ask what I should do, which you can see is more of a neutral question; if, that is, I remember to ask at all. This is not radical like the question St Paul poses (which at bottom is the same as the radical commands in Matthew 5: "you have heard it said... but I say to you..."). But just the same as with the neutral question, God's answer is not a foregone conclusion (which is the same as saying: it's not a rhetorical question, it's a real question) and we have to listen for it. As you point out, the answer might be to take drastic action or to take someone to court, and also in an unfolding situation we have to stay in the conversation whatever the initial answer was; sometimes things turn on a dime, like the apparent reversal (or, the very precise timing) in the wedding feast at Cana where the answer changes from basically "it is not time for that *yet*" to "it is time".
(in other news, I can't figure out which button in the Substack app is the right one to reply in a thread and I had better stick to using the web.)
Did anyone listen to the audio recording of the Bishop & M. Agnes Teresa? It’s made me question the narrative. It wasn’t a great convo - he did refuse their canon lawyer, which seems off to me. But he certainly didn’t yell or barge in and steal the computers like the Prioress is saying. And she certainly sounded resistant to the idea of stepping down from her role as Prioress, which seemed off as well, given her really poor health + her admission that her brain “got really messed up.”
If you read the original affidavit, the Bishop confiscated equipment on 4/24, revisited on 4/25, and had his temper tantrum/door slamming/threatening behavior on 4/26. Mother Superior went to the ER that night with a high fever and extreme stress. Three days in a row culminating with a raised voice starts to smell like harassment to me. It is nauseating that he released the recording of him sounding soft-voiced when the affidavit tells a different story. But I guess we'll never know. And nothing will happen because he "cleaned up his mess."
Well, Mother did change her story within that time and begin saying (as newspapers reported) that she had not sinned against chastity. I can see that frustrating the Bishop. I’m not saying he handled himself well. I lived in his diocese for awhile so I’m very aware of his “style” which rubs lots of people the wrong way. But I’m just reaching the place of feeling like he’s not the only one who made this a mess here.
Must not be a massive haul of marijuana in there after all, then. Hmmmm…
“We” have a problem with the truth. Probably the most honest thing this bullying man has uttered in a long time. The Vatican is protective of bishops- Gross understatement! Canon law? If the law doesn’t fit they change the rules. Another bully demeaning a woman. Can’t follow this rule slinging church much longer.What’s missing? Jesus.
Now that the courts are out of this, we will never know why Rome and Olsen are doing this. But don’t worry Fort Worth Catholics, he will soon be asking for more of your money for who knows what. Sure won’t be for the daughters of St. Teresa. Here’s a question for his excellency. You booted a Carmelite nun out of a cloister who is in a wheelchair. What’s your plan to help her?
Does anyone know if she gets her health insurance through the diocese?
Not my job,his response
How on earth does Bishop Olson get away with revealing a persons confessed sins. That alone should have removed him from his own priestly vocation. Shame shame on him for bringing this into the public forum if it’s a Church matter.
He needs to apologize to the Nuns. Evidently the police found nothing illegal in the place. So that either makes the photos fraudulent or there was some kind of satisfactory explanation for them. When will he blast this on his diocesan page for all to see?
Apologize? Insert mirthless laughter here.
I don't think it's been reported that she confessed this sin, but rather told it to someone outside of the confessional. Therefore, there is no seal. If she had decided to confess the sin, then it could have been dealt with in confidentiality. This is a point where some clarification would be beneficial.
I agree with your reply and understand this possibility, but considering she was under the influence of mind altering drugs, she may well have believed her statement was confidential. My understanding is he secretly recorded her. While that is not illegal, it is certainly underhanded. If that is true that act alone was not in good faith on his part. What ever the situation BP Olson handled this very poorly as he does many other things. May God’s Will be done.🙏
Not soon enough
Did he really just say he felt vindicated? So cringe. Why does this man continue seeing himself as the aggrieved party? Apparently he literally holds full authority from Rome over the Nuns. He can’t also play the mistreated underdog card at the same time.
I find myself in a strange position when it comes to the Church/state issue when it comes to defamation cases. Theoretically, I want the state to stay out of Church affairs, especially when it comes to ministry. But I am seeing more and more situations where Church leadership is emboldened to say whatever they want about priests and religious regardless of objective truth. The priest or religious can't say anything in response contradicting the bishop even if what the priest or religious says is true; doing so is perceived in canon law as causing division and a canonical offense, and the bishop is more "credible" because, well, he is a bishop. If the person defamed files a civil suit, the courts throw it out due to "lack of jurisdiction." So, the defamed party has no recourse. Well, I guess that's not technically correct. He/she has recourse in canon law for defamation in theory, but good luck pursuing it. By the time it makes its way through the canonical process and its appeals, the defamed person is ruined from a practical perspective. And there is no consequence for the bishop.
This is a situation where we either need to get our own act together or we need the civil authorities to step in. Isn't the Church supposedly about JUSTICE?
Justice, and… get this!… mercy, too. But let’s just start by getting the justice part right. Then we can try delivering the message with concern for the well-being of the whole person & their salvation.
On another note, it’s a real problem all this throwing around of “Canon law says.” People need to pick up Canon Law and start reading. There’s even a website called Canon Law Made Easy. As long as Bishops can toss around the word Canon Law like “wait till your father gets home!” people are going to shrink back and give up without ever realizing Canon Law doesn’t even say half this stuff!
Exactly! There ARE canons about being innocent until proven guilty and protecting the name of an accused person until investigations are complete and conclusive. But sister is sick and not a canon lawyer. So she can’t fight back.
And that right there is what makes this whole situation so sickening. The vulnerabilities of a very, very sick woman have been exploited.
And the vulnerability of falsely accused priests because of complaints and a bishop without mercy or a heart define exploitation!
We are living this very situation right now. There is no recourse but the bishop or Rome and we all know how lily white they are. No one has a life long enough to survive this injustice and nonsense.
I said in another context (which of course was Germany) that my Bible study group had recently read 1 Cor 6. I am still reflecting on it, because it is very countercultural (especially since we got to it in "June"). But if I am going to take seriously St. Paul's admonition in the second half of the chapter to people who are thinking about returning to the slavery of sin (instead of deciding that it's fine to write books that say this old stuff doesn't apply to us now), then I think I also have to take seriously his admonition in the first half of the chapter which concludes with something like "To have lawsuits at all with one another is defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded?" (the alternative to taking it seriously and thinking about it to see how my perspective on the world ought to change and how my actions ought to change is to claim that this old stuff doesn't apply to us now).
"Why not" is the start of a conversation (and like the conversation with Abraham about whether to destroy Sodom, or Moses about whether to destroy the chosen people and start over, the roles have been reversed, we are the ones advocating for mercy, leaving God as the one to advocate for justice; but this time, because we ought to know how to argue for mercy by now, we took the initiative.)
Ordinarily I just ask what I should do, which you can see is more of a neutral question; if, that is, I remember to ask at all. This is not radical like the question St Paul poses (which at bottom is the same as the radical commands in Matthew 5: "you have heard it said... but I say to you..."). But just the same as with the neutral question, God's answer is not a foregone conclusion (which is the same as saying: it's not a rhetorical question, it's a real question) and we have to listen for it. As you point out, the answer might be to take drastic action or to take someone to court, and also in an unfolding situation we have to stay in the conversation whatever the initial answer was; sometimes things turn on a dime, like the apparent reversal (or, the very precise timing) in the wedding feast at Cana where the answer changes from basically "it is not time for that *yet*" to "it is time".
(in other news, I can't figure out which button in the Substack app is the right one to reply in a thread and I had better stick to using the web.)
Did anyone listen to the audio recording of the Bishop & M. Agnes Teresa? It’s made me question the narrative. It wasn’t a great convo - he did refuse their canon lawyer, which seems off to me. But he certainly didn’t yell or barge in and steal the computers like the Prioress is saying. And she certainly sounded resistant to the idea of stepping down from her role as Prioress, which seemed off as well, given her really poor health + her admission that her brain “got really messed up.”
Clear as mud.
Well that’s a good point about it being dealt with with the spiritual director & therapy.
What a mess. You just can’t be too careful who you confide in, I guess. Sad.
If you read the original affidavit, the Bishop confiscated equipment on 4/24, revisited on 4/25, and had his temper tantrum/door slamming/threatening behavior on 4/26. Mother Superior went to the ER that night with a high fever and extreme stress. Three days in a row culminating with a raised voice starts to smell like harassment to me. It is nauseating that he released the recording of him sounding soft-voiced when the affidavit tells a different story. But I guess we'll never know. And nothing will happen because he "cleaned up his mess."
Well, Mother did change her story within that time and begin saying (as newspapers reported) that she had not sinned against chastity. I can see that frustrating the Bishop. I’m not saying he handled himself well. I lived in his diocese for awhile so I’m very aware of his “style” which rubs lots of people the wrong way. But I’m just reaching the place of feeling like he’s not the only one who made this a mess here.
Definitely not the only one, but he's supposed to be the example of charity and leadership...
For sure. For sure!
He is an example of a fake and one who would do well to remove himself from office because no one else will!
Obedience is extremely difficult for all.
Thank you Bishop Olson!
Apparently the Sisters will not appeal. This article makes sense to me.
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/fort-worth-bishop-treatment-reverend-164653566.html