"Bishop Olson asks the faithful of the Diocese of Fort Worth and all people of good will to pray for the Carmelites that they will stop their open disobedience."
This is a very reasonable request and I would have done it anyway. Like, yes, it is not fun to have a grown man yell at you or say rude things about you, but when this happens, m…
"Bishop Olson asks the faithful of the Diocese of Fort Worth and all people of good will to pray for the Carmelites that they will stop their open disobedience."
This is a very reasonable request and I would have done it anyway. Like, yes, it is not fun to have a grown man yell at you or say rude things about you, but when this happens, maybe we think about the Passion (where Jesus put up with a lot of that, and so much more), instead of deciding to figuratively jump out of the plane without a parachute. I will ask St James and St John, "sons of thunder", to pray for them.
With regards to Bishop Olsen allegedly yelling at the nuns, that's what the nuns claimed, but unfortunately for them, there's an audio recording of the meeting. The bishop doesn't even raise his voice, and is calm and logical throughout.
Groan. The Nuns never claimed that he yelled during the initial interrogation when the Bishop showed up with his team and tape recorder. I find the recording unbearable to listen to again, but it made me more certain that the subsequent complaints of the Sisters are valid.
Yes, the complaints enumerated in the lawsuit. After the recording was played in court many critics claimed that the Sisters mischaracterized the Bishop’s behavior because he isn’t shouting on the tape. But the tape was made at the beginning of a three-day raid on the monastery where they said he took their devices, refused the Prioress’ choice of Canonist, sent one of his staff into the enclosure along with a forensic technician and insisted on questioning each of the sisters. He lost his temper when they refused to allow more questioning.
All of this was done before the Vatican retroactively granted authority. There is a lot of information out there. On the recording itself the Prioress is clearly welcoming the Bishop, clearly not expecting to be interrogated, and cooperative before the entire monastery was thrown into turmoil. Some commenters say he had the authority to do all of this. I am only saying that the the Nuns believed that the Bishop’s actions and the restrictions he placed on the Prioress were not, at the time, within the Bishop’s authority. It is documented on the tape that he imposed them. I am not a Canon lawyer, but I believe her rights were violated when the Bishop refused three of her choices and chose a Canon lawyer for her.
Yes and perhaps we may also reflect if the raised voice may be appropriate given the circumstances. I think all of us who are parents know that at times a firm word is warranted. To claim that a raised voice is ipso facto abuse comes off as Precious and Fragile on the Nuns’ part.
To use your analogy, a “firm word” followed by reading the errant adult child’s diary, locking her in her room with no dinner, forbidding the rest of the family to speak with her, taking her clothes, then kicking her out of the house, might cross the line into abuse.
"Bishop Olson asks the faithful of the Diocese of Fort Worth and all people of good will to pray for the Carmelites that they will stop their open disobedience."
This is a very reasonable request and I would have done it anyway. Like, yes, it is not fun to have a grown man yell at you or say rude things about you, but when this happens, maybe we think about the Passion (where Jesus put up with a lot of that, and so much more), instead of deciding to figuratively jump out of the plane without a parachute. I will ask St James and St John, "sons of thunder", to pray for them.
With regards to Bishop Olsen allegedly yelling at the nuns, that's what the nuns claimed, but unfortunately for them, there's an audio recording of the meeting. The bishop doesn't even raise his voice, and is calm and logical throughout.
Exactly. Their claim is currently as unsubstantiated at the Bishop’s drug pictures. Just
Chapter two of “he said, she said.”
Groan. The Nuns never claimed that he yelled during the initial interrogation when the Bishop showed up with his team and tape recorder. I find the recording unbearable to listen to again, but it made me more certain that the subsequent complaints of the Sisters are valid.
Do you remember which of their complaints it made more certain for you?
Yes, the complaints enumerated in the lawsuit. After the recording was played in court many critics claimed that the Sisters mischaracterized the Bishop’s behavior because he isn’t shouting on the tape. But the tape was made at the beginning of a three-day raid on the monastery where they said he took their devices, refused the Prioress’ choice of Canonist, sent one of his staff into the enclosure along with a forensic technician and insisted on questioning each of the sisters. He lost his temper when they refused to allow more questioning.
All of this was done before the Vatican retroactively granted authority. There is a lot of information out there. On the recording itself the Prioress is clearly welcoming the Bishop, clearly not expecting to be interrogated, and cooperative before the entire monastery was thrown into turmoil. Some commenters say he had the authority to do all of this. I am only saying that the the Nuns believed that the Bishop’s actions and the restrictions he placed on the Prioress were not, at the time, within the Bishop’s authority. It is documented on the tape that he imposed them. I am not a Canon lawyer, but I believe her rights were violated when the Bishop refused three of her choices and chose a Canon lawyer for her.
Yes and perhaps we may also reflect if the raised voice may be appropriate given the circumstances. I think all of us who are parents know that at times a firm word is warranted. To claim that a raised voice is ipso facto abuse comes off as Precious and Fragile on the Nuns’ part.
To use your analogy, a “firm word” followed by reading the errant adult child’s diary, locking her in her room with no dinner, forbidding the rest of the family to speak with her, taking her clothes, then kicking her out of the house, might cross the line into abuse.
Lol, undoubtedly. Especially taking away all her clothes. That would be bizaar.
And yet, if he dismissed her from the order, he effectively "took her clothes."
Honestly, when I read the newest statement the first thing that came to mind was Frank Pavone. Make of that what you will.