Sorry but that is not the case. The Bishop sent out a letter to all the priests first, followed by a letter to the Diocesan faithful putting her private matter on blast! ( stating she broke the sixth commandment) Check the Diocesan website it's all there. Please only deal will facts. You're statement is false.
Sorry but that is not the case. The Bishop sent out a letter to all the priests first, followed by a letter to the Diocesan faithful putting her private matter on blast! ( stating she broke the sixth commandment) Check the Diocesan website it's all there. Please only deal will facts. You're statement is false.
The Nuns blasted all their donors with a shaming statement about the Bishop days before the Bishop posted or wrote anything. IтАЩm extremely aware of the facts.
What's really going on here? If you can't believe in the truth why continue to post false statements. You are aware of only what you choose. Facts do not seem to be on the menu. You have every right to support the Bishop, however facts are facts.
Jen, I am in this diocese and know some of the Carmelite supporters. I did not hear a word of what was going on at the convent until the Bishop put it on the diocesan website and the media picked it up. Now, that's just my experience, but most of my faithful, Catholic friends heard about this the same way. And those who knew something didn't say anything until after the media stories started coming out. No one was surprised at the bishop's actions since this is the way he operates all the time. I am sorry for the sisters; I don't think this is the best way, but I deeply sympathize with their plight. If you go to the Laity In Unity petition for an apostolic visitation, many of the signers have personally witnessed his excellency lose his temper in public. He is reported to have said to one group "I am the shepherd, you are just the sheep." Pray for us in Fort Worth. We need a new bishop.
Yes I lived in your diocese for a very long time. IтАЩm familiar with your BishopтАЩs reputation for a top-down style. He seems to have a particular affinity for writing letters & insisting they be read from the pulpit, and for publicizing problems. Comes off as a bit intense, perhaps, esp in current times when we expect men to be less authorian and more mellow. But it still doesnтАЩt make the nuns right to divest themselves of OlsonтАЩs authority. I donтАЩt deny they should do *something*; I really think this was the wrong something.
This does not change my view that this latest statement was a mistake, but there was an interview in the July 31 issue of the Star-Telegram with the Nun who is caregiver for the Prioress. I found it enlightening. The Nuns had dropped the appeal of the civil action in order to allow the canonical appeal to proceed. It seems they hoped this would cause the Bishop to ease up on the restrictions affecting the entire community. That did not happen.
Here is a tidbit:
тАЬThe sisters elected Gerlach as reverend mother two years ago because of her leadership talents and her тАЬbeautiful spirit,тАЭ Sister Francis Therese said. When Gerlach began to have health issues, she wanted Francis Therese to help with her care. She uses a feeding tube because her stomach is paralyzed after a botched surgery, and she uses a wheelchair because of her weak condition, Francis Therese said. Francis Therese said that on Jan. 2, Olson came to the monastery and asked the reverend mother to step down because of her health. тАЬWe told him, тАШBishop, we donтАЩt want her to step down,тАЩтАЭ Francis Therese said. She said the bishop тАЬgoes in to a temper tantrumтАЭ when heтАЩs told no. тАЬThe fact that I said no to him ticked him off,тАЭ she said.тАЭ
I am sure that did not go over well, but it stood out to me that Olson went to the monastery January 2nd asking the Prioress to step down. This is very shortly after the Prioress consulted Fr. Jonathan Wallis. It is my recollection that Wallis had a phone conversation with Gerlach on January 4th. Was that also recorded? This, too, is not a good look.
Fr. was clear to point out that his conversations were not under the seal of confession. Was RM aware of this? Fr. also lied on the witness stand by stating that her was not aware of her illness. How is that possible? Hundreds of other people were aware.
Confidentiallity was promised by the Bishop to RM on day one. Confidentiallity is also a Canon Law requirement form day one of the investigation. Did the Bishop purjure himself on the witness stand in playing recordings and making other statements?
The Prioress may only have had a paralyzed stomach when she was elected, but by the time the Bishop asked her to step down sheтАЩd had multiple seizures & multiple surgeries in addition & her health was clearly taking a turn for the worse. She herself admitted this going so far as to say her mind was тАЬreally messed up.тАЭ It is not unreasonable that the Bishop would be тАЬticked offтАЭ if she insisted on remaining an active Prioress under the *new* health circumstances. Yes, even if the whole monastery wanted her to remain Prioress. Can we blame the Bishop for thinking it might be time to intervene here?!
Probably moot at this point, but I disagree with you completely on this one. This decision is clearly one covered by the Monastery Constitutions and made in the community. Absolutely none of his business.
Maybe you know more about her health than I do, but it sounds like her health crisis that impaired her judgment came up rather suddenly, some time after her election, in November/ December. My pastor was out of commission with cancer for two years and was never asked to step down, thank goodness. Sickness is part of life. In any event, Mother consulted her spiritual director twice, just before Christmas regarding her now famous sin. He happens to be the Vicar for the diocese. January 2 Bishop shows up with his intervention and Wallis has another conversation with RM two days later. This is normally an exhaustingly busy time of year for bishops. Their motives are suspect.
Per the PrioressтАЩ own words (see the infamous recording) the Vicar is not her spiritual director - she named someone else as holding that role. The Vicar is simply someone she chose to tell her sin to outside the confessional, on multiple
Occasions & sometimes while others were present. Anyway, the point is he wasnтАЩt her spiritual director breaking confidence.
P Rubric wrote above that he was. On the tape she did mention a current spiritual director as of late April, and something about him being unavailable at that moment due to a personal matter, and another priest helping her with psychological counseling. I really cannot stomach listening to it. I feel like I am violating her.
I did go back and read the interview with Sr Francis Therese. She said that RMs condition should have been obvious to him because тАЬheтАЩs known her for years.тАЭ Still looks like a serious breach of trust.
The Bishop entered the Monastery on April 25, and confiscated Rev. Mother's laptop phones etc. The Bishop started a canonical investigation into ONLY Rev
Mother ( and told her the investigation would remain private as required by Cannon Law). The Bishop cancelled the priest rotation, said Mass for two days, no Mass for two days, and Mass on Sunday April 30, Mass was only on Sundays after April 30.
The nuns filed a lawsuit on May 3, to request a Judge grant a hearing on the return of their property which contained personal, and Monastery information for receipt of donations, payment of bills etc. The Judge said by Texas law the equipment had to be returned. Email sent to the priests informing them not to visit the Monastery for Mass. The Bishop sent the recently ordained priest he recently traveled to India with to say Mass for the nuns. Why would the whole Community have to suffer for a single nun around the Sacraments. He sent information to the priests and the faithful regarding Rev. Mother's violation of the 6th commandment. The press pounced on it!
Sorry but that is not the case. The Bishop sent out a letter to all the priests first, followed by a letter to the Diocesan faithful putting her private matter on blast! ( stating she broke the sixth commandment) Check the Diocesan website it's all there. Please only deal will facts. You're statement is false.
The Nuns blasted all their donors with a shaming statement about the Bishop days before the Bishop posted or wrote anything. IтАЩm extremely aware of the facts.
What's really going on here? If you can't believe in the truth why continue to post false statements. You are aware of only what you choose. Facts do not seem to be on the menu. You have every right to support the Bishop, however facts are facts.
Jen, I am in this diocese and know some of the Carmelite supporters. I did not hear a word of what was going on at the convent until the Bishop put it on the diocesan website and the media picked it up. Now, that's just my experience, but most of my faithful, Catholic friends heard about this the same way. And those who knew something didn't say anything until after the media stories started coming out. No one was surprised at the bishop's actions since this is the way he operates all the time. I am sorry for the sisters; I don't think this is the best way, but I deeply sympathize with their plight. If you go to the Laity In Unity petition for an apostolic visitation, many of the signers have personally witnessed his excellency lose his temper in public. He is reported to have said to one group "I am the shepherd, you are just the sheep." Pray for us in Fort Worth. We need a new bishop.
Yes I lived in your diocese for a very long time. IтАЩm familiar with your BishopтАЩs reputation for a top-down style. He seems to have a particular affinity for writing letters & insisting they be read from the pulpit, and for publicizing problems. Comes off as a bit intense, perhaps, esp in current times when we expect men to be less authorian and more mellow. But it still doesnтАЩt make the nuns right to divest themselves of OlsonтАЩs authority. I donтАЩt deny they should do *something*; I really think this was the wrong something.
This does not change my view that this latest statement was a mistake, but there was an interview in the July 31 issue of the Star-Telegram with the Nun who is caregiver for the Prioress. I found it enlightening. The Nuns had dropped the appeal of the civil action in order to allow the canonical appeal to proceed. It seems they hoped this would cause the Bishop to ease up on the restrictions affecting the entire community. That did not happen.
Here is a tidbit:
тАЬThe sisters elected Gerlach as reverend mother two years ago because of her leadership talents and her тАЬbeautiful spirit,тАЭ Sister Francis Therese said. When Gerlach began to have health issues, she wanted Francis Therese to help with her care. She uses a feeding tube because her stomach is paralyzed after a botched surgery, and she uses a wheelchair because of her weak condition, Francis Therese said. Francis Therese said that on Jan. 2, Olson came to the monastery and asked the reverend mother to step down because of her health. тАЬWe told him, тАШBishop, we donтАЩt want her to step down,тАЩтАЭ Francis Therese said. She said the bishop тАЬgoes in to a temper tantrumтАЭ when heтАЩs told no. тАЬThe fact that I said no to him ticked him off,тАЭ she said.тАЭ
I am sure that did not go over well, but it stood out to me that Olson went to the monastery January 2nd asking the Prioress to step down. This is very shortly after the Prioress consulted Fr. Jonathan Wallis. It is my recollection that Wallis had a phone conversation with Gerlach on January 4th. Was that also recorded? This, too, is not a good look.
Great comments Emily!
Some additional facts about Fr.Jonathan Wallis.
He was Rev Mother's spiritual director this year.
Fr. was clear to point out that his conversations were not under the seal of confession. Was RM aware of this? Fr. also lied on the witness stand by stating that her was not aware of her illness. How is that possible? Hundreds of other people were aware.
Confidentiallity was promised by the Bishop to RM on day one. Confidentiallity is also a Canon Law requirement form day one of the investigation. Did the Bishop purjure himself on the witness stand in playing recordings and making other statements?
Yes not a good look indeed.
The Prioress may only have had a paralyzed stomach when she was elected, but by the time the Bishop asked her to step down sheтАЩd had multiple seizures & multiple surgeries in addition & her health was clearly taking a turn for the worse. She herself admitted this going so far as to say her mind was тАЬreally messed up.тАЭ It is not unreasonable that the Bishop would be тАЬticked offтАЭ if she insisted on remaining an active Prioress under the *new* health circumstances. Yes, even if the whole monastery wanted her to remain Prioress. Can we blame the Bishop for thinking it might be time to intervene here?!
Probably moot at this point, but I disagree with you completely on this one. This decision is clearly one covered by the Monastery Constitutions and made in the community. Absolutely none of his business.
Maybe you know more about her health than I do, but it sounds like her health crisis that impaired her judgment came up rather suddenly, some time after her election, in November/ December. My pastor was out of commission with cancer for two years and was never asked to step down, thank goodness. Sickness is part of life. In any event, Mother consulted her spiritual director twice, just before Christmas regarding her now famous sin. He happens to be the Vicar for the diocese. January 2 Bishop shows up with his intervention and Wallis has another conversation with RM two days later. This is normally an exhaustingly busy time of year for bishops. Their motives are suspect.
Per the PrioressтАЩ own words (see the infamous recording) the Vicar is not her spiritual director - she named someone else as holding that role. The Vicar is simply someone she chose to tell her sin to outside the confessional, on multiple
Occasions & sometimes while others were present. Anyway, the point is he wasnтАЩt her spiritual director breaking confidence.
P Rubric wrote above that he was. On the tape she did mention a current spiritual director as of late April, and something about him being unavailable at that moment due to a personal matter, and another priest helping her with psychological counseling. I really cannot stomach listening to it. I feel like I am violating her.
I did go back and read the interview with Sr Francis Therese. She said that RMs condition should have been obvious to him because тАЬheтАЩs known her for years.тАЭ Still looks like a serious breach of trust.
The bishop didn't say a word until the press started asking about the lawsuit filed by the nuns.
The Bishop entered the Monastery on April 25, and confiscated Rev. Mother's laptop phones etc. The Bishop started a canonical investigation into ONLY Rev
Mother ( and told her the investigation would remain private as required by Cannon Law). The Bishop cancelled the priest rotation, said Mass for two days, no Mass for two days, and Mass on Sunday April 30, Mass was only on Sundays after April 30.
The nuns filed a lawsuit on May 3, to request a Judge grant a hearing on the return of their property which contained personal, and Monastery information for receipt of donations, payment of bills etc. The Judge said by Texas law the equipment had to be returned. Email sent to the priests informing them not to visit the Monastery for Mass. The Bishop sent the recently ordained priest he recently traveled to India with to say Mass for the nuns. Why would the whole Community have to suffer for a single nun around the Sacraments. He sent information to the priests and the faithful regarding Rev. Mother's violation of the 6th commandment. The press pounced on it!
Who again, did you say started this travesty?
( all facts found in the public domain)