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 thi…
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:
“The sisters elected Gerlach as reverend mother two years ago because of her leadership talents and her “beautiful spirit,” 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. “We told him, ‘Bishop, we don’t want her to step down,’” Francis Therese said. She said the bishop “goes in to a temper tantrum” when he’s told no. “The fact that I said no to him ticked him off,” she said.”
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 she’d 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 “really messed up.” It is not unreasonable that the Bishop would be “ticked off” 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 Prioress’ 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 wasn’t 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 “he’s known her for years.” Still looks like a serious breach of trust.
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:
“The sisters elected Gerlach as reverend mother two years ago because of her leadership talents and her “beautiful spirit,” 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. “We told him, ‘Bishop, we don’t want her to step down,’” Francis Therese said. She said the bishop “goes in to a temper tantrum” when he’s told no. “The fact that I said no to him ticked him off,” she said.”
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 she’d 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 “really messed up.” It is not unreasonable that the Bishop would be “ticked off” 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 Prioress’ 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 wasn’t 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 “he’s known her for years.” Still looks like a serious breach of trust.