The Cloisterite Family

[Gemma]

Gemma, I gave you two different options. WHICH of these is the best course?

 

Sister Laurel M O'Neal, Er Dio

Stillsong Hermitage

Diocese of Oakland

http://notesfromstillsong.blogspot.com

 

 

One question at a time, please.  Thank you.

 

Blessings,

Gemma

[Gemma]

For all your criticism of CO, one of the links we posted on our newsticker blog http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cloister_outreach_newsticker/  ended up in the hands of an Episcoplian minister, for whom an affiliate founder's husband works.  He was so moved by what the Filipina Augustinian nun said about prayer and her life, that he has integrated it into some kind of seminar he is giving on prayer this weekend.

 

CO itself promotes cloistered vocations, and offers private listservs for the sake of discerners having a safe harbor. 

 

CONF is our founder's division.  There is precedent for married founders.  Look at the Missionaries of the Holy Spirit, or the Sisters of the Cross of the Sacred Heart.  Or the Little Servant Sisters of the Immaculate Conception.  Or the Dominican Sisters of Pompeii.  They were founded by married people.

 

I don't see why we can't get past the misunderstandings of 2010.  We are supposed to be a people of patience, as Sr. Laurel has noted, and reconciliation.  I gave a reference in an above post.  I am giving my time to answering posts, and I don't understand why I am not being heard and believed.  I told you I would make contacts through my pastor after the first of the year.

 

"Half-baked?"  Please explain.  What are your expectations for a private lay association run by a married Lay Dominican who practices eremitism in her state in life?  What are you wanting CO to look like? Private lay associations are just that--the effort of private individuals.  I honestly don't know what else I could tell you. 

 

Blessings,

Gemma

 

[Gemma]

I hope you look carefully at what you have written in the second paragraph. It sounds to me like you are saying if folks are disabled, less intellectually able than the norm, or otherwise impaired, no one needs to worry about it if they want to join Cloisters Outreach projects. Who cares if they get involved in something that may be harmful? However, two years ago I and a friend contacted the Diocese of Charlotte twice precisely because we had two concerns: 1) the canonist said to be leading CO projects "step by step" had purportedly done or said some flakey things in this regard and her reputation was being questioned, and 2) while we had once said "no one suited for religious life will get involved with cloisters outreach" it began to seem that that just might not be true.

 

The upshot of those conversations was twofold: 1) the VG told us Gemma and her projects were unknown to the diocese, and 2) the canonist, though she had met with Gemma a couple of times, disavowed any relationship to Gemma's projects and said she had broken off contact when conversations seemed to veer towards Cloisters Outreach.  Now Gemma is posting that that situation has changed and is again promoting CO here on Phatmass. If her contentions are true, I for one want to hear the pertinent details.

 

I am willing to take thing slowly, and I hope others will do so as well. I do not want to bully Gemma, but neither will I accept half-truths and facile jargon-laced evasions. I would urge everyone to avoid any appearance or reality of "piling on". Gemma claims she will answer questions little by little. I suggest we give her that chance --- but perhaps keep a list of yet-unanswered questions. If Gemma backs out of the conversation (does not return after the holidays for instance) that will be a shame (it will be telling regarding a will to honesty, openness, and respect) but let's NOT give the appearance she was chased off or get this thread closed as so many others have been for bullying, personal attacks, etc. The situation is frustrating and some here have desired answers for a long time, but the season is one of patience. Let's be patience people. Also, unlike most of you, I am a rare participant here on this forum, and no kind of leader, so please know I am aware these are just my 2 cents worth.

 

Sincerely,

Sister Laurel, Er Dio

Stillsong Hermitage

Diocese of Oakland

http://notesfromstillsong.blogspot.com                                                                                                                                                                                                 

 

As I understand it, what you inquired about at the Chancery were the Cloisterites as an emerging charism.  When I spoke to the Chancellor regarding CO, he said someone had called and he said he thought I was being responsible with it.

 

CO does not need "approval."  I have sent the yearly reports, which includes news about CONF as well.  I am doing what is required by canon law.

 

Since Sr. Laurel has asked that this thread be about CO, then please keep in mind that the proposed or emerging charisms, to include the Cloisterite Family, is part of CONF.

 

I am being accused of exploitation of the disabled, which is ridiculous.  As a lay eremite, I can and do give some advice on living a more withdrawn life in the context of laity.  The older vocations and disabled keep in touch, and I do refer them to their diocesan vocations directors and advise they get a local spiritual director. 

 

Blessings,

Gemma

[Gemma]

Hi Maggie, as an "older" Vocation myself I was quite surprised by this post. To me, it kind of reads as if you are saying it is okay to mislead older people or physically or mentally disabled discerners. It also appears to say that such vocations are not real or "actual", That Cloisters Outreach is okay for them as they are unlikely to be accepted elsewhere. 

 

I am sure you did not mean to imply this at all - but it does kind of read like that a bit.

 

I am sure you also know that there are communities that do take older vocations and some that take disabled vocations too. Some even has this as the purpose for their founding. As we all know, God can, and does, call all types of people.   :)

 

PS: Sorry if my grammar is a bit flaky. It's morning and I have not had much coffee yet.

 

We did have a listserv exclusively for delayed vocations, but when I became seriously ill in 2010, I had to close a number of lists.  We do promote other orders who accept older vocations.  One of the more incredible blogs on this subject which I have seen is Pennyyak's: http://womenreligiousorders.blogspot.com/  She has everything divided up by age!

 

Blessings,

Gemma

[Lil'Nun]

We did have a listserv exclusively for delayed vocations, but when I became seriously ill in 2010, I had to close a number of lists.  We do promote other orders who accept older vocations.  One of the more incredible blogs on this subject which I have seen is Pennyyak's: http://womenreligiousorders.blogspot.com/  She has everything divided up by age!

 

Blessings,

Gemma

 

Thank you. I have seen the site and it is testament to a lot of hard work and a wonderful resource for those in the US.

I wish there were something similar for European discerners.

[Sister_Laurel]

I understand the concerns about Gemma's efforts but I don't feel there's any danger of innocents being led astray. As curiousing noted, even a non-Catholic can tell that Cloister Outreach and so forth are fairly half-baked. The "vocations" attracted to the various charisms, or whatever they are, are not likely to be actual, persevering vocations in real-life communities.

 

They are likely to be older women, intellectually or physically disabled, isolated but desiring some form of spiritual community. That description probably matches Gemma herself! Honestly there's no need to keep badgering her for "which bishop gave you which document", 'who's supporting you?" and so forth. Wild horses won't drag it out of her as she has a mental block about it. After awhile it does come across as a bit bullying. If the relevant authorities get to the point they feel she is a threat to good order I am sure they will address it, in public. My diocese is never shy about issuing warnings to the faithful when appropriate and imagine others aren't shy about it either. The Church generally doesn't have a problem with slightly batty, lonely ladies getting together and creating elaborate pious organizations. I swear the Catholic Women's Guild at my old parish is only slightly less wrapped in layers of frou-frou.

 

ETA: so can't we leave Gemma alone? If she posts a thread or makes a post promoting Cloister Outreach, just post the link to Sr. Laurel's post about CO. No need for long drawn out commentary.

Two years ago a friend and I contacted the Diocese of Charlotte twice precisely because we had two concerns: 1) the canonist said to be leading CO projects "step by step" had purportedly done or said some flakey things in this regard and her reputation was being questioned, and 2) while we had once said "no one suited for religious life will get involved with cloisters outreach" it began to seem that that just might not be true.

 

The upshot of those conversations was twofold: 1) the VG told us Gemma and her projects were unknown to the diocese, and 2) the canonist, though she had met with Gemma a couple of times, disavowed any relationship to Gemma's projects and said she had broken off contact when conversations seemed to veer towards Cloisters Outreach.  Now Gemma is posting that that situation has changed and is again promoting CO here on Phatmass. If her contentions are true, I for one want to hear the pertinent details.

 

I am personally willing to take thing slowly, and I hope others will do so as well. I do not want to bully Gemma, but at the same time neither am I willing to accept half-truths and facile jargon-laced evasions. I would urge everyone to avoid any appearance or reality of "piling on". Gemma claims she will answer questions little by little. I suggest we give her that chance --- but perhaps keep a list of yet-unanswered questions. If Gemma backs out of the conversation (for instance, if she does not return after the holidays to continue this conversation) that will be a shame (it will be telling regarding a will to honesty, openness, and respect) but let's be careful NOT give the appearance she was chased off or get this thread closed as so many others have been for bullying, personal attacks, etc. The situation is frustrating and some here have desired and sought answers for a long time, but the Advent season is one of patience. Let's be patience people. Also, please know that I am aware that I am a rare participant here on this forum, and no kind of leader, so these really are just my 2 cents worth.

 

Sincerely,

Sister Laurel, Er Dio

Stillsong Hermitage

Diocese of Oakland

http://notesfromstillsong.blogspot.com                                                                                                                                                                                                 

[Sister_Laurel]

As I understand it, what you inquired about at the Chancery were the Cloisterites as an emerging charism.  When I spoke to the Chancellor regarding CO, he said someone had called and he said he thought I was being responsible with it.

 

CO does not need "approval."  I have sent the yearly reports, which includes news about CONF as well.  I am doing what is required by canon law.

 

Since Sr. Laurel has asked that this thread be about CO, then please keep in mind that the proposed or emerging charisms, to include the Cloisterite Family, is part of CONF.

 

I am being accused of exploitation of the disabled, which is ridiculous.  As a lay eremite, I can and do give some advice on living a more withdrawn life in the context of laity.  The older vocations and disabled keep in touch, and I do refer them to their diocesan vocations directors and advise they get a local spiritual director. 

 

Blessings,

Gemma

 

 

 

Gemma, it continues to be amazing to me the bits of truth you can slide past with a single sentence. For instance, you know that the diocese of Charlotte was contacted and you generally know who did it because I blogged about it AND what we were told. In fact, the person who placed the phone call posted to you here about it within a day or so. Subsequently you accused "your critics" of defamation, libel (just yesterday or so) and of violating the privacy of the canonist because I used her name in my blog. In fact you responded to  several of the points made in the blog with a lengthy post about having misunderstood the complicated legal language used by said canonist to disassociate herself from your projects so it is more than clear that it is the reason you spoke with the Chancellor. In fact, as I explained in my blog, the canonist said she was never associated with those projects --- she simply said this had never been true. So PLEASE do not try to give (or allow) the impression you knew nothing of this until you phoned the chancellor. You have posted about your conversation with the Chancellor elsewhere recently (I may have said VG in another post; that was an error and I apologize for misspeaking)  and said he was sure you were acting in good faith or responsibly, etc. While I am glad he was calm in his exchange with you (how else should he have been?), you are aware, I hope, that saying "I am sure you are acting responsibly" it tends to be more reassuring and hopeful than judgment. In any case I hope you are not trying to imply the Chancellor knew you or your work well enough to make such a judgment!! That would be patently untrue.

 

CONF is not at issue because CONF apparently involves other "founders" and their own foundations.  Some of those (we can only hope!) may have legitimate projects, but whether they do or not CO is YOUR set of projects, the specific set of project which raise serious questions, the same projects the diocese of Charlotte disavowed knowing anything of two years ago despite your numerous claims to be supported by your Bishop and guided "every step of the way" by a hermit canonist. For those reasons I am asking that you not obscure issues by pointing to projects which may be someone else's "babies." As far as the "misunderstanding of 2010" goes, I don't see where there was any misunderstanding. You made specific claims here and other places online and those were demonstrated to be false. 

 

Yes, you are perfectly free to begin a private association of the faithful. ANYONE is. No permission is required unless the group is doing catechetics or is involved in worship, etc. Thus, you are perfectly free to send yearly, monthly or even daily reports to the diocese on your own initiative if you wish, but none of this means you have any support or approval from the diocese, and none of it explains why you cannot answer direct questions about this with equally direct answers. So here are the related questions this all raises for me. In one way and another they have all but the last one been asked before. 1) Does your Bishop SUPPORT your efforts (and would the Diocese of Charlotte affirm this is the case should someone call to inquire)? 2) Has the Bishop ever RESPONDED to you about these reports you send in on your own initiative --- especially with something more than a simple notice they were received? (Though I do wonder if you received responses from the chancery noting your reports HAD been received) 3) Have you cleared up the "misunderstanding" you had with the canonist we spoke with, and if so, would she confirm that  if we were to contact her once again?  I am going to leave these matters here in the hope that you will answer these questions directly. Please note they use no canonical language to trip you up and require nothing more than simple straightforward answers everyone will understand. Also please note, that of themselves, if you answer no to all of them your answers imply no judgment one way or another on your projects themselves! Those judgments are a different matter.

 

Regarding your status as a lay hermit, I have serious questions about that since you are married with children --- all of whom were living at home when I first heard you make this claim. I hope everyone who reads this has serious questions about a person who may spend some time alone during the day waiting AND PREPARING for husband and sons to come home from work and school calling themselves a "hermit." As I have written other places, that is analogous to a babysitter who spends several hours a day with children calling herself a mother because of this part-time contact with children she "mothers." Sorry, it shows a woeful lack of understanding of the eremitical vocation or what a call to solitude means. It trivializes the term and empties it of meaning. It demonstrates a serious lack of understanding and apparent carelessness re what the silence of solitude lived by the hermit is or how it functions as a gift for those who are isolated full-time by life's circumstances; these people need to believe this can be redeemed and transformed into genuine solitude. It takes a genuine hermit to do this. You are not a hermit, lay or otherwise so let's let that bit of sophistry go at this point.

 

Yesterday I asked you whether you wanted to answer questions bit by bit OR continue doing so from the original post I put up and your answer was essentially, yes, let's do that. So I am asking again, HOW would you like to proceed here? Do you want to answer the questions I asked above and then let others add their's or what would you like to do? What is the best way for people to get the answers they require from you? It seems clear that the frustration level with a lack of real answers is quite high. How would YOU like to proceed?

 

Sincerely,

Sister Laurel M O'Neal, Er Dio

Stillsong Hermitage

Diocese of Oakland

http://notesfromstillsong.blogspot.com

[Gemma]

Thank you. I have seen the site and it is testament to a lot of hard work and a wonderful resource for those in the US.

I wish there were something similar for European discerners.

 

We have a site for the UK, but Europe is more daunting because of the language barriers.  I would have to have someone proficient in Spanish, French, Russian, German, etc. to assist with building a site for Continental Europe.  One does not have to become a Cooperator or anything like that.  We like links!

 

Blessings,

Gemma

[Gemma]

Gemma, it continues to be amazing to me the bits of truth you can slide past with a single sentence. For instance, you know that the diocese of Charlotte was contacted and you generally know who did it because I blogged about it AND what we were told. In fact, the person who placed the phone call posted to you here about it within a day or so. Subsequently you accused "your critics" of defamation, libel (just yesterday or so) and of violating the privacy of the canonist because I used her name in my blog. In fact you responded to  several of the points made in the blog with a lengthy post about having misunderstood the complicated legal language used by said canonist to disassociate herself from your projects so it is more than clear that it is the reason you spoke with the Chancellor. In fact, as I explained in my blog, the canonist said she was never associated with those projects --- she simply said this had never been true. So PLEASE do not try to give (or allow) the impression you knew nothing of this until you phoned the chancellor. You have posted about your conversation with the Chancellor elsewhere recently (I may have said VG in another post; that was an error and I apologize for misspeaking)  and said he was sure you were acting in good faith or responsibly, etc. While I am glad he was calm in his exchange with you (how else should he have been?), you are aware, I hope, that saying "I am sure you are acting responsibly" it tends to be more reassuring and hopeful than judgment. In any case I hope you are not trying to imply the Chancellor knew you or your work well enough to make such a judgment!! That would be patently untrue.

 

CONF is not at issue because CONF apparently involves other "founders" and their own foundations.  Some of those (we can only hope!) may have legitimate projects, but whether they do or not CO is YOUR set of projects, the specific set of project which raise serious questions, the same projects the diocese of Charlotte disavowed knowing anything of two years ago despite your numerous claims to be supported by your Bishop and guided "every step of the way" by a hermit canonist. For those reasons I am asking that you not obscure issues by pointing to projects which may be someone else's "babies." As far as the "misunderstanding of 2010" goes, I don't see where there was any misunderstanding. You made specific claims here and other places online and those were demonstrated to be false. 

 

Yes, you are perfectly free to begin a private association of the faithful. ANYONE is. No permission is required unless the group is doing catechetics or is involved in worship, etc. Thus, you are perfectly free to send yearly, monthly or even daily reports to the diocese on your own initiative if you wish, but none of this means you have any support or approval from the diocese, and none of it explains why you cannot answer direct questions about this with equally direct answers. So here are the related questions this all raises for me. In one way and another they have all but the last one been asked before. 1) Does your Bishop SUPPORT your efforts (and would the Diocese of Charlotte affirm this is the case should someone call to inquire)? 2) Has the Bishop ever RESPONDED to you about these reports you send in on your own initiative --- especially with something more than a simple notice they were received? (Though I do wonder if you received responses from the chancery noting your reports HAD been received) 3) Have you cleared up the "misunderstanding" you had with the canonist we spoke with, and if so, would she confirm that  if we were to contact her once again?  I am going to leave these matters here in the hope that you will answer these questions directly. Please note they use no canonical language to trip you up and require nothing more than simple straightforward answers everyone will understand. Also please note, that of themselves, if you answer no to all of them your answers imply no judgment one way or another on your projects themselves! Those judgments are a different matter.

 

Regarding your status as a lay hermit, I have serious questions about that since you are married with children --- all of whom were living at home when I first heard you make this claim. I hope everyone who reads this has serious questions about a person who may spend some time alone during the day waiting AND PREPARING for husband and sons to come home from work and school calling themselves a "hermit." As I have written other places, that is analogous to a babysitter who spends several hours a day with children calling herself a mother because of this part-time contact with children she "mothers." Sorry, it shows a woeful lack of understanding of the eremitical vocation or what a call to solitude means. It trivializes the term and empties it of meaning. It demonstrates a serious lack of understanding and apparent carelessness re what the silence of solitude lived by the hermit is or how it functions as a gift for those who are isolated full-time by life's circumstances; these people need to believe this can be redeemed and transformed into genuine solitude. It takes a genuine hermit to do this. You are not a hermit, lay or otherwise so let's let that bit of sophistry go at this point.

 

Yesterday I asked you whether you wanted to answer questions bit by bit OR continue doing so from the original post I put up and your answer was essentially, yes, let's do that. So I am asking again, HOW would you like to proceed here? Do you want to answer the questions I asked above and then let others add their's or what would you like to do? What is the best way for people to get the answers they require from you? It seems clear that the frustration level with a lack of real answers is quite high. How would YOU like to proceed?

 

Sincerely,

Sister Laurel M O'Neal, Er Dio

Stillsong Hermitage

Diocese of Oakland

http://notesfromstillsong.blogspot.com

 

One question at a time, please.  I had answered that on page two, I believe.

 

I will have to check with the chancery when the holidays are over.  I simply don't have the time right now.  I've already said I will go through my pastor to obtain that information.  I know the diocesan pro-life person knows of me. Since CO celebrates 25 years in 2013, we will be asking for the papal blessing through the diocesan channels.  I will take care of all of this at the same time--after the holidays, please.  As for the hermit-canonist, I have not maintained contact with her.  I am trying to respect her solitude by leaving her be.

 

BTW, I was invited back to the phorum by dUSt himself.

 

Blessings,

Gemma

[Gemma]

Those who are affiliate founders were rejected because of age, and qualified for other communities, but did not find what they were looking for.  I am included in CONF because of the Cloisterites.

 

CO is the clearning house and our discernment groups.  My SD told me it was better not to hear from the Chancery, so that is the rule I am following.

 

Blessings,

Gemma

[dUSt]

Executive decision here.

From this point forward, phatmass shall only be used to promote vocations that have official diocesan approval.

Any post that links to a website, community, or vocation that is not recognized by the Church shall result in a warning. Multiple warning shall result in a ban from phatmass.

Thanks.
-dUSt

[Gabriela]

Executive decision here.

From this point forward, phatmass shall only be used to promote vocations that have official diocesan approval.

Any post that links to a website, community, or vocation that is not recognized by the Church shall result in a warning. Multiple warning shall result in a ban from phatmass.

Thanks.
-dUSt

 

THANK YOU, dUSt!!!

[NovemberFourth]

Executive decision here.

From this point forward, phatmass shall only be used to promote vocations that have official diocesan approval.

Any post that links to a website, community, or vocation that is not recognized by the Church shall result in a warning. Multiple warning shall result in a ban from phatmass.

Thanks.
-dUSt

 

Thank you,

 

For many reasons I think that is both wise and fair.

 

N4

[Sister_Laurel]

One question at a time, please.  I had answered that on page two, I believe.

 

I will have to check with the chancery when the holidays are over.  I simply don't have the time right now.  I've already said I will go through my pastor to obtain that information.  I know the diocesan pro-life person knows of me. Since CO celebrates 25 years in 2013, we will be asking for the papal blessing through the diocesan channels.  I will take care of all of this at the same time--after the holidays, please.  As for the hermit-canonist, I have not maintained contact with her.  I am trying to respect her solitude by leaving her be.

 

BTW, I was invited back to the phorum by dUSt himself.

 

Blessings,

Gemma

 

Gemma,

 

Okay, one question at a time. 

 

Also, just to be very clear about something which is confusing and frustrating with your posts, protesting you said you will check with the chancery after the holidays answers none of the specific questions I asked. I am assuming therefore that the simple answers are "No, the chancery does not respond and has never responded to the reports I have sent in on my own initiative." "No, the Bishop does NOT support Cloisters Outreach or any of its projects" and "No, I never cleared up the "misunderstanding" I had with the canonist." (Since she works at the chancery it is no infringement of her solitude to contact her there during work hours. I am sure you realize this. I think this is especially true when it was not an issue when you had her directing your projects "every step of the way" or you both spent hours on the computer exchanging emails --- something you just the other day posted was the case.) QUESTION : Am I correct in my conclusions: 1) the Bishop does not SUPPORT Co, and 2) the diocese does not respond to the reports I sent in on my own initiative? PLEASE correct me if I am wrong in ANY of these conclusions and explain why that is.

 

Requesting a papal blessing is irrelevant to the questions I asked you.It does NOT indicate APPROVAL for CO. It would only become relevant if you started using the notion of a papal blessing or of your diocese helping you request one as a sign they APPROVE CO. As for who invited you back to this phorum, that too is irrelevant. As I understand the matter you have every right to participate here any time you want so long as you abide by guidelines, etc, but if you are promoting groups that foster vocations in the church and are supposedly 25 years old, then people have a right to ask questions and get direct and honest answers to those. Wouldn't you agree?  So, can we stick with the question?

 

Thanks,

Sister Laurel M O'Neal, Er Dio

Stillsong Hermitage

Diocese of Oakland

http://notesfromstillsong.blogspot.com

[Sister_Laurel]

Executive decision here.

From this point forward, phatmass shall only be used to promote vocations that have official diocesan approval.

Any post that links to a website, community, or vocation that is not recognized by the Church shall result in a warning. Multiple warning shall result in a ban from phatmass.

Thanks.
-dUSt

 

I think this is a good move. Thank you.

 

Sister Laurel, Er Dio

Stillsong Hermitage

Diocese of Oakland

http://notesfromstillsong.blog spot.com