Sister_Laurel Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 Thank you, Sister. I certainly knew that temporary vows applied in religious life, I didn't realize it also applied where Canon 603 is concerned for example. I had thought that a Bishop may require quite some considerable time including actually living in solitude, interviews etc. prior to consecration and this would include discerning what an applicant's motivation might be - but not that there could be temporary profession similar to what applies in religious life - and I think it is quite positive that there can be temporary profession under Canon 603. On my own personal supposition only, I am supposing that there is no temporary profession for Consecrated Virginity - but again, I might be wrong. When you have time and I realize we are in a very busy time of year, could you please explain what "new forms" means http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/125146-the-cloisterite-family/page-9#entry2527213. Initially on a first read, I had thought that it meant new religious communities - but realizing that there can be diocesan approval of new religious communities, I have wondered what "new forms" with approval reserved to Apostolic See may mean - and have only ever had my own supposition in this regard. Forgive me if you had noted my question and not had time to answer as yet. My questions are that I may have my own understandings correct. With canon 603 there is both a period of time living as a lay hermit in solitude required and, after mutual discernment with one's diocese one MAY be admitted to temporary profession. One needs to discern whether one is called to lay eremitical life or consecrated eremitical life as well as whether one is called to solitary eremitical or semi-eremitical life. More foundationally one needs to discern whether solitude is transitional (for instance, something that follows loss or bereavement) or a life call.The Bishops I know or have corresponded with usually demand at least five years in solitude before admission to public vows of any sort. This is because solitude comes in many forms and few of these are eremitical or calls to eremitical solitude. The numbers are not carved in stone however, though the stages tend to be more universally regarded as necessary. New forms of consecrated life could include something like consecrated widows, something JPII spoke of but which has never been made a canonical (public) state of life. Another new form could, for instance, be the equivalent of consecrated virginity for men --- something which some have called for but again which is not yet recognized or allowed for by the Church. Some have spoken of things like "diocesan oblates" or "diocesan Sisters" but at this point in time neither is a recognized form of consecrated life and therefore neither can be considered "consecrated life". The idea here is that the form must be distinct from already existing forms of consecrated life and also be vetted and discerned by dioceses over a period of time (who recognize a unique charism and mission associated with these) and then be ratified by the Vatican. When that happens the Pope will issue a motu proprio revising canon law and formally establish these as forms of consecrated life. Today the 2 new forms of consecrated life recognized in canon law are solitary (c 603) hermits and consecrated virgins living in the world. CV's make no vows so no temporary profession is possible. Instead a longer period of formation and discernment is being adopted by most dioceses. Sincerely, Sister Laurel M O'Neal, Er Dio Stillsong Hermitage Diocese of Oakland http://notesfromstillsong.blogspot.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mary's Margaret Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 Sister Laurel: I'm not familiar with the term "diocesan Sister." Could you please explain/define? Thank-you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sister_Laurel Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 (edited) Sister Laurel: I'm not familiar with the term "diocesan Sister." Could you please explain/define? Thank-you. it is something I have seen once or twice. In one case the individual was professed under canon 603. The diocese, however, did not want to publicize this nor were they open to professing diocesan hermits and so, referred to the person as a diocesan Sister, meaning she did not belong to a community but supposedly had public vows. The Vicar for Religious asked about the meaning of the term (because the person was included in the diocesan directory) but was given no explanation. I believe that Fr Gambari, the canonist whose book is referred to in the beginning of this thread, may speak to the idea of halfway states which include this kind of thing and the idea of diocesan oblates. Unfortunately for some of these people, until the Vatican affirms these vocations as public vocations with canonical standing, rights and obligations, they are not forms of consecrated life. In the case of the person using canon 603, to the extent she is not truly a hermit or is using the canon in a stopgap manner, her vows can be declared invalid as can her consecration. However, it may be that in time dioceses will allow women to make public vows and be considered religious despite not being part of an institute of consecrated life. Were this to be done and were the vocation ratified by Rome, we would be looking at a new form of consecrated life, different from Consecrated Virgins living in the world, etc. Sincerely, Sister Laurel M O'Neal, Er Dio Stillsong Hermitage Diocese of Oakland http://notesfromstillsong.blogspot.com Edited December 26, 2012 by SRLAUREL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradMom Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 +Praised be Jesus Christ! I haven't been on here for quite some time posting, but I do follow the posts. I'm not sure why my name or a reference to one of my posts came up - the doctor I studied under was one of the foremost experts in cults - Dr. Margaret Singer, +RIP. Her focus, in particular - which is very important - was DESTRUCTIVE cults. As for the constant questions and sometimes aggressive attitudes towards Gemma, I do have an opinion. She has done an excellent job of using her talents - especially her creative imagination - to think of ways to praise God through religious life. So far, I have not seen or heard of Gemma asking for money, arranging retreats or making promises. In the past, she has been very honest about her limitations and challenges. Personally, I feel sad as I read some of this. We all have our own path, and unless Gemxma begins gathering people together, actively recruiting - with requirements for large dowries or financial demands, I don't have a problem. Enjoy her dreams. As I have pointed out repeatedly, the Internet is not particularly safe for many reasons, and what Gemma has created - though perhaps not something I would do - is relatively harmless in my position. She has continued this use of the Internet for a long time, I'm not sure this situation begs this kind of negative attention. Pax, TradMom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarbTherese Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 With canon 603 there is both a period of time living as a lay hermit in solitude required and, after mutual discernment with one's diocese one MAY be admitted to temporary profession. One needs to discern whether one is called to lay eremitical life or consecrated eremitical life as well as whether one is called to solitary eremitical or semi-eremitical life. More foundationally one needs to discern whether solitude is transitional (for instance, something that follows loss or bereavement) or a life call.The Bishops I know or have corresponded with usually demand at least five years in solitude before admission to public vows of any sort. This is because solitude comes in many forms and few of these are eremitical or calls to eremitical solitude. The numbers are not carved in stone however, though the stages tend to be more universally regarded as necessary. New forms of consecrated life could include something like consecrated widows, something JPII spoke of but which has never been made a canonical (public) state of life. Another new form could, for instance, be the equivalent of consecrated virginity for men --- something which some have called for but again which is not yet recognized or allowed for by the Church. Some have spoken of things like "diocesan oblates" or "diocesan Sisters" but at this point in time neither is a recognized form of consecrated life and therefore neither can be considered "consecrated life". The idea here is that the form must be distinct from already existing forms of consecrated life and also be vetted and discerned by dioceses over a period of time (who recognize a unique charism and mission associated with these) and then be ratified by the Vatican. When that happens the Pope will issue a motu proprio revising canon law and formally establish these as forms of consecrated life. Today the 2 new forms of consecrated life recognized in canon law are solitary (c 603) hermits and consecrated virgins living in the world. CV's make no vows so no temporary profession is possible. Instead a longer period of formation and discernment is being adopted by most dioceses. Sincerely, Sister Laurel M O'Neal, Er Dio Stillsong Hermitage Diocese of Oakland http://notesfromstillsong.blogspot.com Thank you very much once more, Sister. Your answers have been very helpful to me and I am now very much better informed than previously. I also have a new reference link included in my files that contains a wealth of information on the consecrated life in its various forms and from a reliable source. Happy Christmas to you and to yours and many blessings of Peace and of Joy in the coming New Year.........and to all.............Barb :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AccountDeleted Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 +Praised be Jesus Christ! I haven't been on here for quite some time posting, but I do follow the posts. I'm not sure why my name or a reference to one of my posts came up - the doctor I studied under was one of the foremost experts in cults - Dr. Margaret Singer, +RIP. Her focus, in particular - which is very important - was DESTRUCTIVE cults. As for the constant questions and sometimes aggressive attitudes towards Gemma, I do have an opinion. She has done an excellent job of using her talents - especially her creative imagination - to think of ways to praise God through religious life. So far, I have not seen or heard of Gemma asking for money, arranging retreats or making promises. In the past, she has been very honest about her limitations and challenges. Personally, I feel sad as I read some of this. We all have our own path, and unless Gemxma begins gathering people together, actively recruiting - with requirements for large dowries or financial demands, I don't have a problem. Enjoy her dreams. As I have pointed out repeatedly, the Internet is not particularly safe for many reasons, and what Gemma has created - though perhaps not something I would do - is relatively harmless in my position. She has continued this use of the Internet for a long time, I'm not sure this situation begs this kind of negative attention. Pax, TradMom Tradmom I think Gemma opened up the can of worms herself by trying to promote what is in effect a non-existent community here on phatmass. If she had kept her claims simply to be able to help others discern their vocations by providing information about existing communities within the Church, then I doubt if this much controversy would have arisen. As it stands however, she has made many claims over the years about different things, including the potential for those who join her Cloister Outreach organisation to become consecrated under solemn vows. And she is actively trying to recruit memebers - that is what this thread started as - a promotion for Cloister Outreach. I don't think there is any question that Gemma's initial efforts were done with the greatest of intentions or any doubt that she has provided a lot of good information and links on her website about different communities. And I for one admire her for this. My concern has always been over the claims that have been made about the validity of her 'community' (and later 'communities' in plural) and the support that she claims to have from the Vatican, her Bishop, a canonist lawyer and various other clerics. And yet she has not been prepared to provide any confirming details of this support. In fact, when confirmation has been sought in the past for Cloister Outreach's legitimacy within the Church, the resultant replies have been of a negative nature. To these discoveries, Gemma has responded with evasiveness and declarations that she can't reveal her sources or that such information is 'confidential' in nature. Speaking as a person who has been involved in a destructive cult in the 70s (an Eastern Guru cult), I have personal experience of what it means to waste not only money but one's life (in terms of time spent) before realising the truth and getting out. I may not have ever contributed financially to Gemma's work but I did waste time out of my life discerning possibilities with CO before realising that it couldn't possibly lead to consecration of any kind within the Church. At her own admission, Gemma states that CO has been in existence for 20+ years and yet not one person has been consecrated in solemn vows yet but continues to insist that by joining her group, this is possible. My time is just as valuable to me as my money is, probably more so in many ways. I would just hate to see anyone else waste time discerning with her group/s not knowing that they are simply virtual realities of her creation which allow her to invent charisms, habits, rules, constitutions and horariums without end. Her heart may be in the right place, but it is still a dangerous thing to offer a placebo religious community to those who are sincerely discerning a life of consecration in the Church in the real world. Personally, I see her greatest potential is to be a resource for those who want information about already existing communities (those that already have diocesan or papal approval) and not to be the foundress of some future religious community she imagines. Being a foundress requires a lot more than an online listserv. In fact, most new communities start out in real life, and then gain a web presence along the way. I was a member of the founding group of Daugthers of Mary, Mother of Israel's Hope. Even Rosalind Moss (Mother Miriam) did not start with a web site, but through the invitation of the Archbishop of St Louis after she wrote to him requesting permission to start a new community there. When Archbishop Burke was called to Rome, right after we arrived in St Louis, she had to put her plans on hold for awhile, so spent a year as a Novice in the Visitation. When the new Archbishop of St Louis would not support her work, she sought help elsewhere and was invited to start her community by the Bishop of Tulsa. After things were progressing, she started her website and provided details of the community's progress. There was no evasion or half-truths or unsubstantiated claims. Already she is a lot further along with her community in the 4 1/2 years since I was with her than Gemma is with her 20 year old community. That is because Gemma's community does not exist. I can understand everyone's concern not to upset Gemma, but honestly, do you think Rosalind Moss didn't have her detractors from the very beginning too? But she didn't hide from questions - she welcomed them and responded to them honestly and openly. I can't say I agreed with everything that she did in starting her community, but I never had call to doubt her honesty or the legitimate support she had from the Church. And a true foundress will welcome an opportunity to respond openly. There would be no point in discussing this at all if it had no effect on the lives of others, but it does. Having lived in the ashram of a cult, I do not believe that Gemma has established a cult at all - in fact, I don't think she has established anything at all apart from a listserve yahoo group and website. What does concern me, and has always concerned me, is the possibility that anyone might waste valuable discernment time with her group, not realising that it goes nowhere towards actual consecration. I would be happy to let her get on with her Cloister Outreach group if all it claimed was to be able to provide information about existing communities through online links or news. It is her claims to be the foundress of a community that will one day allow members to become consecrated in the Church that worries me. She can either provide evidence to support her claims about her community (Rosalind showed me the letter she received from Archbishop Raymond Burke before I joined her) or withdraw the claims and continue with her good work of providing information only. How is this an unreasonable request? The negative attention is caused by her own unsubstantiated claims here and on her website and listserv. No one asked her to start this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mary's Margaret Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 "However, it may be that in time dioceses will allow women to make public vows and be considered religious despite not being part of an institute of consecrated life. Were this to be done and were the vocation ratified by Rome, we would be looking at a new form of consecrated life, different from Consecrated Virgins living in the world, etc." Thank-you, Sister Laurel. This probably won't come to pass within my lifetime, but it is certainly in keeping with the expression of consecrated life to which I am most drawn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarbTherese Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 (edited) I don't consider my life eremitical other than probably passing stages. These times I truly value and anticipate - and it seems to be the way my life has unfolded to date and probably will in the future. I think I would be applying too if one could be consecrated living a specific and defined way of life with spiritual direction. I would also anticipate that such a way of life would have a trial period under the diocese etc. and temporary profession prior to perpetual profession. But not to happen in my lifetime I dont think and so I continue in private vows. Of course, such a consecration may never happen. My take is that if The Lord wanted me consecrated there would be a means to do so in accord with His call to me. Prior to making private vows for life, I did have quite a long chat also with a Jesuit theologian and this was very informative - even though he did somewhat lead me rather down a garden path on one point anyway -fortunately I was able to have a long chat with a Consecrated Virgin prior to making any official approach to the diocese. I was very careful prior to making private vows to ensure that I understood what I was doing and hence sought advice from those 'in the know'. Edited December 27, 2012 by BarbaraTherese Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AccountDeleted Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 My sense is that Romano no longer is active and has moved to a nursing home or something similar. (This may have been temporary and changed once again, but it was the case earlier this year.) best, Sister Laurel M O'Neal, Er DIo Stillsong Hermitage Diocese of Oakland http://notesfromstillsong.blogspot.com Update: I received an email from Sr Mary Magdalene of the Hermits of Bethlehem. She said that Father Romano is back from rehab after a spinal injury and is doing much better now. Also, they had to vacate the property for a couple of months due to Superstorm Sandy which downed over 200 trees and did damage to some of the buildings. The repairs have been done, and enough trees moved to let them get to the hermitages, but there is still a lot of clean-up to do. But at least they are back home now. It was nice to hear that Father is still hanging in there because he is definitely the heart of the laura and they will miss him a lot when he does finally have to retire. And she passed on his blessings to me and wished me well for my vocation. I will always be grateful for his support over the years and so I ask for prayers for the Hermits and for him as it sounds like they have been through a lot lately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sister_Laurel Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 +Praised be Jesus Christ! I haven't been on here for quite some time posting, but I do follow the posts. I'm not sure why my name or a reference to one of my posts came up - the doctor I studied under was one of the foremost experts in cults - Dr. Margaret Singer, +RIP. Her focus, in particular - which is very important - was DESTRUCTIVE cults. As for the constant questions and sometimes aggressive attitudes towards Gemma, I do have an opinion. She has done an excellent job of using her talents - especially her creative imagination - to think of ways to praise God through religious life. So far, I have not seen or heard of Gemma asking for money, arranging retreats or making promises. In the past, she has been very honest about her limitations and challenges. Personally, I feel sad as I read some of this. We all have our own path, and unless Gemxma begins gathering people together, actively recruiting - with requirements for large dowries or financial demands, I don't have a problem. Enjoy her dreams. As I have pointed out repeatedly, the Internet is not particularly safe for many reasons, and what Gemma has created - though perhaps not something I would do - is relatively harmless in my position. She has continued this use of the Internet for a long time, I'm not sure this situation begs this kind of negative attention. Pax, TradMom While Gemma has not had time to answer questions here over the holidays, she has been busy getting a few people together (on an online list) to begin forming a "Betty Carmel". (Sorry but I personally dislike such names. Either a house is a Carmel or it is not. Either a vocation is authentic or it is not.) Gemma knows none of these people really (she says as much in the post below), but is asking that they rent a house near a parish, become a private association of the faithful, become non-profits so they can accept donations, have background checks, physicals (which makes it all sound VERY official) and submit their medical histories. (One wonders to whom these are to be submitted for evaluation much less for safekeeping!!) NO WHERE does she indicate how difficult ALL of this will be, nor that none of it is automatic -- especially the Carmelite identity. Instead she again uses language to obscure all of this, to sweep away important distinctions, to cloud the need for ecclesial approval and guidance of various types. Here is the pertinent post: [[Betty Carmel aspirants--esp x, y, z, and w (actual names are given) How old are you and where are you located? Before anyone goes anywhere, the four of you need to chat off-list and get to know each other. Either off-list or everyone make sure they are on the Teresa's Carmel list. You need a rendevous (sic) point. Background checks will be required, as well as physicals with a family medical history. After you get to know each other, you will to form an association of the faithful and obtain non-profit status for the sake of donations.]] Most prudent people would stop long before they got to the idea of proposing gaining non-profit status as a simple or straightforward matter. They would say, let's not get ahead of ourselves here. We know nothing of these individuals, their age, backgrounds, etc. Who is going to supervise this project? What Carmelites will assist with it in a substantive or integral way? Will the diocesan Bishop support such a project or even assist with its beginnings? etc. She goes on:[[We have the 1990 Constitutions and the 1991 Formation program (Ratio). There is a Mass in the Extraordinary Form at OLG in Greensboro every Sunday at 1:30pm. Mass in the Ordinary Form during the week is there at 7am. To bring this community about, what I was hoping would happen is: In addition to the aforementioned steps: x or y, look at the ads on the OLG bulletin, and see if there is a realtor. If not, call the church and ask for a referral. You will need either a two, three, or four bedroom house or apartment within walking distance of the church. Let the realtor know what is needed. DON'T SELL ANYTHING YET. Keep your property in a safe place in case this doesn't work out. Remunerative work/financial support is going to be the bugaboo if you're not careful.]] I can't tell you how misguided and exploitive all of this seems to me to be. I am also noting the rather slippery language being used: "What I hoped would happen" rather than "here's what you do next" is used at one point --- though there is no doubt Gemma is directing this entire project (the next sentences give clear directions). There is no reference to a Carmel overseeing this project, to formation with such a Carmel, etc, to the requirements of the Carmelite Orders (which, as I understand it, are really quite demanding regarding the affiliation or aggregation of others with them), or to turning this project over to the women themselves who SHOULD be working with Carmelites at every step of the way. There is a premature accent on becoming a non-profit (one needs to be validated by the Church for this to happen. For instance lay hermits/hermitages cannot become non-profits but diocesan (canonical) hermits/hermitages may do so under certain conditions). However. it seems clear that there is the INTENTION to receive donations from outsiders on at least questionable pretenses. So, two of the conditions which made what Gemma is doing "okay" for one poster are now abrogated: Gemma is now gathering people together and the issue of money and donations is immediately raised --- though there is no sense that Gemma will benefit from this directly of course. Meanwhile NONE of the really significant questions Gemma was asked here have been answered. She carries on unchanged as though those questions have not been raised --- and as though they are neither serious nor important. She has claimed to be an online resource only and not to be involved in the actual founding of communities, despite evidence to the contrary. She claims CO is distinct from CONF yet CONF is simply a branch of CO --- the actual people-gathering branch; the distinction is purely superficial or cosmetic. At the same time people here have been upset by the questions posed to Gemma, or by posts which are clear about the huge responsibility involved in TRULY founding a convent of any sort. But it seems very clear that Gemma is playing with lives here without demonstrating any competency to do so. Is she free to do this? Yes. She is strictly within (or outside) any legal requirements in what she is doing. Is she right to be doing so, and to have been allowed to post about what some have called her "creative gifts" ad infinitum --- without answering the real questions this raises in straightforward ways? No. The Scriptures have Jesus posing a parable in the form of a question. "Who would begin to build [a project] without first counting the cost?" The answer is clear: Only a fool or a pretender would do so. Unfortunately, the world is full of fools and pretenders who are vulnerable to one another because of desperation or ambition mixed with better motives as well. Is it moral for pretenders to exploit the desperate and foolish? I would argue no, it is not. So, the holidays are over, the questions remain unanswered, and CO goes on misleading the vulnerable --- in this case (in light of the unanswered questions) with an interestingly timed zeal. This is NOT the way new foundations are formed or made. My sincerest hope is that ANYONE ever considering such a "new foundation" would speak to really competent people first including their diocesan vocations people, spiritual directors, canonists, and Carmelite (etc) leadership, before ever making the first plan to hare off after such a chimera. Sincerely, Sister Laurel M O'Neal, Er Dio Stillsong Hermitage Diocese of Oakland http://notesfromstillsong.blogspot.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HopefulBride Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 While Gemma has not had time to answer questions here over the holidays, she has been busy getting a few people together (on an online list) to begin forming a "Betty Carmel". (Sorry but I personally dislike such names. Either a house is a Carmel or it is not. Either a vocation is authentic or it is not.) Gemma knows none of these people really (she says as much in the post below), but is asking that they rent a house near a parish, become a private association of the faithful, become non-profits so they can accept donations, have background checks, physicals (which makes it all sound VERY official) and submit their medical histories. (One wonders to whom these are to be submitted for evaluation much less for safekeeping!!) NO WHERE does she indicate how difficult ALL of this will be, nor that none of it is automatic -- especially the Carmelite identity. Instead she again uses language to obscure all of this, to sweep away important distinctions, to cloud the need for ecclesial approval and guidance of various types. Here is the pertinent post: [[Betty Carmel aspirants--esp x, y, z, and w (actual names are given) How old are you and where are you located? Before anyone goes anywhere, the four of you need to chat off-list and get to know each other. Either off-list or everyone make sure they are on the Teresa's Carmel list. You need a rendevous (sic) point. Background checks will be required, as well as physicals with a family medical history. After you get to know each other, you will to form an association of the faithful and obtain non-profit status for the sake of donations.]] Most prudent people would stop long before they got to the idea of proposing gaining non-profit status as a simple or straightforward matter. They would say, let's not get ahead of ourselves here. We know nothing of these individuals, their age, backgrounds, etc. Who is going to supervise this project? What Carmelites will assist with it in a substantive or integral way? Will the diocesan Bishop support such a project or even assist with its beginnings? etc. She goes on:[[We have the 1990 Constitutions and the 1991 Formation program (Ratio). There is a Mass in the Extraordinary Form at OLG in Greensboro every Sunday at 1:30pm. Mass in the Ordinary Form during the week is there at 7am. To bring this community about, what I was hoping would happen is: In addition to the aforementioned steps: x or y, look at the ads on the OLG bulletin, and see if there is a realtor. If not, call the church and ask for a referral. You will need either a two, three, or four bedroom house or apartment within walking distance of the church. Let the realtor know what is needed. DON'T SELL ANYTHING YET. Keep your property in a safe place in case this doesn't work out. Remunerative work/financial support is going to be the bugaboo if you're not careful.]] I can't tell you how misguided and exploitive all of this seems to me to be. I am also noting the rather slippery language being used: "What I hoped would happen" rather than "here's what you do next" is used at one point --- though there is no doubt Gemma is directing this entire project (the next sentences give clear directions). There is no reference to a Carmel overseeing this project, to formation with such a Carmel, etc, to the requirements of the Carmelite Orders (which, as I understand it, are really quite demanding regarding the affiliation or aggregation of others with them), or to turning this project over to the women themselves who SHOULD be working with Carmelites at every step of the way. There is a premature accent on becoming a non-profit (one needs to be validated by the Church for this to happen. For instance lay hermits/hermitages cannot become non-profits but diocesan (canonical) hermits/hermitages may do so under certain conditions). However. it seems clear that there is the INTENTION to receive donations from outsiders on at least questionable pretenses. So, two of the conditions which made what Gemma is doing "okay" for one poster are now abrogated: Gemma is now gathering people together and the issue of money and donations is immediately raised --- though there is no sense that Gemma will benefit from this directly of course. Meanwhile NONE of the really significant questions Gemma was asked here have been answered. She carries on unchanged as though those questions have not been raised --- and as though they are neither serious nor important. She has claimed to be an online resource only and not to be involved in the actual founding of communities, despite evidence to the contrary. She claims CO is distinct from CONF yet CONF is simply a branch of CO --- the actual people-gathering branch; the distinction is purely superficial or cosmetic. At the same time people here have been upset by the questions posed to Gemma, or by posts which are clear about the huge responsibility involved in TRULY founding a convent of any sort. But it seems very clear that Gemma is playing with lives here without demonstrating any competency to do so. Is she free to do this? Yes. She is strictly within (or outside) any legal requirements in what she is doing. Is she right to be doing so, and to have been allowed to post about what some have called her "creative gifts" ad infinitum --- without answering the real questions this raises in straightforward ways? No. The Scriptures have Jesus posing a parable in the form of a question. "Who would begin to build [a project] without first counting the cost?" The answer is clear: Only a fool or a pretender would do so. Unfortunately, the world is full of fools and pretenders who are vulnerable to one another because of desperation or ambition mixed with better motives as well. Is it moral for pretenders to exploit the desperate and foolish? I would argue no, it is not. So, the holidays are over, the questions remain unanswered, and CO goes on misleading the vulnerable --- in this case (in light of the unanswered questions) with an interestingly timed zeal. This is NOT the way new foundations are formed or made. My sincerest hope is that ANYONE ever considering such a "new foundation" would speak to really competent people first including their diocesan vocations people, spiritual directors, canonists, and Carmelite (etc) leadership, before ever making the first plan to hare off after such a chimera. Sincerely, Sister Laurel M O'Neal, Er Dio Stillsong Hermitage Diocese of Oakland http://notesfromstillsong.blogspot.com :deadhorse: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
To Jesus Through Mary Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 :deadhorse: :lol: for real. You read my mind! It is baffling that some think they are going to get a straight answer out of Gemma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sister_Laurel Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 :lol: for real. You read my mind! It is baffling that some think they are going to get a straight answer out of Gemma. My own expectations are not the issue for me personally. The issue, for me anyway, is whether or not Gemma SHOULD give straight answers to legitimate questions and only then, whether she will step up to the plate and do so. I admit I would be surprised if she did (and I think truth would be served if she actually did), but some of her earlier posts here promised to do so --- especially after the holidays. I can only take her at her word in those cases. Sincerely, Sister Laurel M O'Neal, Er Dio Stillsong Hermitage http://notesfromstillsong.blogspot.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the171 Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Stop beating a dead horse. Maggots are falling out. I don't want maggots falling all over the vocation station. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToJesusMyHeart Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 :cry: :dead: :sos: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts