The Cloisterite Family

[Maggyie]

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.

 

my point is, I highly doubt that that anyone is likely to be misled and I doubt that Gemma is intentionally trying to mislead. In her own mind, her efforts are totally normal and legitimate. This is how misunderstandings arise, for instance with the hermit-canonist, I have NO doubt that Gemma sincerely thought she was being aided by the canonist. People who have this type of disability are not able to accurately analyze their relationships with other people and the world. Whereas a neurotypical person would say "oh yeah, the canonist gave me the brush-off" an autistic person thinks "the canonist approves of my work!"

 

It doesn't occur to her, for instance, that for annual reports to be actually read, they are something that would be requested before they are submitted. They are not a one way street where you just send them in unsolicited. But she is not intentionally trying to be deceptive or obtuse about human relationships, that's simply the way her brain likely works. The interaction which is obvious to us (first the diocese asks for a report, then I create and send one), does not come naturally to her.

 

This is why the well-meaning people on this thread, including Sr. Laurel, will continue to be very frustrated with her. No matter how slowly you ask the questions you are not going to change the fact that her brain will interpret your questions quite differently (and the data from which she would draw her answers, does not match your data). This is why to me all this begins to feel like piling on or bullying. This situation is a result of her disability and it's a shame to pound away at her because of it. Her responses (I once booked a bus trip with rooms reserved at the Seminary, I was going to do this or that but then I had to move) are weak enough that truly no one with common sense or shall I say conventional neurology would take them as adequate.

 

If an individual has so little common sense or critical thinking skills that they are misled to think that these projects are an actual path to conventional religious life, then yes, I highly doubt they have a religious vocation. Perhaps I am cynical but I know far too many people who are convinced they are called, but who have personalities or intellectual capabilities that are true impediments. Religious life almost seems to attract such types.

[Gabriela]

my point is, I highly doubt that that anyone is likely to be misled and I doubt that Gemma is intentionally trying to mislead. In her own mind, her efforts are totally normal and legitimate. This is how misunderstandings arise, for instance with the hermit-canonist, I have NO doubt that Gemma sincerely thought she was being aided by the canonist. People who have this type of disability are not able to accurately analyze their relationships with other people and the world. Whereas a neurotypical person would say "oh yeah, the canonist gave me the brush-off" an autistic person thinks "the canonist approves of my work!"

 

It doesn't occur to her, for instance, that for annual reports to be actually read, they are something that would be requested before they are submitted. They are not a one way street where you just send them in unsolicited. But she is not intentionally trying to be deceptive or obtuse about human relationships, that's simply the way her brain likely works. The interaction which is obvious to us (first the diocese asks for a report, then I create and send one), does not come naturally to her.

 

This is why the well-meaning people on this thread, including Sr. Laurel, will continue to be very frustrated with her. No matter how slowly you ask the questions you are not going to change the fact that her brain will interpret your questions quite differently (and the data from which she would draw her answers, does not match your data). This is why to me all this begins to feel like piling on or bullying. This situation is a result of her disability and it's a shame to pound away at her because of it. Her responses (I once booked a bus trip with rooms reserved at the Seminary, I was going to do this or that but then I had to move) are weak enough that truly no one with common sense or shall I say conventional neurology would take them as adequate.

 

If an individual has so little common sense or critical thinking skills that they are misled to think that these projects are an actual path to conventional religious life, then yes, I highly doubt they have a religious vocation. Perhaps I am cynical but I know far too many people who are convinced they are called, but who have personalities or intellectual capabilities that are true impediments. Religious life almost seems to attract such types.

 

I, for one, was not aware that Gemma is autistic.

 

Secondly, I don't think that naivete and innocent trustingness are signs that a person does not have a vocation. On the contrary, I think that they may be good signs one does. You seem to be implying that only a stupid person could be taken in by this. But if you look up just a few cases of online scams, I think you'll find that some very smart people have the wool pulled over their eyes not because they're dumb, but because they're lonely, desperate, etc. Sometimes people do things against their better judgment simply because they have lost hope in all other things. Those are precisely the people who need protection (and positive support).

 

Whether we are "bullying" Gemma is subjective. But I think we can say pretty objectively that that is not anyone's intention, especially when (I think) it was not known until now that Gemma is autistic. But even if she is autistic, it does not mean that we should permit her to mislead others. We should, in my opinion, gently and charitably request that she stick to the phorum guidelines and make her contributions in ways that are generally acceptable. And, even as an autistic, she still has a responsibility to do her best to achieve those things.

[Maggyie]

  So, can we stick with the question?

 

Thanks,

Sister Laurel M O'Neal, Er Dio

Stillsong Hermitage

Diocese of Oakland

http://notesfromstillsong.blogspot.com

 

the answer is no, she can't stick with the question. You are trying to slowly guide her to realize that her interpretation of her program doesn't match up with its reality, and that's a very frustrating job for the average person working with someone who has a very different brain. It is challenging even for people who are specially trained to help others adapt their unique brains to function effectively in a "neurotypical world." As a religious I am sure your time is limited and you have much more fruitful ways to make use of your time.

[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

In all honesty, I don't know if he approves. My SD told me to carry on and if I received a letter from the chancery telling me to stop what I was doing, then I had to stop what I was doing.

Yearly reports are required by canon law for private lay associations. Therefore, I sent them by both email and snail mail, respectively.

I will know for sure after the first of the year.

The hermit-canonist works from her hermitage, not the chancery.

Blessings,
Gemma

[Maggyie]

I, for one, was not aware that Gemma is autistic.

 

Secondly, I don't think that naivete and innocent trustingness are signs that a person does not have a vocation. On the contrary, I think that they may be good signs one does. You seem to be implying that only a stupid person could be taken in by this. But if you look up just a few cases of online scams, I think you'll find that some very smart people have the wool pulled over their eyes not because they're dumb, but because they're lonely, desperate, etc. Sometimes people do things against their better judgment simply because they have lost hope in all other things. Those are precisely the people who need protection (and positive support).

 

Whether we are "bullying" Gemma is subjective. But I think we can say pretty objectively that that is not anyone's intention, especially when (I think) it was not known until now that Gemma is autistic. But even if she is autistic, it does not mean that we should permit her to mislead others. We should, in my opinion, gently and charitably request that she stick to the phorum guidelines and make her contributions in ways that are generally acceptable. And, even as an autistic, she still has a responsibility to do her best to achieve those things.

 

She mentioned it on the phorum the last time there was a dust-up about this. Sr Laurel I am sure is well aware of this (she has perused much of Gemma's writings and Gemma talks extensively about it on her personal blog). So why Sr. continues to engage her like this is beyond me.

 

If you are familiar at all with autism, some of her behaviors are fairly obvious manifestations, for instance the high interest in minutiae about habits and different charisms and religious order names. Often autistic people will pick special topics that they get intensely interested in. This is one of those special topics.

 

 

But if you look up just a few cases of online scams, I think you'll find that some very smart people have the wool pulled over their eyes not because they're dumb, but because they're lonely, desperate, etc. Sometimes people do things against their better judgment simply because they have lost hope in all other things.

 

very true, but these exact characteristics also make them poor candidates for religious life... The lonely and desperate have true emotional impediments to a religious vocation. Let's be honest that Gemma is probably not "stealing" many authentic (conventional!) religious vocations.

[beatitude]

Maggie, I share Gemma's diagnosis (and so does curiousing - she made a thread about her AS in Open Mic a while ago). I agree that there are obvious signs of ASD in what Gemma writes, particularly the fascination with habits and horariums (the horarium obsession makes good sense for an autistic person, as we tend to rely very heavily on routine and similarity). As a child I had similar obsessions with 'planning', only in my case it was with planning seating arrangements.

 

As an autistic person (and someone with quite marked ASD, too - I have a support worker to live independently) I don't feel that all of Gemma's answers can be attributed to autism.  For example, I was once searching the phorum for info on something and I came across an old thread on Cloister Outreach in which Gemma really did give the impression that she was speaking to the canon lawyer on a regular basis, even ending her post with, "Our canonist has just requested some documentation, which I have to go gather." The canonist never asked for any documentation from Gemma and only spoke with her a couple of times. Autism does not cause you to hallucinate requests for paperwork. Gemma referenced a conversation that never took place - and more than that, she gave the impression that it had 'just' happened, when she couldn't have had any contact with the canon lawyer for months by that point,

 

The idea that people with ASD are incapable of lying or manipulating others is a common myth. We can and we do. I am not saying for sure that Gemma is doing this. I don't know and it is good to give people the benefit of the doubt, and now that Dust has given us the new rule for Vocation Station, these discussions become irrelevant anyway. It may be that she sincerely believes her own fantasy (a separate issue from ASD). But at the same time, it isn't helpful to try and use ASD as a get-out clause for everything. As an autistic person I actually find that rather worrying, as it takes away my responsibility for myself.

[GraceUk]

What exactly is Cloister Outreach.  Is it an organization to promote religious vocations?  And to give advice to people who think they have a vocation.  Or is it an actual third order? 

[Gabriela]

She mentioned it on the phorum the last time there was a dust-up about this. Sr Laurel I am sure is well aware of this (she has perused much of Gemma's writings and Gemma talks extensively about it on her personal blog). So why Sr. continues to engage her like this is beyond me.

 

If you are familiar at all with autism, some of her behaviors are fairly obvious manifestations, for instance the high interest in minutiae about habits and different charisms and religious order names. Often autistic people will pick special topics that they get intensely interested in. This is one of those special topics.

 

very true, but these exact characteristics also make them poor candidates for religious life... The lonely and desperate have true emotional impediments to a religious vocation. Let's be honest that Gemma is probably not "stealing" many authentic (conventional!) religious vocations.

 

Aha. Obviously I did not read that other thread in its entirety.

 

I am very familiar with autism. And I have to agree with what beatitude said of this in her post.

 

My concern is not that she is "stealing vocations". My concern is that she is misleading people, guiding them into something that is untruthful and possibly hurtful. It's not about women "wasting time" with Gemma's projects when they could be discerning with proper communities. It's about women getting confused and possibly hurt in a community that purports to be legit but does not have any approval within the Church. I think we'd all agree that that is something we should be worried about for any person, regardless of their age, physical health, mental ability, etc.

[SstrAli]

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 so much!!!!!!! 

[Sister_Laurel]

the answer is no, she can't stick with the question. You are trying to slowly guide her to realize that her interpretation of her program doesn't match up with its reality, and that's a very frustrating job for the average person working with someone who has a very different brain. It is challenging even for people who are specially trained to help others adapt their unique brains to function effectively in a "neurotypical world." As a religious I am sure your time is limited and you have much more fruitful ways to make use of your time.

 

In point of fact Maggie, we don't know what Gemma is capable of or not because of autism. I know folks with autism, specifically Aspergers, and one in particular is one of the most critical thinkers I know. She is capable of amazing perception, is a researcher with skills I wish I had and she is completely capable of sticking with a question --- in multiple languages. She may be an exception but with her in mind I have to say no, I don't think anyone here can simply chalk the entire situation with Gemma up to Aspergers and say then --- let her go and do whatever she wants --- only the really stupid or unsuited for religious life will follow her in her projects. You see, Gemma does not simply say "Yes, my Bishop APPROVES" when in fact he does not. She avoids the question completely. Neither does she simply turn a conversation with a canonist into its opposite. Instead she says she has spent hours via email with this canonist when the canonist says she has had no contact with her and broke off contact after just a couple of conversations. She says she misunderstood some critical canonical term when in fact there were none to misunderstand. She claims to be fulfilling requests for documentation when none have been requested. These seem to me to be more than simple errors of interpretation by someone who is not "neurotypical." They, are in fact, evidence of someone who makes things up out of whole cloth or who really cannot simply state the truth.

 

Still, if nothing other than the clear signal that Gemma, for whatever reason, seems incapable of answering any question about Cloisters honestly or straightforwardly, comes from slow and careful questioning then that will also be a service to those who consider using CO as a steppingstone to authentic vocations. Personally, I am hoping that Gemma CAN answer questions if they are asked under conditions she prefers.

 

At the same time, please don't worry about what I do or don't do with my time. I am capable of determining what is important or fruitful and will do that in this case as I always do. Moving forward slowly with single questions might well help in all of that since I can certainly handle one question at a time.

 

Sincerely,

Sister Laurel M O'Neal, Er Dio

Stillsong Hermitage

Diocese of Oakland

http://notesfromstillsong.blogspot.com

[Sister_Laurel]

In all honesty, I don't know if he approves. My SD told me to carry on and if I received a letter from the chancery telling me to stop what I was doing, then I had to stop what I was doing.

Yearly reports are required by canon law for private lay associations. Therefore, I sent them by both email and snail mail, respectively.

I will know for sure after the first of the year.

The hermit-canonist works from her hermitage, not the chancery.

Blessings,
Gemma

 

Thank you for this Gemma. I have always been under the impression that you understood that "approval" was a specific act which changes the standing of a group in law. While it is the case that "recognition" merely means the Bishop has seen the groups statutes, etc and does not imply approval, approval --- as the documents you have yourself referred people to  --- move a group one step closer to becoming a public association of the faithful or institute of consecrated life.

 

What is it you will know after the first of the year?

 

For your benefit, and that of others reading here I am including typical requirements for private associations of the faithful who seek to become public associations of the faithful. While these requirements may differ somewhat from diocese to diocese they will generally be the same. My own sense is that no project of CO meets ANY of these requirements. I have also attached the complete file so folks may look at that.

 

I sincerely hope it is helpful.

 

Sister Laurel M O'Neal, Er Dio

Stillsong Hermitage

Diocese of Oakland

http://notesfromstillsong.blogspot.com

 

 

Level One: Voluntary Association of Individuals

 

l). A voluntary  association  seeking recognition by the (local ordinary) for the purpose of establishing  a new religious  institute must be comprised  of at least three individuals who have lived together  in community  for a minimum  of two years. 

 

2). During this initial exploration  period  the group  should be actively  developing their way of life,

including by writing  their  statutes.  Guidelines for writing  statutes  are available from the

Chancellor  for Canonical Affairs.

 

3). The individual members  should pursue further education  in their  chosen spirituality and, if the

nature of the group makes it appropriate,  the group  should engage with similar groups for the

purpose  of sharing prayer,  community,  and knowledge. A formal program  of continuing

education  should  be developed  which  addresses the group's particular  needs for Catholic

theology and spiritual  progress.

 

4). A voluntary  association  may have its own spiritual director and  confessor,  but approval to

reserve  the Blessed Sacrament must be received  from the Archbishop.

I

INTENT  OF BECOMING  INSTITUTES OF CONSECRATED  LIFE5). The group  should  interact  regularly (at least once a year) with the Archbishop's  Delegate for Religious,  providing  to the Delegate  information  on each member  of the community  including, but not limited to, curriculum  vitae, sacramental  records-  including  declarations  of nullity when applicable,  academic records,  documents pertaining  to the public  profession  of vows, civil documents such as immigration  records as well as any incorporation documents for the community, medical  reports  and psychological assessments, and recommendations  from a least two individuals who know the member well.

 

6). Other information  provided to the Delegate for Religious  should include descriptions  of the

physical  factors  and qualitative  dimensions  of community  life, the financial  condition  of the

group including  any salaries or stipends received for employment and provisions for medical

insurance  and retirement benefits,  the group's service and ministry to the faithful  of the

Archdiocese,  and the group's spiritual  life including worship, prayer  life, and preparation  for

commitment.

 

7). The information  provided should  be the basis for an annual evaluation  to be shared with and

discussed  with members of the group. With each evaluation,  goals for the coming year  should  be

agreed upon and  stated in writing. This evaluation  will be compiled by the Delegate for

Religious and approved  by the Archbishop.

 

8). In most cases, prior to entering  the recognition process to advance  to the level of a private

association of the faithful, the group will be required  to undergo  a period of novitiate with  a

similar institute.

 

9). After the group  has demonstrated  a certain and reasonable stability  (generally five consecutive

years of living  as a community),  and received  a minimum  of two positive annual

recommendations,  the group may submit its statutes for review and formally request recognition

as a private association  by the [local ordinary].

[ToJesusMyHeart]

I highly doubt that that anyone is likely to be misled and I doubt that Gemma is intentionally trying to mislead. In her own mind, her efforts are totally normal and legitimate. This is how misunderstandings arise, for instance with the hermit-canonist, I have NO doubt that Gemma sincerely thought she was being aided by the canonist. People who have this type of disability are not able to accurately analyze their relationships with other people and the world. Whereas a neurotypical person would say "oh yeah, the canonist gave me the brush-off" an autistic person thinks "the canonist approves of my work!"

 

It doesn't occur to her, for instance, that for annual reports to be actually read, they are something that would be requested before they are submitted. They are not a one way street where you just send them in unsolicited. But she is not intentionally trying to be deceptive or obtuse about human relationships, that's simply the way her brain likely works. The interaction which is obvious to us (first the diocese asks for a report, then I create and send one), does not come naturally to her.

 

This is why the well-meaning people on this thread, including Sr. Laurel, will continue to be very frustrated with her. No matter how slowly you ask the questions you are not going to change the fact that her brain will interpret your questions quite differently (and the data from which she would draw her answers, does not match your data). This is why to me all this begins to feel like piling on or bullying. This situation is a result of her disability and it's a shame to pound away at her because of it.

 

 

The answer is no, she can't stick with the question. You are trying to slowly guide her to realize that her interpretation of her program doesn't match up with its reality, and that's a very frustrating job for the average person working with someone who has a very different brain. It is challenging even for people who are specially trained to help others adapt their unique brains to function effectively in a "neurotypical world." As a religious I am sure your time is limited and you have much more fruitful ways to make use of your time.

 

I agree with everything Maggie has said. This thread seems to be seriously lacking in charity and compassion. You may not think you are bullying or harassing Gemma, but from over here, it most certainly seems that you are. I can only imagine how Gemma must be feeling at all of this interrogation and frustration. 

 

And let me be clear that I'm not some outsider to this situation. I am currently on the email listserv for the Holy Innocents lay association called "Dr. Gianna's Assistants for Life" (DGAL). Dr. Gianna's Assistants for Life is a private pro-life lay association of the Christian faithful dedicated to making known to the world the medical and spiritual truths of abortion and all others who are affected by the culture of death. http://cloisters.tripod.com/drgiannasassistantsforlife/

 

To clear up what somebody asked (sorry I forgot to quote them), "What exactly is Cloister Outreach", this is what Gemma told me when I inquired about the Holy Innocents charism back in July: "What we do at Cloister Outreach and our founder's support branch called the Fullerton Society is incubate charisms by supporting the founders.  We have our own group of affiliate founders, called CONF." So there you go, that's what CO does. 

 

They (Gemma and the founders of the charisms) aren't scamming anybody. They aren't lying about being real. I don't understand all the pointing fingers and accusations of scams and lies that is going on here. Gemma is authentic and she is really trying to help people follow their vocation. The lay associations are real and they are helpful. 

 

As per Gemma, "The Sisters of the Holy Innocents & St. Gianna Molla are in an umbrella association known as the Cloister Outreach Affiliate New Foundations, better known as CONF. We have numerous proposed charisms, several of which are in the process of emergence, the Holy Innocents being one of them. This charism was passed by the first bishop of Knoxville, who said he had no problems with it."

 

When I first began corresponding with Gemma in July, she said right up front to me, "Welcome aboard. Pray for the Holy Ghost to purify your intentions. We want you in the right place." (emphasis mine)

 

Gemma is not trying to lead people astray or "steal" vocations from other religious orders. Please stop accusing her of that--or of trying to "scam" anyone. She wants everyone to follow their true, God-given vocation, whether or not it be to an emerging charism within the CO.

 

Charity is severely lacking here. Let's all please calm down, take a deep breath, and remember to love one another. I wish I didn't have to post this at all; we should automatically treat each other with the utmost respect. It's a shame.

 

And just in case anybody is wondering, I'm feeling more attracted to a different religious community (not the Holy Innocents). The community I am currently discerning with is a Religious Institute of diocesan right within the Church. This is not because of anything Gemma or the charism founder has done wrong. They are wonderful people who have been nothing but patient and helpful in my discernment. It just so happens that, as Gemma told me, "Not everyone is called to be an adherent to an emerging charism. Such does require a special grace." It seems at this moment in my discernment as though God has not given me the special grace to adhere to an emerging charism. Again, this is not due to any fault on Gemma's part. This is God working in my life, pulling me in a different direction. 

 

Let us quell this uncharitable interrogation. It's just not worth the grief you're putting Gemma through, and it really is inappropriate. If you feel the need to pile more question on further, I please ask you to take it to private messages and if you get the answers you want, feel free to share it. That's my request.

 

Peace be with you all. And a Happy Advent. :)

Edited December 16, 2012 by ToJesusMyHeart

[Sister_Laurel]

What exactly is Cloister Outreach.  Is it an organization to promote religious vocations?  And to give advice to people who think they have a vocation.  Or is it an actual third order? 

 

This is something we are trying to pin down; it seems to either have been or claimed to havw been all of these --- or, truly, none of them.

 

Sister Laurel M O'Neal, Er Dio

Stillsong Hermitage

Diocese of Oakland

http://notesfromstillsong.blogspot.com

[Sister_Laurel]

I agree with everything Maggie has said. This thread seems to be seriously lacking in charity and compassion. You may not think you are bullying or harassing Gemma, but from over here, it most certainly seems that you are. I can only imagine how Gemma must be feeling at all of this interrogation and frustration. 

 

And let me be clear that I'm not some outsider to this situation. I am currently on the email listserv for the Holy Innocents lay association called "Dr. Gianna's Assistants for Life" (DGAL). Dr. Gianna's Assistants for Life is a private pro-life lay association of the Christian faithful dedicated to making known to the world the medical and spiritual truths of abortion and all others who are affected by the culture of death. http://cloisters.tripod.com/drgiannasassistantsforlife/

 

To clear up what somebody asked (sorry I forgot to quote them), "What exactly is Cloister Outreach", this is what Gemma told me when I inquired about the Holy Innocents charism back in July: "What we do at Cloister Outreach and our founder's support branch called the Fullerton Society is incubate charisms by supporting the founders.  We have our own group of affiliate founders, called CONF." So there you go, that's what CO does. 

 

They (Gemma and the founders of the charisms) aren't scamming anybody. They aren't lying about being real. I don't understand all the pointing fingers and accusations of scams and lies that is going on here. Gemma is authentic and she is really trying to help people follow their vocation. The lay associations are real and they are helpful. 

 

As per Gemma, "The Sisters of the Holy Innocents & St. Gianna Molla are in an umbrella association known as the Cloister Outreach Affiliate New Foundations, better known as CONF. We have numerous proposed charisms, several of which are in the process of emergence, the Holy Innocents being one of them. This charism was passed by the first bishop of Knoxville, who said he had no problems with it."

 

When I first began corresponding with Gemma in July, she said right up front to me, "Welcome aboard. Pray for the Holy Ghost to purify your intentions. We want you in the right place." (emphasis mine)

 

Gemma is not trying to lead people astray or "steal" vocations from other religious orders. Please stop accusing her of that--or of trying to "scam" anyone. She wants everyone to follow their true, God-given vocation, whether or not it be to an emerging charism within the CO.

 

Charity is severely lacking here. Let's all please calm down, take a deep breath, and remember to love one another. I wish I didn't have to post this at all; we should automatically treat each other with the utmost respect. It's a shame.

 

And just in case anybody is wondering, I'm feeling more attracted to a different religious community (not the Holy Innocents). The community I am currently discerning with is a Religious Institute of diocesan right within the Church. This is not because of anything Gemma or the charism founder has done wrong. They are wonderful people who have been nothing but patient and helpful in my discernment. It just so happens that, as Gemma told me, "Not everyone is called to be an adherent to an emerging charism. Such does require a special grace." It seems at this moment in my discernment as though God has not given me the special grace to adhere to an emerging charism. Again, this is not due to any fault on Gemma's part. This is God working in my life, pulling me in a different direction. 

 

Let us quell this uncharitable interrogation. It's just not worth the grief you're putting Gemma through, and it really is inappropriate. If you feel the need to pile more question on further, I please ask you to take it to private messages and if you get the answers you want, feel free to share it. That's my request.

 

Peace be with you all. And a Happy Advent. :)

 

Dear ToJesus,

      Gemma has promoted Cloisters Outreach a number of places on the web. She did this again here just recently. That raises questions and they are questions which NEVER seem to be answered directly. Contrary to your own affirmations above Cloisters Outreach does NOT only claim to be an umbrella group for founders. Gemma claims to be doing formation with actual solitary eremitical vocations who are discerning "with us". She claims to be writing statutes for these hermits and a plan of life which they may adopt. She claimed a canonist was secured by this group and that she was directing their progress every step of the way and to be securing required documentation for this canonist regarding these hermits or CO more generally. She routinely claims, "We have a group for that" as soon as someone mentions a special problem in their own discernment when in fact there may be (or have been) nothing but an imagined or "proposed" group until that very day. This is not the same thing as a "founders' group" or CONF unless we simply conflate the two things and throw meanings out the window.

 

The questions all this raises deserve answers and we are trying to find a charitable way to allow Gemma to do that as she can. Should Gemma decide she cannot answer questions or that doing so is too much stress for her, then I would hope she herself would say so. She has agreed to answer one question at a time; that is what she said she would like to do. So that is what we are doing. I am sure it would seem less like an interrogation if there was one discussion post including several questions which Gemma then answered directly in a single post, but Gemma is the one who chose to proceed in this way and I am grateful both to her for being willing to participate (and clear about what is helpful) as well as to folks for accommodating that after the flurry of questions in the beginning of this thread. If Gemma decides all this is simply too much for her and either says that or bows out of the conversation, well, perhaps that would allow someone else from CO (not CONF) to answer the natural questions raised by CO's claims --- wherever that takes place. That might be a very good thing for Gemma, for CO, and for those of us who have tried to get answers for a number of years. In any case, it is her choice. And of course, if there really is no one else who can answer the natural questions that occur, then that too is helpful to anyone considering "discerning a vocation" with Cloisters Outreach.

 

Sincerely,

Sister Laurel M O'Neal, Er Dio

Stillsong Hermitage

Diocese of Oakland

http://notesfromstillsong.blogspot.com

[StClare_OraProNobis]

Maybe since DuSt has spoken and only those who are promoting vocations and communities recognized by a diocese we should all let it go...

 

Gemma at this point I don't think would be allowed to answer the questions being posed to her without breaking the new rule.  

 

Most likely she will be in need of our prayers.