Sister_Laurel Posted December 16, 2012 Posted December 16, 2012 As a older discerner..if Gemma can help me out..then I am grateful. If she isnt, then that is between her and myself. No one else. We are all adults and can take care of ourselves and our discernment journey. While I appreciate SL's cautionary red flag waving...she doesnt need to keep the fire burning. I submit that she take a step back and take a big breath and let it die. This thread needs to die as well. I'm fine with stepping back for the time being at least. Gemma has said that she will know after the holidays if CO is approved by her Bishop or not. Personally I will say it is incomprehensible to me that someone could not know the answer to this question if for no other reason than that commensurate responsibilities come with actual episcopal approval of any vocation (cf posted requirements for private assoc's on the way to becoming institutes of consecrated life above). However If CO is approved Gemma can continue to post. If it is not, then we will know that too whether because Gemma tells us and continues to promote CO or because she does not. Sincerely, Sister Laurel M O'Neal, Er Dio Stillsong Hermitage Diocese of Oakland http://notesfromstillsong.blogspot.com
GraceUk Posted December 16, 2012 Posted December 16, 2012 I don't want to be involved in any arguments. But it is really unclear if all these organisations have the authorisation of the church. They either have or they haven't. And if they have then fine. And if they haven't then not fine. Can't see why it's unclear.
Nunsense Posted December 16, 2012 Posted December 16, 2012 Now I feel as if some of you are attacking the messenger. If this post was on the Debate Table we would have no problem with asking the tough questions and trying to get answers, but for some reason, some people here think that we are not allowed to ask relevant questinons about a supposedly legitimate community - which has (according to the foundress) been in existence for 25 years. SrLaurel is asking her questions in a logical, patient and charitable way but is being told that she shouldn't be doing this. Why? If CO is a real and valid group like any other emerging community, then why can't we ask the tough questions? Is it becauses the foundress is a member or phatmass or because she has many friends here? We are all accountable for what we do and post, no matter who we are. I won't accept the ASD as an excuse for failing to accept responsibility because my brother has ASD and he has never tried to hide behind it. It's a label representing a spectrum of symptoms - it doesn't define the person. And it doesn't stop the individual from being able to hold their own discussions. If the foundress of a new community can't answer questions about that community, then I have grave concerns for the community itself. Gemma has agreed to answer SrLaurel's questions and SrLaurel is asking them in a charitable (and yet insightful) way but it does appear that she has to keep coming back to some of them becase they are not being answered. If it is simply a miscommunication problem, then hopefully over time this will be resolved, if everyone stops trying to take sides and stop the conversation completely. I don't think it would be good to shut this down (but that is not my call) simply because the issue has NOT been resolved - the main question of exactly WHAT is Cloister Outreach anyway? Yes, CONF is about supporting other foundresses, but that is not CO, which seems to be some kind of community founded by Gemma herself, which has no real legitimacy and might possibly detract from other, legitimate vocational opportunities. Yes, we are all adults and can make our own decisions. But decisions are based on facts and then converted to information. If the facts are not clear, neither is the information generated. In computers we call this GIGO (garbage in, garbage out). How can one be expected to make an informed decision if the information is not valid?? All some of want here are the facts, the real facts, not the fantasy. SrLaurel points out that some real vocations might get led astray by misinformation, especially those considering becoming a consecrated hermit under canon 603. If there is a solid core to CO, then Gemma should be pleased to have this come out in discussion, in order to help others see what she sees in her work. I do appreciate the links she has on her website and the information she provides about other (legitimate) communities. The confusion is WHAT is CO and what support does it have from the Church? Simple and easily verified. So please don't blame SrLaurel for asking completely realistic and logical questions about this topic. She is NOT bullying or attacking anyone - she is being very patient and careful in the way she words things, and I see nothing personally offensive to anyone in her posts. Please, let her and Gemma have this discussion.
Sister_Laurel Posted December 16, 2012 Posted December 16, 2012 (edited) I don't want to be involved in any arguments. But it is really unclear if all these organisations have the authorisation of the church. They either have or they haven't. And if they have then fine. And if they haven't then not fine. Can't see why it's unclear. Which is the simple question the person beginning this thread has been unable to answer. Still, things are not so straightforward as your own commonsense conclusions make out. This is partly because private associations of the faithful DO NOT NEED AUTHORIZATION or approval of anyone at all unless they seek to catechize or be involved in worship in some sense and that is completely fine. Because we are baptized Christians we can associate in this way for all sorts of reasons. That is a right established in Canon Law. However, if a private association of the faithful wishes to become a public association and eventually an institute of consecrated life, approval is necessary. Beyond this approval certain, responsibilities or obligations accrue to such groups. One expects (and has a right to expect) that the group and the diocese are meeting these requirements. Ordinarily the founder of such a group will simply say, "No, we are a private association of the faithful and do not yet have our Bishop's approval though he recognizes that we exist" or "No, and we are not seeking it!" or again, "No, but since we are a private association of the faithful with an eye towards becoming an institute of consecrated life, we have therefore gotten (or are seeking) our Bishop's approval." When the founder's answer to the question of whether or not they are approved by the local Bishop is, "I don't know," that is an exceedingly surprising and unusual statement. But it exacerbates a situation which has SOME ambiguity already built into the canonical divisions and fact that the Church allows for associations of all types. Your own question points up one of the reasons the questions here have been so important. There are different kinds of Associations of the Faithful with different levels of accountability in the Church and thus, corresponding rights and obligations which differ one from another. I don't think most Catholics understand this. just as most did not understand that when the Hermit Intercessors of the Lamb were suppressed they were not already religious men and women with public vows. They were lay persons with the ecclesially validated hope of one day becoming consecrated persons with rights given to them in light of that hope. The rights (habits, titles, permission to reserve Eucharist, or hold Catholic worhip services) were withdrawn when the group was suppressed. They were a public association of the faithful but they were not, and now never will be, an institute of consecrated life. And yet many Catholics associated with the group in one way and another were actually surprised to hear of the group's true status. They were angry and thought the Church had stripped these people of public vows, but this was not the case. When distinctions and levels of authority are fudged over and obscured people can get badly hurt and for this reason clarity is a virtue in these kinds of things. Sister Laurel M O'Neal, Er Dio Stillsong Hermitage Diocese of Oakland http://notesfromstillsong.blogspot.com Edited December 16, 2012 by SRLAUREL
GraceUk Posted December 16, 2012 Posted December 16, 2012 Thanks for explaining the difference between private associations of the faithful and others. I think I understand a bit of this. So I could meet with a few friends and say the rosary. And that would be fine. But then to become some sort of Institute of Religious Life or take vows or make promises then that would need the approval of the Church. .
Sister_Laurel Posted December 17, 2012 Posted December 17, 2012 (edited) Thanks for explaining the difference between private associations of the faithful and others. I think I understand a bit of this. So I could meet with a few friends and say the rosary. And that would be fine. But then to become some sort of Institute of Religious Life or take vows or make promises then that would need the approval of the Church. . Let's say you wanted to come together as a group dedicated to learning about the Benedictine charism. A group of you could do this and call yourselves "Friends of the Gifts of Benedictinism" or something else --- hopefully a good deal better than my example! You would be a private association of the faithful. You could even make private vows of (for instance) Benedictine stability or conversion of life as part of this private group's identity and still be a private association of the faithful. These would be simple elaborations of your Baptismal commitments and would give no additional canonical standing. You would continue to be a lay person acting privately. But if you wanted to become a group which had a public presence in the Church and a public mission and charism, you would need to become a Public Association of the Faithful with greater official responsibility and accountability to the Church in the person of your Bishop. If you then decided you wanted to become a community of Benedictine Sisters or even nuns (or aimed for this from the beginning), for instance, you would need to follow the guidelines from your diocese (similar to those posted above) and definitely move through the stages and increasing degrees of legal rights and obligations to perhaps eventually become an institute of consecrated life. Were your group to take this step and be erected as an institute of consecrated life by your Bishop, you would each then be admitted to PUBLIC vows and consecration with all of the rights and obligations that stem from this state and are codified in canon law. (What this means is that the consecrated state has rights and obligations which do not merely come from Baptism.) As a corollary to this if you (the group) wanted to wear Benedictine habits or otherwise style yourselves as religious (title, post-nomial initials) you would require permission from your Bishop because these things are associated with and symbolic of ecclesial identities and public rights and obligations which are ONLY mediated to the person by the Church. Of course, in your own homes you could play dressup and style yourself any way you wanted --- though it might not be prudent or in the best taste, but wearing identifying and distinguishing garb in public requires the permission of your Bishop. N. B, I have simplified the divisions some in this post to highlight the fact that there is an increasing level of accountability and also of public rights and responsibilities. This is a very general schema and does not account for private associations WITH episcopal approval, for instance. Hopefully it still does what I wanted it to do. I hope this is helpful. Sisteer Laurel M O'Neal, Er Dio Stillsong Hermitage Diocese of Oakland http://notesfromstillsong.blogspot.com Edited December 17, 2012 by SRLAUREL
Sister_Laurel Posted December 19, 2012 Posted December 19, 2012 Gemma, some folks have suggested people back off asking you questions, and others have suggested we proceed charitably and slowly as you have opted for. I have said I am fine backing away from this conversation until after the holidays, but we haven't heard clearly from you yourself. Can you say what your own preference in this is? I ask because it is clear you are posting things which are relevant to this conversation on your own website. The day before yesterday you posted that CO was a de facto private association of the faithful. This usage usually means that it is not a de jure private association and that it does not have you Bishop's approval. (Anything with de jure standing is already a de facto reality so the term de facto tends ONLY to be used for those things that do not ALSO have legal standing.) I think that actually answers the question asked about Bishop's approval, so it would be fine to let that one go unless there is something significant you feel must be added. One complaint you have made on your blog (and I think here as well) is that detractors have not contacted you directly. I would certainly not want that to be true because you posted on your own website but were unable to participate here for some reason which could be resolved. Sincerely, Sister Laurel M O'Neal, Er Dio Stillsong Hermitage Diocese of Oakland http://notesfromstillsong.blogspot.com
StClare_OraProNobis Posted December 19, 2012 Posted December 19, 2012 Gemma- considering the new forum rule please do not feel pressured to continue with this thread. If you want it to let it go, that is okay. You are in my prayers. Peace and Merry Christmas, dear one!
Nunsense Posted December 19, 2012 Posted December 19, 2012 Gemma- considering the new forum rule please do not feel pressured to continue with this thread. If you want it to let it go, that is okay. You are in my prayers. Peace and Merry Christmas, dear one! I think you have misread the rule... [quote]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.[/quote] This states that a community without official diocesan approval may not be promoted nor links posted. It does not say that discussion about such a community may not be held or that foundresses may not offer evidence of legitimacy or diocesan approval. In fact, I should thnk that Gemma would welcome an opportunity to correct any misinformation she feels that might have inadvertently been given by her in the past or to correct any misunderstandings that might have occurred - both for the good of her endeavors and the benefit of others who might have been confused about the status of CO.
StClare_OraProNobis Posted December 19, 2012 Posted December 19, 2012 (edited) I think you have misread the rule... This states that a community without official diocesan approval may not be promoted nor links posted. It does not say that discussion about such a community may not be held or that foundresses may not offer evidence of legitimacy or diocesan approval. In fact, I should thnk that Gemma would welcome an opportunity to correct any misinformation she feels that might have inadvertently been given by her in the past or to correct any misunderstandings that might have occurred - both for the good of her endeavors and the benefit of others who might have been confused about the status of CO. Okay, fair enough. I did misread the rule. I do think giving Gemma an option to discontinue this thread may be a charity if she doesn't want to continue. Edited December 19, 2012 by StClare_OraProNobis
Nunsense Posted December 20, 2012 Posted December 20, 2012 Okay, fair enough. I did misread the rule. I do think giving Gemma an option to discontinue this thread may be a charity if she doesn't want to continue. I don't understand. Why would she not want to correct misunderstandings or errors? Especially if it might affect others who are discerning? I would think that anyone who is promoting vocations, as she is, or starting a new community, would want full disclosure from the start, and an ongoing dialogue to maintain clarity of purpose and intention. Only if someone has something to hide would they feel intimidated by legitimate and honest questions asked in a forum of mutual respect and integrity. I believe that SrLaurel (who has been consecrated by her diocesan Bishop) is asking very valid and charitable questions about a project that has been in existence for 25 years and still is not completely understood (or is misunderstood?) by others. This is the perfect opportunity to help clear things up, giving all benefit of the doubt for past inconsistencies and/or errors and allowing things to be corrected and or re-interpreted.
Sister_Laurel Posted December 20, 2012 Posted December 20, 2012 (edited) I don't understand. Why would she not want to correct misunderstandings or errors? Especially if it might affect others who are discerning? I would think that anyone who is promoting vocations, as she is, or starting a new community, would want full disclosure from the start, and an ongoing dialogue to maintain clarity of purpose and intention. Only if someone has something to hide would they feel intimidated by legitimate and honest questions asked in a forum of mutual respect and integrity. I believe that SrLaurel (who has been consecrated by her diocesan Bishop) is asking very valid and charitable questions about a project that has been in existence for 25 years and still is not completely understood (or is misunderstood?) by others. This is the perfect opportunity to help clear things up, giving all benefit of the doubt for past inconsistencies and/or errors and allowing things to be corrected and or re-interpreted. She is certainly continuing the "conversation" (monologue) on the Cloisters Outreach blog. In the last post she not only tells a new version of the story of origins of the eremitical "branch" of CO but she was very clear that CO's eremitical expression, for instance, (the only group with actual adherents it seems) has never sought episcopal approval and therefore neither has it nor may ever have it. She also mischaracterized my own criticisms and concerns for the use of canon 603 as a stopgap "vocation" saying that "her critics were" concerned merely with hermits who become cenobites. Actually, that is NOT my concern nor the real issue with misusing canon 603 as a means of getting consecrated. I would like to clarify that here now because I cannot do so on her blog. Canon 603 is a canon which is meant to protect and govern SOLITARY eremitical vocations. It is meant to allow individuals who have discerned a LIFE vocation to solitary eremitical life to be consecrated and publicly professed to service in the name of the Church. It is NOT meant for establishing communities of hermits (a Laura made up of those already professed is a different matter with very different characteristics) nor circumventing the arduous process of becoming an institute of consecrated life. There are other avenues extant for such projects and processes. It is not meant for those who can't be cenobites and thus maybe are "interested in eremitical life". It is for those who sincerely feel a life call to this. To use canon 603 to get individuals professed and consecrated as solitary hermits when they REALLY feel called and plan to be cenobites (community members) and have planned on forming a community with the consecrated hermits under a common Rule, superior, and possibly under a different Bishop in a different diocese is a fraudulent use of the canon. In such cases, the "hermits" might well find their vows being dispensed or not accepted by the new Bishop. This fraud is important because when the revised code of canon law first came out some Bishops and dioceses saw canons 603 and 604 as fallback vocations rather than as genuine ones --- though that is slowly changing as authentic vocations are professed (and/or consecrated) and live their lives fully and fruitfully. Still, people misusing the canon contribute to this notion and could lead to at least the virtual suppression of the use of the canon more widely in the Church. This in turn is important because the solitary hermit witnesses to a life of the silence of solitude in a world marked and marred by its opposite, namely, lives of noise, distraction, emptiness and isolation. Solitude is the redemption of isolation and the silence of solitude is the fullness that comes when a person discovers their completion in God. It includes the resulting communion with others that is is part of this completion. People need only think of the chronically ill and isolated elderly, and even some prisoners who might well live their lives as solitary hermits --- some of them as consecrated solitary hermits under canon 603 --- to realize how important this vocation is and how serious abuses. If a person lives as a hermit for a number of years after discerning this vocation in good faith, I have no problem with them becoming cenobites, but canon 603 is NOT meant to be used as a pretense for getting publicly professed and consecrated when one really feels a call to something else and will never truly live the vocation or the gift (charism) it is to the Church and world. That is dishonest and it is a betrayal of the vocation's charism, the purpose of canon 603, and the mission given the diocesan hermit at her perpetual profession. Sincerely, Sister Laurel M O'Neal, Er Dio Stillsong Hermitage Diocese of Oakland http://notesfromstillsong.blogspot.com Edited December 20, 2012 by SRLAUREL
deusluxmea Posted December 20, 2012 Posted December 20, 2012 (tangent alert) Hey SrLaurel, What would be the canonical status for someone who lives as a hermit in a community? Example would be a Benedictine nun I knew who was given permission to live in a hermitage on the Abbey property. Or even Brother Louis, Thomas Merton himself, lived as a hermit even though he was a Trappist. In these cases, both hermits were fully professed and well seasoned in their charism and their community. By no means do I wish to undermine the distinctions you are making, rather I am curious about hermit life, (a life that I am unlikely to ever live!) (tangent over)
To Jesus Through Mary Posted December 20, 2012 Posted December 20, 2012 With all due respect, I really think you are engaging in a very public and futile argument. Maggie spelled it out quite well. With the new rule your main concern has been addressed. This so-called "religious order" cannot be promoted and confusing anyone on PM anymore. What is the purpose of continuing to engage in this one-sided "discussion"? I seriously doubt Gemma will be back to respond to your questions... as you probably well know. You know you will not be able to reason with her or get a straight answer, certainly not one that would satisfy. But with continuing on this way it does come off as just beating a dead horse and frankly a bit uncharitable. You got the desired result, no? So why continue to bemoan the subject further? I understand your frustration and desire to "set the record straight"... but it just is not going to happen. At least not from the mouth of Gemma and not the way you desire it to be.
Sister_Laurel Posted December 20, 2012 Posted December 20, 2012 (edited) (tangent alert) Hey SrLaurel, What would be the canonical status for someone who lives as a hermit in a community? Example would be a Benedictine nun I knew who was given permission to live in a hermitage on the Abbey property. Or even Brother Louis, Thomas Merton himself, lived as a hermit even though he was a Trappist. In these cases, both hermits were fully professed and well seasoned in their charism and their community. By no means do I wish to undermine the distinctions you are making, rather I am curious about hermit life, (a life that I am unlikely to ever live!) (tangent over) If a congregation's proper law (that is their constitution) allows them to live as a hermit they remain religious in that congregation, but living an eremitical life. Often today congregations allow this and some congregations are actually a mixture of cenobitic and eremitical life known as semi-eremitical: the Carthusian and Camaldolese are this. In such cases canon 603 is not applicable (though it is instructive) and their vows are those which they have made in the hands of their own congregation's general superior (etc). Canon 603 is meant for hermits living as solitary hermits and vows are thus made to God in the hands of the diocesan Bishop. Canon 603 actually came into being because many congregations prior to VII did not have a [provision in proper law allowing for eremitical life. Thus, members who discovered a call to eremitical solitude late in life were required to leave their vows and be secularized in order to live as hermits. Bishop de Roo begged the Fathers at Vatican II to include the solitary eremitical life as a state of perfect in its work on the revision of religious life. Unfortunately, canon 603 did not come into existence until October of 1983. Respecting this history is also important in respecting the vocation canon 603 codifies. You are also correct that whatever the form of eremitical life it ordinarily requires seasoning in monastic or religious life first. Today eremitism is usually seen as a second half of life vocation so while a person seeking to be professed under canon 603 may never have been in religious life (possible but not optimal), they must have been successful at all the stages of adulthood young persons usually negotiate before being allowed to try solitude as a vocation and usually we find they have been through experiences which are associated with second half of life maturity (chronic illness, etc). We all ordinarily come to human wholeness in community and it truly is the rare vocation that comes to such wholeness in solitude. best, Sister Laurel M O'Neal, Er Dio Stillsong Hermitage Diocese of Oakland http://notefromstillsong.blogspot.com Edited December 20, 2012 by SRLAUREL
Sister_Laurel Posted December 20, 2012 Posted December 20, 2012 With all due respect, I really think you are engaging in a very public and futile argument. Maggie spelled it out quite well. With the new rule your main concern has been addressed. This so-called "religious order" cannot be promoted and confusing anyone on PM anymore. What is the purpose of continuing to engage in this one-sided "discussion"? I seriously doubt Gemma will be back to respond to your questions... as you probably well know. You know you will not be able to reason with her or get a straight answer, certainly not one that would satisfy. But with continuing on this way it does come off as just beating a dead horse and frankly a bit uncharitable. You got the desired result, no? So why continue to bemoan the subject further? I understand your frustration and desire to "set the record straight"... but it just is not going to happen. At least not from the mouth of Gemma and not the way you desire it to be. Contrary to what you are seeing, the discussion has, it seems to me, moved to more general but related topics having to do with eremitical life and the misuse of canon 603 among other things. Gemma's presence is not needed to discuss these although Cloisters Outreach might well be an example people could learn from as singularly disedifying. As for the record being set straight, Gemma has done that on her website. She is clear there that no part of CO is approved by her Bishop and that in fact, she has not even sought such approval. I would say she has ruled herself out of the conversation on that basis. Thus, I am not seeking her continued participation here and while I don't care for the way she continued her posting off-list while claiming to be too busy to post here, I am grateful she has finally been honest about the status of CO. SIncerely, Sister Laurel M O'Neal, Er Dio Stillsong Hermitage Diocese of Oakland http://notesfromstillsong.blogspot.com
SNJM Posted December 20, 2012 Posted December 20, 2012 I find some of these posts unduly mean and confrontative in a very uncharitable spirit. I really believe that if someone has a question of a negative/accusatory nature, if should be handled privately. If public information has been given out that is wrong, the poster should be corrected and the post(s) deleted. This whole stream of posts is very disheartening and I am disappointed to read them here when I come here for links, information and good news. This has really degraded into something ugly. Gemma has been very open about her disabilities in the past and some of the questions/posts border on bullying. After what our country has just witnessed, I'm shocked there isn't more sensitivity to mental challenges. I hope this thread gets deleted. I don't care if a hermit nun is the one bullying or not.
beatitude Posted December 20, 2012 Posted December 20, 2012 Sister Laurel, I think it would be better to have a separate thread where you can answer questions about the vocation to hermit life, canon 603, and anything else related. That way it will be easy for people who have an interest in the eremitical call to find the information they need without having to sift through all this. I disagree with Nunsense that it is unclear what Cloister Outreach is - it's pretty obvious now that it is just a very elaborate fantasy on the part of Gemma, and one that she is not going to drop. Each question that you ask just produces another evasion or excuse, and I don't think it's going to be productive to continue down that line. The point is made now. SNJM, as I have said in another post, I am autistic too - and unlike Gemma, I could not be capable of being a mother or even of living fully independently, so I am perhaps more severely affected than she is. I still know that having autism is not an excuse for all your personal mistakes or for being untruthful, and in the past I have been a little irritated with the way that Gemma has used everything from ASD to broken eyeglasses to excuse herself when she has posted something that turned out to be untrue. If I am bluntly honest, then Gemma's evasions and vagueness in response to some of the questions about Cloister Outreach are actually a very non-autistic quality - autistic people tend to take questions very literally and to give literal answers (case in point: when I was a teenager I had to learn that when someone asked 'How are you?' they were looking for a generic 'I'm fine', and not 'I'm constipated'). The vagueness is the least of it. Things she has posted in the past can't possibly just be the result of 'miscommunications'. For example, she has written that the hermit canonist told her that she is a foundress simply because she feels inspired to create all these congregations - that she became a foundress as soon as she had the idea, in the same way that a woman becomes a mother at conception and not at birth. "This is the analogy that the hermit-canonist used." Those were Gemma's words. We now know that Sister Sheila never had anything to do with Cloister Outreach and she wasn't even prepared to discuss it with Gemma. She did not call Gemma a foundress. She did not use that analogy. And there is nothing about having autism that would cause you to hallucinate such a statement. I do agree that the charitable thing now would be to stop with the questions, as the idea of Cloister Outreach is obviously very important to Gemma and this must be painful for her, but letting it drop and talking about how she just 'didn't understand' the situation because of her autism are two different things. I actually found Maggie's post on this to be extremely patronising. Autistic people really do have undeniable difficulties with communication (I was so happy when self-service checkouts were invented at the supermarket, because now I can buy food myself without the worry that I will have to try and talk to someone) but this does not mean that we have no grasp of the distinction between fantasy and reality or that we can't lie or that we can't take personal responsibility for the stuff we do wrong. As for the Sandy Hook shootings, as yet there is no credible evidence that the shooter had an ASD diagnosis at all - it just seems fashionable to throw that label out there whenever something like this happens (as though people with ASD don't have enough problems without everyone stereotyping us as violent and disturbed). And comparing Sister Laurel's admittedly tough and direct questions to the kind of prejudice that people with 'mental challenges' face shows a lack of understanding of what it's actually like to be bullied on the basis of being different. I've been turned down for accommodation and jobs because of my disabilities, a good friend wasn't allowed to enrol on an art course because of her own ASD (the teacher said to her support worker in front of her, "I won't have any of them in this class"), both of us have been beaten up and then blamed for 'provoking' the bullies - the list goes on. I expect support and compassion from people when I'm in that situation. That is bullying. It is not bullying when people call me out for lying, or at least being very economical with the truth, and it is not compassion when people gush about how I only did those things because my 'special unique brain' just doesn't understand how the world works. So yes, I think we should let it drop. But let's also drop the well-meaning but very condescending and unhelpful attitudes to autism.
Lil'Nun Posted December 20, 2012 Posted December 20, 2012 I have to agree with the posters here who find the continuation of this thread uncharitable. I doubt Gemma is going to come back and answer any further questions, I think it would be best to let this thread die/ lock it and start a new thread for questions on eremetical life. Should Gemma come back and promote or link to Cloisters Outreach or any projects and not provide evidence of Approval then the subject, obviously, should be revisited. I think it is fairly obvious that Gemma's lack of reponse here - where she does not control the responses - is enough for us to reach conclusions. Carrying the matter on and on is, I believe, redundant at best and at worse uncharitable.
Recommended Posts