Gemma's Response

[tnavarro61]

i hope it's okay to post her reply.

http://reparatrixanchoresses.blogspot.com/2010/03/in-response-to-our-critics.html

[tnavarro61]

just a question: can postulants be formed without the bishop's knowledge?

okay i know some of you might be thinking why i seem to follow the foundation's story. i feel it would be very unfair if i only post Sr. Laurel's blog post.

in any case that this is prohibited, or what i am doing is uncharitable, please tell me. please. please. don't be afraid to scold me here or privately.

thank u. God loves you.

Edited March 10, 2010 by tnavarro61

[Saint Therese]

This does not answer a lot of questions, like the ambiguity of the cloisterite website re whether or a not a community actually exists or not. Claiming that someone's criticism is an attempt to "undermine" a foundation sounds more like a defensive tactic than anything else.

[Tridenteen]

[quote name='Saint Therese' date='10 March 2010 - 10:23 AM' timestamp='1268234630' post='2070320']
This does not answer a lot of questions, like the ambiguity of the cloisterite website re whether or a not a community actually exists or not. Claiming that someone's criticism is an attempt to "undermine" a foundation sounds more like a defensive tactic than anything else.
[/quote]


JMJ
I am very uncomfortable with Gemma using a mental defect as an exscuse for things. It might just be me, but beofre she said she had ADD, the Asbergers, now Autism. Several people I know with ADD make it a point not to let it interfere with their work. I am not comfortable with the afore said diagnosises being used every time something goes wrong. It might be that I am being uncharitable, but those are my feelings.

[Saint Therese]

One might wonder if someone who has these difficulties, if said difficulties are a valid excuse, is really suitable to be involved in founding a religious community.

Edited March 10, 2010 by Saint Therese

[humbleheart]

[quote name='Tridenteen' date='10 March 2010 - 04:45 PM' timestamp='1268235931' post='2070331']
JMJ
I am very uncomfortable with Gemma using a mental defect as an exscuse for things. It might just be me, but beofre she said she had ADD, the Asbergers, now Autism. Several people I know with ADD make it a point not to let it interfere with their work. I am not comfortable with the afore said diagnosises being used every time something goes wrong. It might be that I am being uncharitable, but those are my feelings.
[/quote]

Asperger's Syndrome is a form of autism. It's also quite common for people with various types of autism to have associated difficulties (e.g. ADD) so I think that Gemma is probably telling the truth here. But I do agree with you that they shouldn't be used as excuses. I have a cousin and a friend who both have quite severe autism, which causes them lots of genuine problems, but they know that it isn't responsible for all the mistakes they make. They also know the difference between the truth and a lie.

I used to go on Catholic Answers quite regularly, and I saw lots of posts from Gemma in which she talked about having full support from a bishop and a canon lawyer. The canonist has only spoken to Gemma [i]twice[/i]. Even if Gemma really did believe that the canonist supported her project, this doesn't explain the many posts about all the new ideas she was having and the developments in her project, which she said were being closely supervised by the canon lawyer and the bishop. She made it sound as though she was asking them for permission and guidance before she did anything new, and if she only had two phone calls with the canonist and never spoke with the bishop, this can't have been the case. Autism or not, I think Gemma knows that it isn't the case.

I am quite upset about this as I've been directly affected by it. Gemma once encouraged a friend of mine to consider one of her orders. I won't go into detail here, but this friend felt that her learning disabilities would prevent her from being accepted by most communities and asked online for advice. Gemma sent her a message that was very helpful on the surface, telling my friend that she would be happy to have her as an aspirant and providing a link to her website. She made it sound as though the community she suggested was on the brink of being set up. My friend was overjoyed, and showed the website to me.

Fortunately I was shrewd enough to realise that this wasn't real as soon as I had read all the information. My friend is very trusting, which is one of the qualities that endear her to those who know her, but it also means that she accepts most of what people tell her as true. I don't have a problem with Gemma designing websites about proposed religious orders - it's not hurting anyone. This is why I've held my peace on the subject for the past four years. But problems start when she begins to try and contact vulnerable disabled people and get them to join her efforts. It isn't fair on them and it could lead to a lot of heartache. Now Gemma seems to be getting deeper into this fantasy, still insisting that she has diocesan support, and I'm afraid that one day somebody is going to be badly disillusioned and let down.

I have a lot of compassion for Gemma and I think that she genuinely wants to do good. Unfortunately you need more than good intentions to found a religious order.

[Marie-Therese]

I can only speak to my personal experiences in regard to this topic, and my experience has been that there is a lot of talk of "emerging charisms" but as far as I have been able to discern the only thing that is happening is a lot of people talking about possibilities and not much else. As I said, I am speaking only of my experience.

I read the blog response, and my curiousity was piqued by her insistence that the canonist's information be kept secret/anonymous. That seems to fly in the face of logic, which would seem to indicate that an emerging foundation's guidance by a canonist would be evident if they were supported by the diocese...not to mention the fact that I am not aware of many diocesan secret canonists. It's not like they are ninjas.

I don't mean to be flippant, and I have not engaged in any of the conversation up until this point because I have had nothing that in charity or good conscience that would have added productively to the debate. However, I am compelled to speak on this. The response does not ring true to me.

Prayers for Gemma, any foundations which might be involved in the endeavour, and for all those who discern religious life. May God lead us all to live Him in the world, regardless of vocation.

[tnavarro61]

argh. i can't keep my silence. i've been concerned since i also have similar experience as humbleheart's.

[quote]However, due to Gemma's autism, and the complexities involved with the language of canonical legalities, she (Gemma) did not understand a particular phrase used as meaning that the canonist had separated herself from the project.[/quote]

Like you, I do not like her pointing at her asperger's which is a form of autism. I can't seem to get the connection. I know person who have asperger's. They are good in teaching Catholic faith but sometimes they can't keep their cool in debates. What I know with Asperger's is it's all about social interaction. And why didn't she asked for clarification? It's very odd to share unclear things as if they are clarified.

[quote]Critics went so far as to contact the canonist and posting her information online--thus violating her privacy which we had fought to maintain, as per her request--in an attempt to undermine the Cloisterite Hermits' foundation.[/quote]

I don't think there is NO violation of privacy. Her real name wasn't used. Gemma have been telling that she's from the Diocese of Charlotte.

[quote]Our spiritual director, the former president and vice-president of the Fellowship of Emerging Religious Communities, assures us that this happens all the time with new foundations, and is assisting us with the matter.[/quote]
I don't think so. I know of new religious orders who spoke first to bishops. See, their bishops are their "daddies". The founders didn't have any problems like this actually. This is based on my observation and experience. I've known 4 founders.

[quote]
They will be ready to present their information to the appropriate bishop. As to whether or not that will be in the Diocese of Charlotte remains to be seen.
[/quote]
What?

[tnavarro61]

[quote name='Tridenteen' date='11 March 2010 - 12:45 AM' timestamp='1268235931' post='2070331']
JMJ
I am very uncomfortable with Gemma using a mental defect as an excuse for things. It might just be me, but beofre she said she had ADD, the Asbergers, now Autism. Several people I know with ADD make it a point not to let it interfere with their work. I am not comfortable with the afore said diagnosises being used every time something goes wrong. It might be that I am being uncharitable, but those are my feelings.
[/quote]

got the same feeling tridenteen.

[linnie]

"Critics went so far as to contact the canonist and posting her information online--thus violating her privacy which we had fought to maintain, as per her request--in an attempt to undermine the Cloisterite Hermits' foundation."

this is only one of the things that are confusing. This canonist says she hasn't been in contact with Gemma for a long time. So how can Gemma state that "we had fought to maintain" her privacy?

something is really wrong with this whole situation. Gemma needs prayers and so do those she has been "forming"

[Luigi]

I thought I must've remembered incorrectly when I read "autism" - I thought, "Oh! I thought it was Aspberger's..." I'm glad you picked up on the progression and posted about it. It makes me uncomfortable too.

[Sister_Laurel]

[quote name='tnavarro61' date='10 March 2010 - 03:02 AM' timestamp='1268215351' post='2070220']
i hope it's okay to post her reply.

http://reparatrixanchoresses.blogspot.com/2010/03/in-response-to-our-critics.html
[/quote]


I would note this response certainly raises questions for me, and I will voice them.

1) Since the canonist spoken with (again, by a friend of mine, rather than directly by me) was clear that she discussed GEMMA'S vocation, not another project, and then cut off contact with her after encouraging her to faithfulness to her own vocation (marriage), what "word" or arrangement was misunderstood? The canonist was never "retained" (she has a job with the Diocese of Charlotte and works for them), never supervised the eremitical project step by step or in any other way. In fact, she apparently never discussed this project with the Gemma, so again, what technical, canonical, legal word was misunderstood?

2) If Cloisters Outreach and the Anchoresses project are completely distinct, then why is Gemma posting lists of "formation" reading lists and apologizing she has been remiss on THEIR blog (no one else posts there it seems)? The Anchoresses are listed on Cloisters Outreach as a project of Cloisters. Gemma is purportedly doing the formation of the "candidates" (or whatever they are being called at this point). The posts adevertizing the Anchoresses as an expression of Cloisters Outreach's "newly emerging charisms" are everywhere. Really, is this a completely distinct entity in such a case? Probably I have just misunderstood the meaning of the term "completely distinct", right?

3) How can one provide all the information necessary to identify someone (female, diocesan hermit, Rule of St Augustine, canonist, Diocese of Charlotte) ask people to contact the diocese if they have concerns, and then complain because I did not refrain from posting Sister's full name and initials? Unless Sister Sheila was doing something sub rosa (in which case one should not mention her at all) wouldn't her work with vocations, especially eremitical vocations, be a public matter? Note that in the US there are fewer than 75-100 diocesan hermits TOTAL. Guess how many are canonists working for the Diocese of Charlotte?

Again, please note my blog post had nothing to do with the right of persons in the church to form [u]private[/u][b][/b] (underline that word!!) associations of the faithful. It did not deal with canonical technicalities or generalities, the validity of particular charisms, etc. These are important questions but do not reflect what I posted about. That dealt immediately and solely with the fact that claims were made (online, on forums, in websites, in emails to others, and over a period of years) regarding the Diocese of Charlotte and a diocesan hermit-canonist there who were purportedly encouraging, supporting, and supervising CO's projects "every step of the way" (which is rather more than simply being aware of a "work in progress"). These claims, which reflect on the prudence and competence of the diocese and canonist involved, and which can lead vulnerable people to "sign up" thinking they are informed and safe to do so, are simply untrue. I do wish if there are direct responses (even corrections) to this assertion, Gemma or someone from CO would supply them. What has been given in response thus far is mainly off point (irrelevant) and obscures rather than provides real light.


Sincerely,
Sister Laurel M O'Neal, Erem Dio
Stillsong Hermitage
Diocese of Oakland

Edited March 11, 2010 by SRLAUREL

[tnavarro61]

and one thing: what is Cloisters Outreach? Is it a one-man organization? Does it have staffs, workers, etc..? I remember Gemma saying one time, "CO is M apostolate."

[Hilde]

I don't understand this.

[IcePrincessKRS]

I'm sorry guys, but I just don't see what good discussing this (ad nauseum) is doing any of us. One thread which discussed Gemma and this order has already been closed this week, I think it would be better to let the topic die for now. I'm not frowning upon being cautious about new orders or the people running them, but I do think we must also be careful in the way we treat them or speak of them. Gemma is not here to defend herself (though I am sure you can find previous explanations here or on her blog) and these threads feel like they are verging on gossip. I will be closing this thread so as to avoid an occasion of scandal.