The Cloisterite Family

[AccountDeleted]

I personally find it very distrubing that Cloister Outreach or Cloisterites or whatever name is being used is allowed to 'advertise' on phatmass in this blatant way when there are no openly verifiable ways to authenticate what is being said about it and everything is labelled as 'confidential' or unavailable due to 'privacy'. I am not saying that phatmass is endorsing what gets posted here, but by not providing some kind of disclaimer about the authenticity of Cloister Outreach, it can give the appearance of accepting it. Phatmass would not allow advertising of sedvecantist groups or cults, so it seems strange to me that this obviously occult (as meaning hidden) group is allowed to 'promote' itself shamelssly here.

 

Since those on phatmass who posts things that are not in alignment with Church teachings are labelled as phishy, it just seems that there should also be some caution label for those who claim to be legitimate but who won't provide verification of this. Because right now there seems to be no way to prevent someone from posting unverifiable statements about 'proposed' lay and religious communities which might be misleading or even dangerous for those who are inexperienced or naive. I have been on phatmass since 2007 and nothing about Cloister Outreach has changed in that whole time, except more new 'charisms' with more new habits and new names for formation. It's still mysterious and cryptic and obscure. To find out information it appears one must 'join' the group - sure sign of a secret society or cult. Same-oh same-oh in my opinion.

 

All of the new communities that I have been involved with have been completely up front and transparent and open in their dealing with others. They will provide the name of their Bishop, letters of support, and even names and pictures of those in discernment with them. A good example of this is Rosalind Moss, now Mother Miriam. At every stage she was prepared to answer the tough questions, and even to undergo a canonical year of formation with an established religious community. There was never any attempt to hide behind words like 'confidential'. I have a great deal of respect and admiration for her because she does lay it all on the line, so her mistakes are visible but so are her successes, all done within the framework of the Church hierarchy. Nothing secret about what she does.

 

I am leaving here soon to enter the convent so I what happens in this thread or about this topic isn't of any real relevance to me. But I do care that there might be some who get led astray by promises of some kind of consecrated life (with habits and charisms) when really, any individual can make private vows to God and live their lives as a holy lay person without joining any secret society.

 

As for the whole hermit issue, I think SrLAUREL has made it quite clear that the information provided by Cloister Outreach is in error and that one who wishes to consecrate themselves as a hermit under canon 603 would be much better off reading SrLaurel's blog (She is a consecrated hermit herself after all) or speaking with someone in authority from their own diocese. Those who wish to become consecrated virgins should read Therese Ivers blog (she is a consecrated virgin and canon lawyer) and perhaps join her forum to ask questions about this. There is altogether way too much misinformation being provided by Cloister Outreach to justify phatmass allowing it to promote itself here and too much defensiveness when being questioned about providing authentication.

 

And no, I am not 'persecuting' anyone. This isn't personal - it's about a reality check and protection for those who may be vulnerable. Anyone who wants to check out Cloister Outreach for themselves, that's fine. There is some good information there about other, already established communities and links that could help in discernment. If this all that CO did, then it would be a wonderful site. But this whole 'foundress' and 'charisms and habits' and new community thing that is being promoted should be raising some red flags as it is not being transparent and refuses to provide any verifiable indications of support by those in authority in the Church. Unless and until this is done, it remains a fantasy for those who want to live as 'virtual nuns' or 'virtual hermits' - about on a par with the PPC (phatmass phemale community) that we set up on Vocation Station to have a bit of fun. Even Trekkies dress up in costume and pretend to be with Starfleet - it doesn't make it real. There is nothing wrong with virtual reality, with everyone having a bit of fun, as long as it is not promoted as reality reality.

 

 

[Gabriela]

Amen, Nunsense. Just as your post was being published, I was searching previous PM threads, because some of the things in here had been ringing a bell. Here are the signs of a cult, published in a previous PM post.

 

[[BEGIN POST]]

 

1.“Total” obedience to the pope

Many will find this first warning sign surprising. As Catholics, are we not all called to obey the Holy Father? Indeed, we are. When a new association sincerely seeks to obey and follow the teachings of the Holy Father, canonists are for the most part satisfied the group is doing what Catholic groups ought to do.

Nevertheless, some new associations abuse Catholic sensibility in this regard. These groups cite “total obedience to the Holy Father” when what they really mean is partial obedience to selected teachings of the Holy Father, without embracing the entire papal message. Additionally, when challenged over their partial obedience, these groups will appeal to their “total” reliance upon the Holy Father in an attempt to bypass the authority of the diocesan bishop. This brings us to Fr. Morrisey’s second warning sign.

2. No sense of belonging to the local church

As Catholics, we belong to the universal Church. Yet we also belong to the local church community, meaning a local parish and a local diocese. Even the Holy Father is not exempt in this regard; he is, after all, the Bishop of Rome and thus belongs to a local Roman Church. Thus the ministry and apostolate of any association should focus on the local church. If a new association or religious order has no sense of belonging to the local church, then this becomes cause for concern.

3. Lack of true cooperation with diocesan authorities

To belong to the local church, one must cooperate with local diocesan authorities. After all, Christ instituted His Church as a hierarchy. Within this hierarchy, our Lord instituted the office of bishop to oversee a portion of Christ’s faithful. Thus the local bishop, and not a particular religious group or association, bears ultimate responsibility for the care of souls within a particular geographical location. If a new association refuses or impedes cooperation between itself and the local diocesan authorities, then its fidelity to the Church is questionable.

4. Making use of lies and falsehoods to obtain approval

As Catholics, we concern ourselves with speaking the truth. After all, our Lord denounces Satan as the “Father of Lies.” So any new association should be truthful in how it presents itself to its members, Church authorities, and the outside world. This is not just a matter of basic honesty; any group or association that resorts to falsehoods to gain approval is likely concealing a deeper problem.

The Church understands that every association, particularly when the association is new, makes mistakes when engaging in ministry or apostolate. When an association is honest, however, these problems are easily identified and quickly corrected. This in turn increases the likelihood of the new association succeeding within the Church.

5. Too soon an insistence on placing all goods in common

While the Church has a history of associations and religious orders in which members place all their goods in common, the decision to do so should come after a reasonable period of careful discernment. Placing one’s goods in common in not for everyone, and the consequences of such a decision are lifelong. Additionally, the potential for abuse by those who administer the common goods is great. Therefore, canonists frown upon any insistence by an association that its new or potential members place their goods in common.

Due to the fact that modern times see less stability in common life, with members sometimes opting to leave after a number of years, the most prudent handling of goods in common is to place them in trust until a member dies. That way, if the member leaves, the goods are available to meet his or her needs outside of the community.

6. Claiming special revelations or messages leading to the founding of the group

Although this represents a warning sign, it is not absolute. The Church recognizes the presence of many legitimate apparitions and private revelations throughout her history. Yet not all alleged apparitions or special revelations turn out to be true. Therefore, the Church must further investigate any claims of special revelations or messages — particularly when they become the catalyst for founding a new association. If, however, a new association refuses to divulge or submit its alleged revelations or special messages to the Church, then this immediately calls into question the authenticity of both the association and the alleged apparition.

7. Special status of the founder or foundress

Of course, the founder or foundress will always enjoy a special role in the founding of a new association or community. Nevertheless, in all other respects he or she should be a member just like everyone else. This means that he or she is similarly bound to the customs, disciplines, and constitutions of the community. If the founder or foundress demands special meals, special living quarters, special dispensations from the rules imposed upon other members of the community, or any other special treatment, then this is a clear warning sign. It is of special concern if the founder or foundress claims exemption from the requirements of Christian morality due to his or her status (see point 15 below).

8. Special and severe penances imposed

As St. Thomas Aquinas teaches, virtue is found in the middle, between two extremes. Therefore, any penances imposed upon members of the community should be both moderate and reasonable. Special and severe penances are not signs of virtue — rather, they are signs of extremism.

9. Multiplicity of devotions, without any doctrinal unity among them

The purpose of sacramentals and other devotions is to bring us closer to Christ and the sacraments. Hence sacramentals are not superstitions. A new association or community should insure that any special devotions or sacramentals unite its members to Christ, the sacraments, and the mission of the association. For example, praying three Hail Marys in front of the statue of St. Joseph while the Blessed Sacrament is exposed does not offer such unity. Eucharistic Adoration, Marian devotion and devotion to St. Joseph are all good in themselves, however, they should be offered either individually or collectively as devotion to the Holy Family. They should not be offered simultaneously.

10. Promotion of “fringe” elements in the life of the Church

As previously mentioned, every association or organization within the Church should exist to serve the needs of Christ’s faithful. Therefore, canonists view any association that exists solely to serve fringe elements — whether these elements be special apparitions, private revelations, or extreme social or political agendas, etc. — with suspicion.

This is not to deny that extraordinary events may sometimes become the catalyst for a new association or religious order. For example, St. Francis of Assisi founded the Franciscans after receiving a locution from our Lord to “Rebuild My Church.” Nevertheless, St. Francis did not found the Franciscans with the intention of promoting his internal locution. Rather, the internal locution inspired St. Francis to found an order that would serve the Church.

11. Special vows

Within the Church, one finds the three traditional vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. Additional or special vows present numerous problems. Often, special vows are reduced to means through which superiors unduly control members of the community or association. The danger is particularly pointed where a special vow cannot be externally verified. Take “joy” for example; one can usually appeal to objective evidence that someone is not living a life of poverty, chastity and/or obedience, but as a feeling, “joy” is too subjective to be judged in an objective manner.

12. Absolute secrecy imposed on members

While some discretion and privacy is necessary within any Church community or association, secrecy should never be absolute unless one is a confessor preserving the seal of confession. Therefore, any association or organization that imposes absolute secrecy upon its members should be approached with the utmost caution. Members should always be free to approach diocesan officials and the Holy See if certain problems arise within the community that are not dealt with in an adequate fashion. Similarly, since these associations exist to serve the Church, all members should be allowed to converse freely and honestly with members of the Church hierarchy when requested.

13. Control over the choice of confessors and spiritual directors

Confession and spiritual direction concern the internal forum — that is, those things that are private to a person’s conscience. Within reasonable limits, a person should be free to choose his or her confessor and spiritual director. On the other hand, obedience to one’s superiors in carrying out an association’s apostolate or ministry concerns the external forum. In other words, the latter are public actions that can be externally verified.

The roles of confessor and spiritual director should never be confused with the role of superior. Nor should there even be the appearance of confusion. Of particular concern to canonists is when a superior imposes himself as confessor and/or spiritual director of a member under his charge. After all, a superior will have to make decisions about a member’s future — and in so doing there exists a strong temptation to make use of information gathered under the seal of confession.

14. Serious discontent with the previous institute of which certain members were part

Like some of the other red flags presented, this warning sign is not absolute. Sometimes, a very good reason exists for a member’s discontent with his or her previous institute. Nevertheless, serious discontent with a previous institute should be carefully examined. In most cases, such discontent points to some deeper problems with the individual, particularly if he or she has a history of “conflict of personalities.”

15. Any form of sexual misconduct as a basis

This warning sign is fairly self-explanatory. The Church’s teaching is clear when it comes to sexual morality. If sexual immorality is the basis for a new group or association, then the association ought to be avoided. Additionally, one should immediately report this to the competent Church authority.
Five Additional Warning Signs from the International Cultic Studies Association

In addition to the fifteen warning signs presented by Fr. Morrisey, Dr. Michael Langone has assembled a list of thirteen criteria by which many cult experts judge a group to be a cult. Dr. Langone is a counseling psychologist and the Executive Director of the International Cultic Studies Association (ICSA). He has spent nearly 30 years researching and writing about cults, and for 20 years has been the editor of the Cultic Studies Journal. The following five criteria have been adapted from Dr. Langone’s thirteen criteria and applied to the context of Catholic associations. Some canon lawyers find them useful when evaluating the legitimacy of a new association within the Church.

1. The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members

Of course every new association, if it wishes to grow, will seek to increase its membership. Such growth, however, should come because potential members identify with the mission or apostolate of the association. Additionally, members should only join after a reasonable period of discernment. Thus, any association whose main focus is to bring in new members, to the exclusion of other acts of apostolate or ministry, should be carefully examined.

2. The group is preoccupied with making money

Like the previous criterion, there is nothing wrong per se with raising money for one’s association or apostolate. After all, even Christ and the Apostles used money. Nevertheless, money should be a means of carrying out legitimate ministry and apostolic work. Raising money should never be an end in itself. Additionally, the means employed in raising money should be honest and transparent.

3. Elitism

The Catholic Church recognizes that by virtue of their baptism, a certain equality exists among Christ’s faithful, regardless of whether one belongs to the lay, religious, or clerical state. Additionally, among religious orders and newer forms of consecrated life, the Church recognizes different types of charisms. Some are active, in that they tend heavily toward active ministry and apostolic work. Others are contemplative, in that they tend more toward prayer and contemplation. Of course, you find everything in between. Therefore, any Church association that only recognizes vocations to its association is not thinking with the mind of the Church. Nor are those associations with a polarized mentality that divide their vocations from those of the rest of the Church.

4. The leadership induces feeling of guilt in members to control them

One’s vocation within the Church should be freely chosen. Similarly, obedience is something a superior should inspire among those under his or her charge. While it sometimes happens that a superior must impose his or her will upon a particular member, obedience should never be coerced through illicit or improper means. Additionally, if a superior must constantly impose his will upon the majority of the membership through coercive means, then this proves problematical to the long-term health of the specific association or religious group.

5. The group completely severs its members from the outside world

Granted, one must be careful here. After all, the Church has a long and honored tradition of cloistered and contemplative orders that sever themselves from the day-to-day activities of the outside world. Nevertheless, even those orders of the most strict observance encourage some forms of outside communication with friends, family and the world. Therefore, it is cause for concern when an association, particularly if the association is lay-based, encourages its members to completely sever ties with friends, family, and the outside world. Additionally, one should beware those associations that encourage or require their members to live and/or socialize only with other members of the same group or association. One should also beware if association or friendships with people outside of the group are encouraged only when they are used to further the goals of the group.

 

[[END POST]]

 

I am also very concerned that some naive discerners may be lured into something dangerous here, and I am also concerned and wondering why PM continues to allow aggressive advertising of CO without requiring documentation of its approval by a bishop.

 

I agree with Nunsense that CO is a good idea: Discerners do need assistance, and a "clearinghouse" for cloister information would be very helpful. But when those helpful things are all mixed up with highly questionable stuff, they cease to be helpful and just start to be scary.

 

When I first ran into a CO post on PM, the problem of new orders "breaking through" was made salient to me for the first time. I can understand that some new orders may have difficulty gaining acceptance, difficulty making themselves known, difficulty explaining themselves to others who are suspicious about something that is genuinely totally new. At first, I gave CO the benefit of the doubt. But then things just started to look really questionable. I began asking questions in here because I sincerely wanted information so that I could say, "Hey, this is legit. Cool. Something new!" But the more I asked, the more secretive things got.

 

Gemma: We are not trying to attack you. We are trying to help others who may not be as informed or experienced to protect themselves from dangerous associations. If your association is not of that sort—please God it is not—then please, start providing some kind of proof that it is indeed approved. I don't think that anyone in here wants to wrongfully accuse anyone of doing anything out of line with Church teaching. But if CO is in line with Church teaching, then we need to see some evidence of that.

[Gemma]

Again with the "we"! Are you talking about yourself living in other dioceses or yourself and the other nameless CONF affiliate founders living in other dioceses?

Pardon. Me and my family. Hubby was working in the Diocese of Birmingham in Alabama, then the Diocese of Kansas City-St Joseph. I started the vocation committee at St Mary's in St Joseph. Then we moved to the Diocese of Charlotte. The nuns for whom we sent out literature wrote Bishop Curlin, and one of the monasteries, i'm wanting to say it was the Marbury Dominicans, said they received a very supportive note back from him. That was over 10 years ago.

Fr Don Farnan was my contact in the Diocese of Kansas City-St Joseph. CO was known as the Society of Our Lady of the Cloister at that time.

As a lay association, I have only to send a letter with the statutes to the bishop in the original diocese, then an introductory note whenever I move.

Blessings,
Gemma

[Gemma]

I can assure you that CO is not occult, and I am not trying to start anything like what is stated in Curiousing's post. I have PM'd with TradMom since then, and made friends with her. Or so I thought.

I never in my life would ever do what has been stated in that post. The Cloisterite Family has a fourth vow to promote vocations, and that is benchmarked off that of the Passionists.

I don't understand why I am being accused of such things. People come to me after I advertise on my own groups, which is what O'C had suggested--that I get vocations from the members of SOLC, as it was known at the time. He had had no problems with the Cloisterites, Holy Innocents, and Coma charisms.

I will make an appt w/my pastor and will see what I can do about some kind of note from the chancery, but I can't do that until next year. As I said in the post to Sr Laurel, I am surrounded by family until after the first of the year.

Blessings,
Gemma

[TIWW]

Some resources for women, looking for Cloistered Contemplative Communities

 

http://www.cloisteredlife.com/links/

 

http://poorclare.org/

 

www.usaopnuns.org/

 

www.carmelitesisters.ie/

 

www.carmelitenunsstjoseph.org/

 

osb.org

Many  orders have Federations or Associations

Also, each Diocese or Archdiocese has an office for Vocations

[Gemma]

Well nevermind about contacting him then! May he rest in peace.

Yes, may he rest in peace and intercede for CO and CONF. He was very supportive of our efforts because of his own interest in vocations. His motto was "The Harvest is Plenty" and this song was played at his ordination.

Blessings,
Gemma

[AccountDeleted]

Yes, may he rest in peace and intercede for CO and CONF. He was very supportive of our efforts because of his own interest in vocations. His motto was "The Harvest is Plenty" and this song was played at his ordination.

Blessings,
Gemma

 

May he rest in peace yes.

 

And what would be the name of the Bishop supporting CO now?

[Gabriela]

There is also this directory of religious communities: http://www.deoestgloria.com/us.o.master.html

 

It's the most complete one I've found.

[Maggyie]

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

 

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

 

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

Edited December 15, 2012 by Maggie

[AccountDeleted]

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

 

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

 

I agree with you almost completely but I think somet things needed to be said at some point because CO keeps using phatmass to promote these things, and yes, you might be right that most people would see it for what it is, but there are always those who might think that it is legitimate and somehow approved by the Church. I don't think it is bullying to ask for some kind of verification that it is what it is claimed it to be, but I do agree that enough has probably been said now. As you also pointed out, nothing more is going to be added that can be verified ('wild horses etc'). I withdraw from the thread myself. Like the previous one on VS, perhaps it might be time to close this one as well. My only concern was the welfare of the gullible and naive so I appreciated the experience and well thought out comments of SRLAUREL. But it does seem a good point to stop now (at least for me). Those who want to check out CO will read through old threads and see the concerns for themselves hopefully.

[Sister_Laurel]

Curiousing--thank you and God bless and reward you for your generosity in following grace to discernment. Welcome home to Rome.

What third party is supposed to be vetting CO or CONF? These founders have a right to privacy, and I will not expose them until they are ready to answer questions. They have to know where they are going before they can lead others. They want me to field inquiries before I refer people to them.

What obscure spiritualities are you talking about? Everything I have been inspired to propose utilizes approved devotions. The Flame of Love has an imprimatur.

The Cloisterite spirituality is drawn from all charisms because we represent/promote all charisms. To those who have the call, it makes sense. Whenever we find something that we aren't attracted to, we are usually better off saying, "That's nice, but it isn't for me."

Blessings,
Gemma

 

I am going to ask all participants if we can focus on CO itself and not get involved with CONF. As I understand the two they are quite different and distinct from one another. I think it would muddle the discussion, and the opportunity to get clear answers from Gemma if we don't limit the conversation in this way. Gemma, I definitely include you in that request. It is too easy to conflate two things --- one of which may have greater credibility than the other, for instance --- and then come to understand neither one at all. If you must talk about both of these, then I would ask you discuss each separately.

 

Sincerely,

Sister Laurel M O'Neal, Er Dio

Stillsong Hermitage

Diocese of Oakland

http://notesfromstillsong.blogspot.com

[Sister_Laurel]

At this juncture, that may be the best course. I will be surrounded by family from now until after the first of the year.

Blessings,
Gemma

 

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

 

Sister Laurel M O'Neal, Er Dio

Stillsong Hermitage

Diocese of Oakland

http://notesfromstillsong.blogspot.com

[Sister_Laurel]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Sincerely,

Sister Laurel, Er Dio

Stillsong Hermitage

Diocese of Oakland

http://notesfromstillsong.blogspot.com                                                                                                                                                                                                 

[Lil'Nun]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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.

[Lil'Nun]

Nunsense. If I could give you props for your posts I would do.

Thank you. :)