StClare_OraProNobis Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 e (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. I think that Gemma has to bow out of the conversation based on the new rule of this forum. Look at DuSt's post from yesterday if you don't know what I am talking about, It does not make any sense to press her for answers to questions she is not allowed to answer. Since at this point she can not defend herself, maybe we should all "bow out" and move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sister_Laurel Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 I think that Gemma has to bow out of the conversation based on the new rule of this forum. Look at DuSt's post from yesterday if you don't know what I am talking about, It does not make any sense to press her for answers to questions she is not allowed to answer. Since at this point she can not defend herself, maybe we should all "bow out" and move on. I am not so sure this is the case. It is true she cannot link to any such group, and it is true she cannot promote it, but the thread was not closed and the conversation has been allowed to continue. If one asks, "Does you group have your Bishop's approval" and the answer is, "I'm not sure", that is not promoting the group. It seems to me to do just the opposite --- though it may be just the answer needed to continue posting here. In any case, how do we know the group is not approved and should NOT be promoted here if we don't ask the questions??? So, I would agree there is a fine line but there is also a distinction. best, Sister Laurel, Er DIo Stillsong Hermitage Diocese of Oakland http://notesfromstillsong.blogspot.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lil'Nun Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 I'm sorry but I do think that, as DUST has issued new guidelines, flogging this issue to death here is no longer appropriate. One thread has already been locked because of this. Gemma can no longer 'advertise' or 'promote' here and asking her to continue posting about CO and defending it is, to my mind, asking her to break the new guideline and that seems unfair. I understand there is frustration on both sides but, in charity, perhaps now is the time to take it to private message or email? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nikita92 Posted December 16, 2012 Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nikita92 Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 Props to Lil' Nun on your post in response to Maggie!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sister_Laurel Posted December 16, 2012 Share 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GraceUk Posted December 16, 2012 Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AccountDeleted Posted December 16, 2012 Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sister_Laurel Posted December 16, 2012 Share 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GraceUk Posted December 16, 2012 Share 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. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sister_Laurel Posted December 17, 2012 Share 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sister_Laurel Posted December 19, 2012 Share 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StClare_OraProNobis Posted December 19, 2012 Share 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AccountDeleted Posted December 19, 2012 Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StClare_OraProNobis Posted December 19, 2012 Share 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts