amour absolu - docu about bethlehem sisters

[NadaTeTurbe]

I did not think about it, but I think you're right... But I can't edit it ? There's no edit button ? 

[Gabriela]

Is there a policy in the VS about not expressing concerns about particular religious orders? I know there is a policy about not promoting orders that are not approved by the Church, but that's not the same thing. And there are certainly some orders we've discussed in the past where people advised extreme caution.

[marigold]

There has to be a way of discussing these things honestly without fear of reprimand.

[NadaTeTurbe]

My SD told me I should not have done that if I did not know the congregation, and that it is a lack of trust in religious life (a big defect of mine) to trust something on the internet above all. I think he is right, because I tend to imagine a lot of things with religious communities, and because I am very pessimistic, it's not always good. 

By doing reseach, I find a "right to answer" by the brother silouane, actual prior of the little broter of BEthleem. here is the french version and then the google translate version. By this, I hope to put an end to the polemique, by giving you the version of the Little Brothers. 
 

Réponse à Fabio B., auteur du texte : « Révélations accablantes d’un ancien supérieur », paru sur le site L’envers du décor le 28 octobre 2014, écrite par Frère Silouane, prieur actuel des frères de Bethléem

Le dossier de 48 pages diffusé par Fabio B. sous le titre « Les révélations accablantes d’un ancien supérieur » porte un nom trompeur, car il occulte et manipule plus de choses qu’il ne prétend en révéler. Fabio B. se présente comme une victime courageuse et désintéressée révélant les secrets d’une dérive sectaire. Ce pseudo statut de victime et de lanceur d’alerte est censé garantir la vérité de ses « révélations ». La gravité des accusations nous oblige à répondre pour rétablir les faits, questionner la lucidité et l’objectivité de l’auteur et pour contester radicalement ses affirmations qui relèvent d’un mélange de manipulation et de théorie du complot, qu’elles prétendent par ailleurs dénoncer.

Fabio B. prétend dénoncer une dérive sectaire, reposant sur un système d’emprise sur les consciences encouragé par la Communauté des sœurs et leur prieure générale. Il se plaint d’avoir été manipulé dès son arrivée à Bethléem, durant sa formation, avant de faire ses vœux et avant d’être ordonné prêtre. Mais comment peut-il, sciemment et en conscience, taire que son responsable direct pour toutes ces étapes a été l’ancien prieur de Bethléem (de 1978 à 2001), qui a quitté juste après lui notre communauté ? Lequel ancien prieur a exercé une sorte de tyrannie à l’intérieur de la communauté, l’a fait dévier dans un idéal humain étranger à l’Évangile et s’est ingéré dans le gouvernement des sœurs. Oui, quelle crédibilité accorder à ce texte quand la vérité sur l’accompagnateur principal de Fabio B. est ainsi occultée, pour rejeter la responsabilité sur la communauté des sœurs et sur un charisme approuvé par l’Église ?

Fabio B. présente son texte comme une tentative de briser la loi du silence, imposée par la Communauté des sœurs, mais lui-même occulte les innombrables éléments qui s’opposeraient à sa pseudo démonstration.

Il indique que son texte est une reprise d’un dossier qu’il a déposé en 2009 à la Congrégation pour la Doctrine de la Foi, parallèlement à un dossier déposé par l’ancien prieur, mais il se garde bien de dire que ces dossiers ont donné lieu à une enquête de la part de la Congrégation pour la Doctrine de la Foi, enquête qui s’est conclue par un non-lieu, les propos de Fabio B. et de l’ancien prieur ayant été reconnus comme une interprétation personnelle et déformante de leur propre histoire. Une autre conséquence de la conclusion de cette enquête a été l’exclaustration de l’ancien prieur, imposée par le Saint-Siège le 23 septembre 2013. Quant à Fabio B., il a été, à sa demande, réduit à l’état laïc.

A supposer qu’il y ait eu des erreurs dans l’accueil et la formation de Fabio B., qui en est le premier responsable ? Faut-il généraliser et faire la théorie de ses problèmes et de ses difficultés personnelles pour affirmer des faits qui sortent complètement de la réalité ou qui la déforment gravement ? L’affirmation que ce texte est écrit sans passion, pour l’utilité de plusieurs, est toujours démentie par l’amalgame malhonnête de faits et de pure fiction déformés par une interprétation tendancieuse et par une confusion qui paraît calculée. Qui plus est, on a scrupule à rappeler cette simple évidence : Fabio B. ne connaît plus la vie des monastères depuis plus de cinq ans.

Je peux attester personnellement que la réalité actuelle de Bethléem ne correspond pas à ce qui est dit et affirmé dans ce dossier mensonger et à charge.

Il ne s’agit pas de dire que la communauté de Bethléem est une réalité parfaite. Certes non.

Mais la stigmatiser bassement comme il est fait dans ce texte est honteux et malhonnête.

La communauté des frères existe de façon autonome par rapport aux sœurs, elle ne correspond en rien à ce qui est dit dans ce texte, elle a son identité propre, et le respect des personnes et de la vraie liberté est au cœur de notre recherche continuelle, pour les frères et pour les sœurs. Ce que Fabio B. décrit comme le « marché des vocations » à Bethléem est ignoble et blessant pour ceux qui ont trouvé leur vocation. En outre cela est démenti par les faits car un nombre significatif de postulants choisissent une autre voie à la suite d’un processus de discernement respectueux. Le texte de Fabio B. profane de façon perfide et habile ce qui concerne une communauté entière, frères et sœurs, pour y jeter un discrédit total et lui faire le plus de mal possible, en occultant les éléments cités au début, ce qui est inadmissible.

C’est dire si ce texte infamant est mensonger. C’est dire si son auteur occulte sciemment une partie des faits pour porter ses accusations infondées. Je ne pouvais, en conscience, les laisser sans réponse.

Qui souhaiterait mieux connaître notre Famille monastique peut visiter notre site internet ou l’un de nos monastères. Qui souhaiterait un complément de réponse au texte publié par Fabio B. peut écrire à l’adresse suivante :

Frère Silouane - complément de réponse 
Currière-en-Chartreuse 
38380 Saint Laurent du Pont

Pour la Congrégation des Moines de Bethléem et de l’Assomption de la Vierge 
Frère Silouane

Here is the google translate version of it : 
 

Response to Fabio B., author of the text: "Overhelming Revelations of a former superior," appeared on the website Behind the scenes October 28, 2014, written by Brother Silouan, current prior of Bethlehem brothers

The 48-page dossier released by Fabio B. under the title "The damning revelations of a former superior" has a misleading name because it obscures and manipulates more than he claims to reveal. Fabio B. is as courageous and selfless victim revealing the secrets of a sectarian aberration. This pseudo status of victim and whistleblower is supposed to guarantee the truth of his "revelations". The seriousness of the charges requires us to respond to restore the facts, question the clarity and objectivity of the author and to radically challenge his assertions that fall a mixture of manipulation and conspiracy theory, they also claim denounce.

Fabio B. claims to denounce sectarian drift, based on a system of control over consciences encouraged by the Community of the Sisters and Prioress General. He complained of having been manipulated his arrival in Bethlehem, during his training before making his vows and before being ordained priest. But how can he, knowingly and conscientiously shut its direct responsibility for all of these steps was the former prior of Bethlehem (1978 to 2001), who left him right after our community? Which former prior exercised a sort of tyranny within the community, deflected in a foreign human ideal to the Gospel and interfered in the government of the sisters. Yes, how credible this text when the truth about the principal accompanist Fabio B. is well hidden to blame the community of sisters and a charism approved by the Church?

Fabio B. presents his text as an attempt to break the silence imposed by the Community of the Sisters but itself obscures the innumerable elements which preclude its pseudo demonstration.

He indicated that his text is a cover of a folder he filed in 2009 to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, along with a dossier submitted by the former prior, but he is careful not to say that these records resulted in an investigation by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, investigation was concluded with a non-place, the words of Fabio B. and former prior having been recognized as a personal interpretation and distorting of their own history. Another consequence of the conclusion of this investigation was the former prior of exclaustration imposed by the Holy See on September 23, 2013. As for Fabio B., he was, at his request, reduced to the state secular.

Assuming that there were errors in the reception and training of Fabio B., who is primarily responsible? Should we generalize the theory to its problems and personal difficulties to assert facts that completely out of reality or the severely deformed? The assertion that this text is written without passion for the good of many, is still denied by the dishonest amalgam of fact and fiction warped by a misinterpretation and confusion that seems calculated. Moreover, it has qualms recall this simple evidence: Fabio B. no longer knows the life of the monasteries for over five years.

I can personally attest that the current reality of Bethlehem does not match what is said and affirmed in this case and lying dependents.

It is not to say that the Bethlehem community is a perfect reality. Certainly not.

But the stigmatizing crass as it is done in this text is shameful and dishonest.

The brothers of the community exists independently relative to the sisters, it in no way corresponds to what is said in this text, it has its own identity, and respect for people and true freedom is at the heart of our continual search for brothers and for sisters. What Fabio B. described as the "deal of vocations" in Bethlehem is vile and offensive to those who found their vocation. Moreover it is contradicted by the facts because a significant number of applicants choosing another path after a respectful process of discernment. The text of Fabio B. profane treacherous and clever way regarding an entire community, brothers and sisters, to have a total discredit and make it harder possible, by concealing the items mentioned in the beginning, which is unacceptable .

This means if the text is infamous lie. This means if the perpetrator knowingly conceals some facts to bear unfounded accusations. I could not in conscience leave unanswered.

Who would know better our monastic Family can visit our website or one of our monasteries. Who would like further response to the text published by Fabio B. can write to the following address:

Brother Silouan - response supplement
Currière-en-Chartreuse
38380 Saint Laurent du Pont

For the Bethlehem Moines Congregation and the Assumption of the Virgin
Brother Silouan

[Ash Wednesday]

- Frankly I was surprised that this document was permitted to be displayed here in this forum.  I have never read anything here that is this damaging to a religious  congregation.  And frankly the text has revenge written all over it.  It makes me wonder why  such a piece was even written, why posted here by Nada and why the moderators agreed to publish it.   Even if there are no legal consequences here the damage that a piece like this can cause is huge not to mention the issue of charity.  And what about truth - how do we know that this is even true. 

I'm a lay associate of Bethlehem and have known the Sisters here in Livingston Manor for about 15 years.  I have lived here at the monastery for four years and I cook for the guests.  From my experience I have never seen anything here that would tell me that this document is accurate.  In fact I have often said - the Bethlehem Monks and Monastic Sisters are the best people I have ever met.  They are clearly very holy and deeply spiritual people.  Just one observation on the criticisms listed in this document - a slam on their liturgy.  I have said for the longest time now that their liturgy is like a lesson in the spiritual life.  If they have been experimenting with it for 60 years - it's a masterpiece in my world.  And the way they pray the liturgy is totally dignified and reverent.  I think - if someone wants to make an issue out of liturgy there are thousands of very poor liturgies in our churches throughout the world. 

Bethlehem has been an inspiration too me and to hundreds of people who come here to the monastery to experience time in solitude and to pray.  This document does not even come close to anything that I have experienced here.  Perhaps we need to pray for this forum if this the direction it's taking. 

​Please do not assume that everything that is posted on here is something that moderators take an active role in publishing. This is what the "report" button is for, many of us have very busy lives and we don't have 24 hours a day to patrol a forum, but we do what we can. Everything on phatmass is done purely on a voluntary basis, and I have not had time to even see this thread until this morning.

I have reported the post in question to have other more experienced moderators take a look and see whether or not this is in violation of VS rules and whether or not a course of action is needed. My apologies that this was not seen sooner, and thank you for your patience.

Edited May 22, 2015 by Credo in Deum

[Gabriela]

There has to be a way of discussing these things honestly without fear of reprimand.

​I wholeheartedly and emphatically agree. I don't think the VS is a place for censorship. Charity and censorship are not the same, and my feeling is we've been toeing this line between them for a very long time. I think we need to come up with a policy or even just some kind of unspoken but clearly understood norm that will allow people to express specific concerns about or negative experiences with a community without the wrath of nun-idolizers coming down on them. Communities are not perfect, and discerners are not perfect. Nobody should read one post in the VS—or anywhere—and immediately discount a whole community. For all we know, a poster saying negative things could have "issues" and have been rightfully rejected/"offended" by the community. Or there could be all sorts of other unstated explanations. And if several people say the same things about a community, well then, it's probably something to seriously look out for and so should really not be shouted down as "uncharitable". Others who have had positive experiences with the same community can always feel free to balance the picture with their stories.

In the end, it's about freedom of speech and the uniqueness of the VS as a place where people can really learn about religious life—both the good and the bad, which is so very hard, if not impossible, to get anywhere else. Every individual on here has a personal responsibility both to be fair and charitable (to the community and to her fellow VSers), AND ALSO to be interested in the truth and to consider posts critically.

Edited May 22, 2015 by Gabriela

[oremus1]

Thank you so much for posting this!  I love those sisters so much!  I have been to their monastery in Livingston Manor, NY a few different times now either for single days of prayer or for retreat.  And just last week, on the feast of the Ascension, I was able to spend some time in prayer at their monastery in Paris!!!  It was such an incredible gift to be there with them.

Thank you for posting...I hope to be able to actually watch the whole thing soon!

​Can one actually make retreat there at the one in Paris?

[genesisweavers]

Perhaps if we look at the facts contained in a specific post that we are considering as a journalist might it may shed some light on the issue of what gets through.  A good journalist would verify the facts and scrutinize the source.  The consequences are the same - it can create a good impression or a bad impression - our job is to determine if what we say is the truth.  Then the impression that's created is not a reflection on us or on this phorum.  We don't what this place to be like the National Inquirer - sensational, attention getting and false.  Therefore they don't have any credibility. 

Here's is a brief 'mission statement' I found in one of the Bethlehem publications:  They (the Sisters and Brother) have no other responsibility to accomplish in the Church than to anticipate already on earth the life of loving contemplation of the Virgin Mary dwelling in the most Holy Trinity.  (And for my part I can say that is 100% accurate)..

Blessings - john

[NadaTeTurbe]

dUSt explained in another thread that I did not get the phishy tag because of this thread. 

[puellapaschalis]

So on the one hand we have a slew of rules (or sub-rules) about not naming people, or the communities they may or may not be involved with, unless we/they/someone/the bogey monster has express permission from not only those people and the community....and on the other people feel we should be able to critique communities without fear of reprimand.

Both scenarios involve possibly negative comments about a community which by and large is not able to give its own side to the story.

We might say that one case is more personal than the other - but is any discussion of this possible without it being personal?

What's it to be, Phatmass?

[Egeria]

I don't know enough about this situation to comment on its specifics, but there are cases in which information needs to be brought to discerners' attention so that they can be warned and investigate matters further themselves. I originally signed up for Phatmass because when I saw someone asking about Tyburn, and saw others responding in glowing terms, I knew enough about it to know that she needed to be warned that everything was not all sweetness and light there. Fortunately others with more experience then confirmed this and gave more details, but I saw that others later took offence at this, which disturbed me. There are unhealthy communities out there and while I'm not suggesting that one should air everyone's laundry in public, there are situations that people need to be protected from. Whether that is the case in this instance, I don't know (some of the allegations are not entirely new to me, but I don't know how accurate they are) but people can always investigate further and draw their own conclusions.

[veritasluxmea]

@dUSt@Credo in Deum could a Mediator of Meh possibly state for us an acceptable way or the guidelines for sharing concerns about a community? 

Nada, you wouldn't get a phisy tag for making a faux pas- it's only for rule breakers or catholics who go against the Church, as dust explained in the open mike.

[Credo in Deum]

Yes, my rule would be if you don't have anything nice to say then don't say anything at all.  Some people are too opinionated and make mountains out of mole hills, so why allow such people to invade VS with constant negative discussion about religious communities?  Sure in a perfect world this wouldn't happen and there would be balanced and reasonable discussions, but this is not a perfect world. If you have concerns about a community then you can say things like "I like them but I'm on the fence about such and such a community."  If others want to know why a member is on the fence then they can PM them.  If you don't have PM capabilities then you will want to up your post count so then you can get them. 

[Antigonos]

Yes, my rule would be if you don't have anything nice to say then don't say anything at all.  Some people are too opinionated and make mountains out of mole hills, so why allow such people to invade VS with constant negative discussion about religious communities?  Sure in a perfect world this wouldn't happen and there would be balanced and reasonable discussions, but this is not a perfect world. If you have concerns about a community then you can say things like "I like them but I'm on the fence about such and such a community."  If others want to know why a member is on the fence then they can PM them.  If you don't have PM capabilities then you will want to up your post count so then you can get them. 

​IMHO -- and it really is my OWN opinion -- just stating "this community has issues" allows one's imaginations to go berserk with wondering just how dreadful things are.  Yet, I can fully understand not wanting to spell things out in the forum.  The line is fine, and difficult to maintain. Credo, you seem to have the balance about right.

[josephine]

woooow....and i only thought i was posting a link to a nice movie, and see what happened!

 

my 2 cents in this discussion:

i think every discerner needs to be very aware that all communities, especialy new communities, can/might have issues.

that doesn't mean that the people in those communities are evil or not sincere in their faith.

there is this old thread (?) that gets ressurected once in a while "questions to ask" and "ten signs you need to look out for"

and i think that one also applies here.

 

I think that the life of the little sisters is very beautiful and neccesary in todays world.

I also think that some of their practises could be more prone to abuse: for instance the fact that your spiritual director would be within the community, and that you would record your thoughts and discuss them with your "staretz". I'm not saying that this is neccesarily always bad or evil: i believe it can be a very interesting spiritual practice to reflect on your thoughts and i also think it can be very helpful to have a spiritual director who knows the life very well.

however, it  could also lead to "mindcontrol" or other nasty things.

 

so my advice? visit them, enjoy their beautiful liturgy, their quiet monasteries, their wisdom, their art.

and keep in mind that any monastery, any community (just like any family, or company, or whatever) might have issues,

and know what the warning signs are.

 

i hope this makes any sense? maybe someone can try and find those warning signs/questions to ask thread again?