Thursday, October 28, 2010

Foundress of suppressed community issues statement


Nadine Brown, formerly "Mother Nadine" sometime prior
to the suppression of the Intercessors of the Lamb

I was going to wait until the Archdiocese of Omaha issued a statement to make a post on this, which I discovered between 7-8pm last night.  However, it's already circulating so if you are interested, read the statement made by Nadine Brown that had been promised

Now we wait for the Archdiocese of Omaha to respond.  Watch this page for something dated October 27th or later.

My commentary, if I choose to make one, will come after any statement from the archdiocese.  One odd thing I will note at this time, is that Nadine Brown uses language that is specific only to her, but she does not use her name to sign the message.  Instead, she signs it:

Your Bellwether Foundress and Companion of the Lamb
Can she not use Nadine Brown?  She seemed to know better than to use the title, "Mother".

Also, while it is "legally correct" to give money to this organization, I have to raise the question if it is "ecclesiastically correct" to send funds to them, given how this came about through an act of defiance by majority of the lay board of directors to the archbishop.  The archbishop has informed people in his original statement:
"...From this point forward, The Intercessors of the Lamb, Inc., is in no way associated with the Catholic Church.... Catholic faithful worldwide should be aware that any alms given to the Intercessors of the Lamb, Inc., are not being given to a Catholic organization...."

I could not, in good conscience, offer financial support to an organization which was affiliated with an association - now suppressed - that had "alarming findings" unearthed in a canonical visitation.  A partial list is offered in the original news release. What is to say that something which is foreign to our faith will not be in the materials they produce?  As the archdiocese points out on October 25th:

Lay companions and prayer groups of the former Intercessors of the Lamb should exercise caution when using resources authored by Nadine Brown or resources published by the former association. These resources and titles were never reviewed orapproved by the Archbishop of Omaha.
If something foreign to the Catholic faith, or to authentic Catholic spirituality, is produced with funds offered by Catholics, then those Catholics indirectly participate in creating scandal.  In this ill-catechized and era of malformed understanding of Catholicism, it is dangerous for the average member of the Church to discern the purity of this material.

Please pray for everyone involved in this situation - Nadine Brown, the 48 loyal to the archbishop and in his care, the small handful who were not cooperating with him that ultimately got them to this point, and for the roughly 10 who did not get on that bus and are presumably with Brown.

Prior posts on this subject in chronological order:

Te Deum Laudamus! Home
The obedient are not held captive by Holy Mother Church; it is the disobedient who are held captive by the world!
Note: The recommended links below are automatically generated by the tool, so they are not necessarily related content.

19 comments:

Observer II said...

I needed to compare the official statements from the Omaha AD and Archbishop to statements and history of the Lambs to try to understand why such a pretty quick and grave action was taken with the resulting shock that it caused.

In the attempt therefore to accurately understand - an analysis of official statements for comparison:

Statement from foundress:

Intercessors of the Lamb, Inc., is a501 (c)(3) (tax exempt) corporation, separate from the Catholic church.
It is important to note that the civil corporation, which remains a non-profit corporation in the State of Nebraska, has been in existence since 1980, a full twelve years before the Hermits were recognized as a Private Association of the Faithful, and eighteen years before the Public Association of the Hermit Intercessors of the Lamb was erected by Archbishop Curtiss. Intercessors of the Lamb, Inc., is a 501 (c)(3) (tax exempt) corporation, separate from the Catholic church.

Statement of the bishop:

From this point forward, The Intercessors of the Lamb, Inc., is in no way
associated with the Catholic Church.


(Apparently though it has always been separate from the Catholic Church.)

Statement from the foundress:

The civil corporation, Intercessors of the Lamb, Inc., is a separate legal entity than the former Association of Hermit Intercessors of the Lamb and has always functioned as such, as an independent civil corporation, which owns and manages the property and other business affairs associated with supporting the mission and charism.

Statement of the bishop:

The reasons for this suppression are noted in a separate news release,
principally, the refusal of the lay civil board of the Intercessors of the Lamb, Inc., a
Nebraska corporation, to acknowledge my authority in making much-needed reforms in
the community.
The way of life of some fifty vowed members was in peril due to actions
of a handful of civil directors.


(How could the basis for suppression of the vowed religious be based, as stated, on "a handful" of a group that was a separate entity from them and always separate from the Catholic Church? Clarifications please?? The religious could have therefore continued but with a wholly different kind of support from the AD? This states that the vowed religious themselves did nothing to warrant their suppression. And they appear to be the only ones truly punished within the entire association. Thus the declared official statement doesn't seem to match the "grave reasons" required by canon law for suppression of the actual vowed religious)

Statement of the foundress:

As you know, Companions have never made vows; however, many of you have made promises to live in the spirit of the Beatitudes as taught by Jesus in His Sermon on the Mount. Since the Companions have never been part of the Public Association of the Hermit Intercessors of the Lamb, the suppression of the Public Association of the Hermit Intercessors of the Lamb does not mean that this extends to you as Companions.

Statement of the bishop:

Those who consider themselves “companions” or “associates” of the Intercessors,
some of whom have even taken vows, are hereby informed that such vows were never
canonically recognized in the Church. Even if such vows were binding in conscience,
they too cease in view of the suppression of the Hermit Association of the Intercessors of
the Lamb and c. 1194.


(Apparently there were no "vows" made by this group - only promises? Misunderstanding of facts or error in stated background by the AD?)

(cont'd)

nazareth priest said...

Diane, thank you for this update.
I am grateful to the Archdiocese for that statement re: materials used for the lay companions (I direct a prayer group formerly associated with the IOL).
This confusion is diabolical, if you ask me.
Your assistance in all of this is a great blessing to me, and again, I thank you.

Observer II said...

(cont'd from prior comment) -

hopefully the prior portion of comment was recorded here - had some trouble splitting it up and getting proper response from blogger.

Statement of foundress:

Also, many of you have inquired into ordering books and tapes. You may call
(402) 455-0188 beginning Monday, November 1, 2010 between the hours of noon and 4:00 p.m. C.S.T.


Statement from AD:

Lay companions and prayer groups of the former Intercessors of the Lamb should
exercise caution when using resources authored by Nadine Brown or resources
published by the former association.


(So are permitted to use resources but with caution)

Statement of bishop:

Of course, Catholic faithful are always welcome, in virtue of their
baptism, to associate together and to pray. I would
encourage those companions and
associates
to continue to pray for the former vowed members of the Intercessor
community, for the Church, and for the needs of the world.


Statement of foundress after quoting same above from AB:

This means that your prayer groups are able to continue to gather together for intercession.

(Appear to be in agreement there.)

Diane: .. given how this came about through an act of defiance by majority of the lay board of directors to the archbishop.

..Which the AB himself characterized as only a "handful" of persons and mischaracterized in implying that they previously were officially associated with the Catholic Church.

Just from these official statements there is room for some questioning of the basis for the religious vowed being suppressed when, obviously, the AD is attempting to support them anyway and they have been removed from that stated reason for suppression of vows. Is there therefore grounds for the religious portion to have vows restored?? It must be stated that Canon Law is established just as much for the entire Faithful/baptized as it is for those in authority. Humility does not welcome passive loss of mental capacities. JPII certainly taught us something about that!

A "little" comparison re: "grave reasons":

VATICAN CITY - The papal official running the disgraced Legionaries of Christ has warned that the conservative order faces "certain shipwreck" unless its superiors and members work together to change course following revelations that their founder led a double life.

....

At the same time, though, he made clear that the Legion was still viable as an order and suggested that, once reformed, it could have a role in the pope's new efforts to revitalize Christianity where it's on the wane.

...

De Paolis wrote a letter to current Legion priests and consecrated members last week, telling them that the process of reform was under way now that his team of canon lawyers and experts was in place.

Read more: http://www.adn.com/2010/10/27/1520667/popes-legion-delegate-warns-of.html#ixzz13fYkdkOY


(with much greater "grave reason" acknowledged, this is a huge precedent under Canon Law for cooperation due by authorities)

John said...

Observer II,

You asked, "How could the basis for suppression of the vowed religious be based, as stated, on "a handful" of a group that was a separate entity from them and always separate from the Catholic Church? Clarifications please?"

Perhaps because that handful of people, separate from the Church or not, owned and controlled the property that the hermits lived on?

Also, aside from the priests (who remain priests) I thought that those hermits weren't exactly "vowed religious", since the Intercessors of the Lamb weren't an Institute of Consecrated Life. I'm not a canon lawyer or an archbishop, like apparently everyone else on the internet is, so it seems they were all lay persons, Nadine Brown included. Feel free anyone to correct me if I'm wrong here, and a simple "yes they were" or "no they weren't" will do, because only one of them can be true.

The reasons for the suppression were "principally" because of the actions of the board of directors, but the decision was also influenced by the other problems cited in the Archbishop's statement, which included violations of internal forum, use of intimidation tactics (I suspect the two go hand in hand), violating norms governing alienation and acts of extraordinary administration, etc.

Those are some big corrections to make, even with everyone's cooperation. Perhaps the Archbishop figured that even if the corporation wasn't by the letter of the law subject to his authority (and would never be), they could have at least cooperated with the spirit of the law for the good of their organization, the Church, and the souls of all involved.

But the board said no, and they won't explain publicly their actions.

Deirdre Mundy said...

Wow, Dianne-- thanks for the update... so it looks like the remaining IOL have chosen disobedience and pride over humility and obedience...

Well, that, in and of itself, pretty much lets us know whether the bishop made the right call here, doesn't it?

No obedience, No humility means no Charism and no authentic inspiration.

Too bad their lay followers will probably miss it, though....

Anonymous said...

Deirdre, you have got that right. I have seen it over and over. Nothing new under the sun.

Where there is no humility and obedience to Church authority, run, don't walk, away, lest you, too, become an outcast of Holy Mother Church.

Veronica

Observer II said...

Perhaps because that handful of people, separate from the Church or not, owned and controlled the property that the hermits lived on?

And that had not all along, for some years been authorized or permitted by this bishop's 2 predecessors? That's not a clarification. That's a historical rewrite.

so it looks like the remaining IOL have chosen disobedience and pride over humility and obedience...

I still do not see, as the statements of both parties outline, any "disobedience" or the AB should then clarify if he did mean what he ordered and permitted or not. Or, are those here themselves in disobedience to what is permitted? Amazing the "hierarchy" of Catholic blogs. One day, with prior bishops' approval and cooperation, same persons cannot be spoken of with disrespect for their persons. The next, in a flash, the good Catholic christians can judge and demean all they want. Lack of charity is all about when it becomes permissible to demonstrate it. Somehow when people say they will pray for all involved it doesn't quite ring true - "I don't want pity ... I want mercy".

Still say the prior and ongoing precedents demonstrate a certain unequal type of response as all make use of their chosen canon lawyers (as well as the judgements of prior authorities) ... and the difference in this case both in time expended, charity and process is notable.

John said...

Observer II,

The Association of the Faithful had been recognized privately and erected publicly by the two previous bishops. I really doubt that those bishops made daily visits to see if everything was hunky-dory. If they did, would you complain about that?

There had been plenty of complaints about the behavior of the intercessors over the years. (I know this first hand I've lived in Omaha my whole life and am furthermore personally affected by this), but as we all know, the church will be almost painfully deliberate up to the point it has to make a decision. As far as I'm concerned, this decision is 15 years too late.

The lengths you will go to in order to extend the benefit of the doubt to all parties involved except for the Archbishop is incredible.

The statements clearly point out that there were problems with her leadership. I think that's plain to understand -- that they didn't want her leading this anymore. As soon as the process (supported by the hermits) began, the board made its troublesome nature known. Now after the suppression, we're left with the board (actually only the troublesome part of it once the wave of resignations took place) and Nadine Brown propping themselves back up with the new apparent title of "Foundress" and expressing their desire to continue business as usual.

This is almost exactly the opposite of what the archbishop hoped for, Nadine Brown, the board, or even you to fail understand or acknowledge this is a terrific display of intellectual and spiritual dishonesty.

They're hiding behind legalistic circumstances that amount to a "nanny-nanny boo-boo". If you want to call that obedience, then go ahead.

Diane M. Korzeniewski, OCDS said...

@John

Thanks for your help as I've been involved with other, temporal duties.

"Observer II" has a habit of giving everyone but bishops the benefit of the doubt in all of my discussions with him.

There's something backwards here.

Even if we set aside the bishop, I can't help but notice that Observer II seems to leave out of his equation 48 brave souls who are cooperating with the father of that diocese to move forward WITH the Church. What about their sufferings? What about the injustices they've endured, including the loss of their assets to a prideful board of directors who would not permit that association to be reformed peacefully?

@Observer II:

You never answered my theoretical question on a point about the previous bishops. Here is my question, rephrased, in greater detail:

Let's take a theoretical religious community - not a lay association as the Intercessors were, but a religious community which has been established for 100 years. Lets assume that said community has enjoyed being in the good graces of 8 previous bishops over that period and was lauded by the Holy Father some 15 years ago.

Now, something happens in this ficticious community which causes it to take a slow turn towards something similar to new age or occult practices. On top of it, they don't bother with the Divine Office in the manner that a community should. But, on the surface, to people like you and me, what is most visible are pious practices, great talks, and apparent orthodoxy.

Lets say in our example, that Bishop Number Nine enters. He begins to receive communications from a few people of a disturbing nature, perhaps even a few from within the community itself. He finds old letters of a similar nature going back another 10 years and he begins to wonder... what is happening in this community?

So, our ficticious bishop orders a canonical visit for our ficticious community and finds not only credible proof of the things alleged in those letters, but other strange things which are foreign to Catholic spirituality and norms on religious life. Lets say that the canonical visit finds financial irregularities. He finds personal information sitting in files of a nature that violates their dignity and Church law. He discovers that below the surface there is a deep power struggle between members.

What is this ficticious bishop suppose to do with this ficticious community in such a case? "Let it be" on the basis that they were in the good graces of 8 prior bishops, some of whom perhaps thought the letters of complaint they were getting were from people who didn't understand the spirituality of the community, and therefore set them aside?

Further, our ficticious bishop, for reasons of prudence feels he can only release to the public a portion of what he finds. If he releases too much, the dignity of those whom he is working with is adversely affected. He has to be careful not to commit detraction - which is to reveal the faults of others who do not know those faults, and have no need to know those faults. He feels that if he releases more, he creates various kinds of scandal. In the end, it becomes a balancing act of how much our ficticious bishop should release to the public, and how much he must take to his grave.

Just think... if he could release everything that he has learned,without restriction, he could get all the "Observers" off his back. Instead, he follows his conscience and accepts the persecution that comes with it.

The bishop is the one with the charism for discernment of spirits in his diocese. If he is wrong, God will eventually right it because no man can hinder the Holy Spirit. If he doesn't act in the face of "alarming findings" then he must account for this, and the harm which came to souls, on his judgment day.

Be careful who you defend in these situations. You could be working against the Holy Spirit.

Observer II said...

The lengths you will go to in order to extend the benefit of the doubt to all parties involved except for the Archbishop is incredible.

The Mercy of God has for its center the little ones first ... those given the great authority over them in His Church have a grave responsibility to extend that Mercy when deciding to deliver justice.

Now we have here a scenario of a woman in her 80s who for years has apparently given of her energy and gifts, propped up from the beginning of this quest by her religious authorities of the past in her process of starting at the beginning, by their guidance, to be allowed to form people who desire to join, all the way to a formal recognition with known plans to proceed from there. A new bishop comes and she approaches him and requests the same guidance from him. In a relatively short time there is the shocking news with its demands of suppression, demands for her resignation of two positions, her agreement to not use recognized religious titles, everything from those years ended and abruptly so ... and she is immediately obedient. This is quite a shock indeed, esp. for someone her age and with all that has been done before this. Good grief, the most basic natural reactions of just great disappointment for anyone who has had all that experience appears to be beyond any kind of understanding from those here who now want to pile on, through their own personal lack of charity, an unsatisfied fastidiousness to that basic obedience. Have you no heart? And yet you sit and wait for every next word in order to find more ways to satisfy a certain kind of unauthorized personal authority as well. Wonder how many here have sacrificed to the same degree??

and new apparent title of "Foundress" ?? Where have you been? She was the foundress. That is not a religious title, esp. within those mandated by the bishop. One could also speak then of a recognizable disobedience to charity here ... why not resolve that matter in own hearts before lecturing others?

the church will be almost painfully deliberate up to the point it has to make a decision.

It wasn't in this instance. It had already made some real decisions over the years before this occurred in a not so "painfully deliberate" manner!

Complaints? Do you know how many complaints have been made re: formed religious institutions such as Notre Dame, its president, real blatant disobedience to local bishop, or the many other Catholic institutions of great title, or complaints by bishops themselves against Priests for Life factual approach, etc.? I know of lots of places where the neighbors reacted with "not in my backyard" when it came to orphanages or homes for abused women. Yet, nothing. But here is a nascient group that could be guided since those suppressed were willing to go to some unknown place without provisions within the archdiocese and instead, so far, there is a real mess with seemingly unplanned for future.

Benefit of the doubt? Why not? Especially when I (and yourself if you're honest) know no more than the facts related and the time period in which this all seemed to swiftly come about. To keep an open heart then means that you also have not willingly lost your reasoning mind somewhere along the way.

Observer II said...

The lengths you will go to in order to extend the benefit of the doubt to all parties involved except for the Archbishop is incredible.

The Mercy of God has for its center the little ones first ... those given the great authority over them in His Church have a grave responsibility to extend that Mercy when deciding to deliver justice.

Now we have here a scenario of a woman in her 80s who for years has apparently given of her energy and gifts, propped up from the beginning of this quest by her religious authorities of the past in her process of starting at the beginning, by their guidance, to be allowed to form people who desire to join, all the way to a formal recognition with known plans to proceed from there. A new bishop comes and she approaches him and requests the same guidance from him. In a relatively short time there is the shocking news with its demands of suppression, demands for her resignation of two positions, her agreement to not use recognized religious titles, everything from those years ended and abruptly so ... and she is immediately obedient. This is quite a shock indeed, esp. for someone her age and with all that has been done before this. Good grief, the most basic natural reactions of just great disappointment for anyone who has had all that experience appears to be beyond any kind of understanding from those here who now want to pile on, through their own personal lack of charity, an unsatisfied fastidiousness to that basic obedience. Have you no heart? And yet you sit and wait for every next word in order to find more ways to satisfy a certain kind of unauthorized personal authority as well. Wonder how many here have sacrificed to the same degree??

and new apparent title of "Foundress" ?? Where have you been? She was the foundress. That is not a religious title, esp. within those mandated by the bishop. One could also speak then of a recognizable disobedience to charity here ... why not resolve that matter in own hearts before lecturing others?

the church will be almost painfully deliberate up to the point it has to make a decision.

It wasn't in this instance. It had already made some real decisions over the years before this occurred in a not so "painfully deliberate" manner!

Complaints? Do you know how many complaints have been made re: formed religious institutions such as Notre Dame, its president, real blatant disobedience to local bishop, or the many other Catholic institutions of great title, or complaints by bishops themselves against Priests for Life factual approach, etc.? I know of lots of places where the neighbors reacted with "not in my backyard" when it came to orphanages or homes for abused women. Yet, nothing. But here is a nascient group that could be guided since those suppressed were willing to go to some unknown place without provisions within the archdiocese and instead, so far, there is a real mess with seemingly unplanned for future.

Benefit of the doubt? Why not? Especially when I (and yourself if you're honest) know no more than the facts related and the time period in which this all seemed to swiftly come about. To keep an open heart then means that you also have not willingly lost your reasoning mind somewhere along the way.

Observer II said...

Even if we set aside the bishop, I can't help but notice that Observer II seems to leave out of his equation 48 brave souls who are cooperating with the father of that diocese to move forward WITH the Church. What about their sufferings?

Excuse me? I certainly have addressed that group. Their suffering is presently due to the decision made by their bishop. And, due to that decision, apparently they are now somewhere donated and without provisions, seemingly not at all planned for since immediate begging for them had to be initiated. How can they be supported by a property that they were ordered off of by the bishop?? I do wonder just why, after having been suppressed, at least some of that large number didn't go to live with family or friends. They must be still hoping and trusting in the bishop for some kind of resolve of their religious or future as laity. Can that hope be realized? Unforeseen complications??

And ... if you yourself must resort to some kind of fictitious unrelated imagining rather than seriously look at the current reality of confusion, disappointment, shock, division, and now more personal accusational criticism here, don't try to then advise others about their personal consciences. At least they're made up through reasoning in reality. Your fictitious bishop could work more with his flock personally in order to correct things for those willing to work with him rather than resort so quickly to some Canon Law legalistic back up for a "solution" such as "suppression".

Diane M. Korzeniewski, OCDS said...

You are in my prayers, Observer II.

John said...

So it's the Archbishop's fault that the board, et al, reacted the way they did toward anyone disloyal to Nadine Brown?

Ok, I see what I'm dealing with now. So, whose fault is it when a soul finds themselves in hell?

I told you when mentioning the "deliberate" nature of these decisions that I think this has been a long time coming. I personally know parties involved in this mess. So, being perfectly honest with you and myself, yes -- I do know more about this than you do. Please accept this. I can only explain it to you. I can't understand it for you.

I know that Nadine Brown was the foundress. I was pointing out that she's still claiming a leadership role by adopting her status as the foundress as a title now. It's her faux-obedient way of flaunting to the Archbishop that she's not going by "Mother" anymore. Sheesh.

Let me just check for understanding of your position, if a new bishop shows up and promptly cleans up the messes you reference above about Notre Dame, etc., his opinion is

A) invalid because he's an archbishop.

B) invalid because he's not one of the previous two archbishop's of Omaha.

C) invalid because he's just the new guy making hasty decisions?

D) invalid because Archbishops are only correct when they're approving things.

E) invalid because you didn't get to vote for him, nor did he consult you or make every detail contributing to his decision available online.

Pick as many as you like.

Observer II said...

So it's the Archbishop's fault that the board, et al, reacted the way they did toward anyone disloyal to Nadine Brown?

It was the people who left under order of suppression by the bishop. If the board saw themselves as something separate from the association and not any kind of recognized Catholic group the bishop had the alternative of attempting to further work with, in obedience, the same group of vowed who willingly followed his orders. It could appear that the bishop reacted only to the board's response and against everyone else for that reason. Instead he chose not to attempt that opportunity of further guidance for their religious life with the decision of immediate suppression. Perhaps he might do so now since they are wholly separated ... that would be good for them.

So, whose fault is it when a soul finds themselves in hell?

Oftentimes it could be a bishop's. So, pray very much for your bishops these days! That is why when people still carry some ongoing guilt or questioning after a Church granted annulment they are told that if anything was amiss it is the bishop who will answer!

Let me just check for understanding of your position, if a new bishop shows up and promptly cleans up the messes you reference above about Notre Dame, etc., his opinion is

You lack understanding, possibly purposely so, since your straw men are following predecessors who already had been on the same path as themselves to some measure, demonstrating leanings in same direction - not years of demonstrating just the opposite position toward the same. Your attempt does not follow the pattern of this situation.

The rest of your points are simply glib and show the lack of serious exchange and go beyond anything previously discussed in a serious and logical manner. So you are then discussing this with yourself only by choice. How you get from my examples of bishops who attempt to disapprove of actions taken at well known Catholic institutions to a desire to back bishops who only "approve" demonstrates a certain inability to follow an argument's logic ... God help us from personal discernments based on that kind of example of thinking!!

Diane M. Korzeniewski, OCDS said...
You are in my prayers, Observer II.

Fri Oct 29, 12:25:00 AM 2010


That should be understood since all our efforts in prayer are given freely for all the baptized to the Lord to make the ultimate decision for who are most in need. And, btw, to a Christian's benefit, perhaps unknowingly, such "charity" always begins at home!!

John said...

There's a difference between a hypothetical question and a strawman argument.

Lets just talk about football instead. Nebraska plays Missouri tomorrow, and I'm trying to accept the fact the Huskers will likely implode.

Wisconsin is pretty awesome this year. Having one loss and that being to Michigan State is 100% non-shabby.

Charles said...

Please share this link to as manyt as you can: http://archomaha.org/newsevents/pdf/Companion_Letter.pdf

It's the letter from the ex-IOL hermits who chose to obey the Archbishop. Note that they are not just 48. They are more than 48.

Mother Nadine is DEFYING the CHURCH. Avoid her website.

Charles

Not Surprised said...

I would like to make a statement regarding the Intercessors. Mother Nadine was the president of the board that was a seperate entity from the religious group. She said in one of her statements (sorry I could not find it again) that several members of the board were part of the religious community and that the bishop aked her to resign from this position as well as head of the religious community. She also mentioned that Father John Paul Joyce (superior of the men) was also part of the board. The board may have had lay people but former Mother Nadine was president and the board was mixed. I was a member of the organization a lay leader and have visited Omaha a number of times. I have some familiarity with the group and left several years ago. I foresaw all of this and tried very hard to get Mother Nadine to have an advisory board to dixcern their teachings and practices from a source outside of the community. Their collective discernments did not proctect them from severe errors in the faith. I ultimately was told by very reputable priests to contact the archdioces of Omaha and they wrote back that there were errors which would be addressed. This was several years ago and maybe it was ignored.

Diane M. Korzeniewski, OCDS said...

I have a new post coming before the evening ends.

I would like to hold further comments on this thread and direct them to the next post. I will come back and add a link here.