Monday, October 25, 2010

Developing: What is brewing in Omaha with some ex-"Lambs"?

It's never a good idea to look exclusively at the good fruits in discernment
Bishops must look at both good and bad fruits.
One bad fruit in a basket can spread the rot.

This post has been edited for clarification and easier reading...

Something is apparently brewing in Omaha with Nadine Brown (formerly known as "Mother" and foundress of the now canonically suppressed "Intercessors of the Lamb"). Or, it is brewing with the lay board of directors who were not cooperating with Archbishop Lucas, or both.  Brown resigned on September 30th, 2010 at the request of +Lucas.  I doubt this has any connection to the 48 souls who sought the intervention of the the archbishop, and are currently in his care.

Statement found this morning on the archdiocesan page for this case tells Catholics that Archbishop Lucas has not reviewed any resources being put out under the name "Intercessors of the Lamb", or by Nadine Brown:  http://www.archomaha.org/newsevents/pdf/Resources_statement.pdf

The page you will want to check for updates at the Archdiocese of Omaha:
http://www.archomaha.org/newsevents/intercessors.html

What likely prompted it?

A note on the previously defunct webpage indicating "We are still here" and "Our Foundress" will soon release a statement.


It reads (emphases mind in bold):

We are still here!

Our mission continues and our charism has not changed. We remain dedicated to the contemplative formation of ALL Christians for the powerful ministry of intercession. Our goal is to develop and foster a deep interior life in the hearts of God's people so that they might become, within themselves, a "house of prayer" as God is within Himself. Because it is the life that prays, our own personal relationship with Jesus is the root of power of all effective intercession

Along this strange message, the webpage solicits donations to the corporation, Intercessors of the Lamb, Inc (Archbp Lucas discouraged this since it is not associated with the Catholic Church)

The statement is problematic in several ways.  Here are just a few:

  • It bills itself as a contemplative community for ALL Christians
  • It says the "charism has not changed", yet documentation from the Archdiocese of Omaha indicates confusion among the members over the charism.  A community can claim to have a charism, but it is the archbishop who ultimately discerns the validity and recognition of a charism.
  • An authentic interior life is built with the sanctifying grace that comes with the Sacraments.  In the public releases up to date, there is no indication that any priest went with them.  Priests of the diocese are not permitted on the Bellwether property they have, and one has to wonder what steps Archbishop Lucas will take next if they operate without his blessing, potentially pulling Catholics along in some kind of association which is not in communion with him. Will they be admitted to the Sacraments if they go to a nearby parish?
  • Our personal relationship with Jesus is not the root of power.  That whole last sentence is odd and belongs in the "alarming findings" file at the Archdiocese of Omaha. 
One question on my mind is, have they thought this through enough to ponder whether they are willing to live without the Eucharist, should it come to that?


Background

If you missed these, they are in an increasing expanding list of articles, news and statements  on that page offered by the AoO webpage for the case:


  • October 19, 2010: Omaha World Herald - Hermits put Faith in Future (three former Intercessors, among the 48 cooperating with the archbishop and in his care unveil the chaos which took place behind the scenes ultimately prompting the archbishop to bus them out after the suppression, which took place 15 days after Nadine Brown's resignation on the 30th of September)


Also, Sr. Laurel M. O'Neal, Er., Dio (a diocesan hermit in Oakland, CA; canon 603), has been making some informative posts on this whole subject at her blog


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.

49 comments:

Charles said...

This is just alarming, especially when the website said, "ALL Christians" (they really emphasized that word.)

I am a former companion, and I haven't received any messages from the IOL, Inc. Still I would prefer to obey the bishop. I am so sad that this would happen. If ever they'll go on without the Church, it would be a great pain for us. We still love them and I pray they would return to the flock.

I couldn't understand what's in their minds right now, they have always taught us to obey the Church. Why would they go against them now (it seems that they are now).

I pray that these people would be enlightened.

Please don't forget to pray as well to the majority (48) who obeyed the bishop.

Kevin Symonds said...

It is possible that she is starting another community separately from that troublesome lay board.

Diane M. Korzeniewski, OCDS said...

Charles,

Your sense is correct.

That "ALL Christians" jumped out at me. This is not a good sign. They cannot function as Catholic group without the permissio of the bishop and we know where he stands.

So, what would they be? Non-denominational? Protestant?

There are many strange things in that message.

The part that stabbed me the worst was the thought that they could part that easily with the Eucharist, unless they have not thought it through thoroughly.

They need a priest to give them the Eucharist. No priest went with them. There is one man among the roughly ten who seemed to follow Nadine Brown, while 48 went with the bishop.

How do they receive Communion? How do they spend time in adoration without the Eucharist? How can they possibly present themselves for Holy Communion if they are in open defiance of the bishop? What about Sacramental Confession?

There are many questions. I know nothing about canon law. I think they are possibly opening themselves up for ex-communication.

We need to pray for all of them, as well as for the archbishop. I hope this is not what it appears to be.

The diocesan page has many references and articles stacking up, so I recommend visiting there.

Diane M. Korzeniewski, OCDS said...

Kevin,

I agree with what you are saying, and yes - we must wait it out.

I wills say this much, if that very strange message on the Intercessors of the Lamb, Inc (that is the lay board of directors, which retains it's corporate name), has anything to do with Nadine Brown cooperating with the bishop, I will shut my computer off for two whole days (fasting on bread and water would be easier).

Here is why I do not think that is likely:

1) The website header has the corporate name: Intercessors of the Lamb, Inc.

2) The message provided emphasizes that the new community will be for "ALL Christians".

3) It asks that donations be sent to "Intercessors of the Lamb, Inc." in direct contradiction to what Archbishop Lucas stated (he explicitly asked people not to do this and to send money to the archdiocese to support the 48).

4) If there was any kind of reconciiiation, I would expect it to come from the Archdiocese of Omaha site, not the bellwether lambs.

I could go on...

Let's be clear: The Intercessors of the Lamb - the association of lay faithful - was suppressed. The archbishop has no control over the corporation which goes by the same name, with an "Inc." over it.

Terry Nelson said...

This is very interesting indeed. What an amazing development.

Diane M. Korzeniewski, OCDS said...

Let me further clarify, that I hope the signals coming from that smokestack are not what they appear to be.

I don't believe this is gossip by any means since we are raising questions and offering commentary based on what is on a public website. There are troubling signs in the introductory message I quoted in the body of this post. As of this moment, the promised message from "Our Foundress" remains to be seen.

When that comes out, I say - go to the Archdiocese of Omaha website link I provided in my post to look for a response. I may not get to update my post right away.

I'm heading off to bed and will say a prayer that Nadine Brown stays on the straight and narrow path with the other ex-lambs that did not get on the archbishop's bus the day the community was suppressed.

Nick said...

We are still here! (1)

Our mission continues and our charism has not changed (2). We remain dedicated to the contemplative formation of ALL Christians for the powerful ministry of intercession (3). Our goal is to develop and foster a deep interior life in the hearts of God's people so that they might become, within themselves, a "house of prayer" as God is within Himself (4). Because it is the life that prays, our own personal relationship with Jesus is the root of power of all effective intercession (5).

(1) The site but not the movement.
(2) Your moneymaking continues.
(3) Does this include obedience?
(4) Obedience can become prayer.
(5) No love = no obedience = no life.

My thoughts on obedience and related matters:
The Bishop and the Roses
The Gift of the Virtue of Obedience
On Obedience
Bad Arguments

Charles said...

Hello again. I am afraid they would becoming a "non-denominational christian corporation." If ever that would happen, and given their background, I think they would not succeed.

It's painful to see your former mother, brother and sisters going away.

Charles said...

Ah, they're asking for donations? Now that's really alarming.

Diane M. Korzeniewski, OCDS said...

Charles - on the donations, yes. Click on the link to the website I have embedded in the post and read through it all carefully.

I purposely blacked out and erased some things I didn't particularly care to have advertised directly on my website.

Sorry if this confused people. Just know that when you visit that site, it is a site with the corporate name, which is run by the defiant lay board of directors. They are asking Catholics to defy Archbishop Lucas' last public statement, which was not to send the lay board money.

Further, the archbishop is caring for 48 members, the corporate board has a handful. It wouldn't matter if it was the other way around. Supporting them financially would be imprudent at the least.

observer II said...

Diane, aren't you jumping the gun a bit for your own purposes - yes, perhaps even that love of gossip here??

The headline could just be explained by what it says - that so many people have been inquiring of the group that it was necessary to let them know that something would be coming soon to perhaps answer their many inquiries.

Also, your rather personal emphasis on a charism never having been "authentic" is pretty conveniently generalized since you, in the same moment then by such, negate the prior bishops' guidance and continuance of the group to the point of a public association with future understood intentions.

Gosh darn where are all those other available private Canon Lawyers on call to the rest of the bishops of the world to examine all the parishes of all the dioceses that the Faithful have been worried about now for decades?? They have had a whale of influence on the faith in an actual stamped form of authority too! And do you think there just might be one not quite up to muster even in this same diocese? The convoluted mystery of the times continues - right here, in this space!! Stay tuned!

Diane M. Korzeniewski, OCDS said...

Observer II:

After more than a year of oboxious rsponses why don't you come out from behind that pseudonym.

You don't seem to be very observant, even after things were highlighted.

Once again:

1) The website belongs to the corporate "Intercessors" not that which was suppressed.

2) The statement indicates We remain dedicated to the contemplative formation of ALL Christians for the powerful ministry of intercession. We will see what that means.

3) From the Archbishop's statement From this point forward, The Intercessors of the Lamb, Inc., is in no way associated with the Catholic Church. As Archbishop of Omaha, and in view of my authority to govern and guard the liturgical and sacramental life of the Church (c. 835 §1), I hereby decree that no liturgical or sacramental celebrations are to occur on any
property owned by the Intercessors of the Lamb, Inc., within the Archdiocese of Omaha. Priests, deacons, and lay ministers are to observe this prescription


Stated in the news release was also this:

donors are advised that their contributions will not go to
support the mission of a Catholic organization; Intercessors of the Lamb, Inc, is no longer
affiliated with the Catholic Church;


With regards to charism, when a founder is asked to resign, it puts the charism of the community into question. Aside from that, the bishop stated there was an inability of members to articulate the Intercessors’ charism

Let see what happens. It's an odd message.

Now how about commenting under your real name like the rest of us?

Charles said...

Hello Diane! I don't think the charism is put into question. Their charism is contemplative intercession, whoe main priority are the priests. I see nothing wrong with this charism

is this gossping? I don't think so. Gossiping is an act of degrading others by using false stories

Diane M. Korzeniewski, OCDS said...

Note: I removed any question about a "schism" and refer you to the Archdiocese of Omaha webpage for this case for further updates.

observer II said...

Aside from that, the bishop stated there was an inability of members to articulate the Intercessors’ charism

The history of the current situation has been stated that the consulted Canon Lawyer from afar was not interested in the charism. How do you explain something to one without the willingness to listen - esp. when it falls into the category of the mystical??

That also is often seen throughout Church history when attempts are not made by Church authorities (as well as personal confessors who lacked experience or even interest) to communicate well with now well approved mystics - Teresa and John for instance to name only a few??

What is still a burr under the saddle for many still confused by this rather sudden departure from the past is the willingness of past bishops to permit the organization to get to this pretty formal point of recognition (appearing to follow Canon Law in its requirement for the local bishop to work with and guide those involved rather than abruptly dissolving a recognized group of public association).

Now this may be in your view, Diane, to be just another "obnoxious" comment by myself since it doesn't march lock step with your directed outline and view, but such comments do appear to have you make certain adjustments that pertain to the public's obviously limited view of fellow humans.

Diane M. Korzeniewski, OCDS said...

@ObserverII

With regards to obnoxious posts it has nothing to do with content, but how it is presented. I have had someone (perhaps all the same person) drop in comments on posts I make (mainly related to Medjugorje), under the names Observer, Observer I, and Observer II.

If I may observe what I see in the postings of all these "observers" is a deficient understanding of ecclesiology, or "how the Church works".

There is a great deal of this universally, otherwise we wouldn't have people not heeding decrees, such as the one issued by Bishop Lennon of Holy Love, or confused over how a newer bishop of Omaha, proceeding carefully, would move in a direction different from past bishops, bring ing in a canonist (from afar) to see if things were in order.

Furthermore, +Lucas is now the Father of that diocese. That the former Intercessors appeared to pass muster with former bishops, does not absolve this community (and any community, really) from a deep examination.

How well does your argument hold up, theoretically, for a case in which a fully approved religious order, in good standing for decades or longer, is suppressed after they insist on having ouija-board sessions and channeling Michael Jackson? Should a bishop simply allow them to continue on the basis that they were in good standing under prior bishops?

With regards to mysticism and the mystical, there are things a seminary student can pick out, if they are bizarre enough, such as the last sentence of that paragraph from the bellwether site I isolated.

Nick said...

"The history of the current situation has been stated that the consulted Canon Lawyer from afar was not interested in the charism. How do you explain something to one without the willingness to listen - esp. when it falls into the category of the mystical??"

The Bishop didn't say the canon lawyer asked the Intercessors about their charism; from what I understand, he himself asked them about their charism, and he didn't get a satisfactory answer.

"That also is often seen throughout Church history when attempts are not made by Church authorities (as well as personal confessors who lacked experience or even interest) to communicate well with now well approved mystics - Teresa and John for instance to name only a few??"

Also Saint Francis.

What is still a burr under the saddle for many still confused by this rather sudden departure from the past is the willingness of past bishops to permit the organization to get to this pretty formal point of recognition (appearing to follow Canon Law in its requirement for the local bishop to work with and guide those involved rather than abruptly dissolving a recognized group of public association).

If a Bishop finds something troubling in a movement, he has the duty and the right to take care of it - even surpress the movement if it falls under his jurisdiction.

John said...

To the author - this is a great blog.

To Observer II, would it help if someone acknowledged that some of what the intercessors did was good? Things like praying for priests, and responding to prayer requests are fine and wonderful.

Acknowledged. Everyone has already pointed this out, including Archbishop Lucas.

Those fine and wonderful things do not "trump" the presence of problems like violating the privacy of conscience, intimidation, and mishandling the transfer of church property.

Also, it was Nadine Brown, quoted on Michael Brown's website stating that the investigation "wasn't interested in their charism", which contradicts practically every statement made by the intercessors clear up until October 15, and that includes statements that were in the Catholic Voice (Archdiocese of Omaha's semi-monthly paper) going back as far as June, I believe.

observer II said...

Furthermore, +Lucas is now the Father of that diocese. That the former Intercessors appeared to pass muster with former bishops, does not absolve this community (and any community, really) from a deep examination.

So you know exactly what kind of "deep" examination was observed (in contrast to the predecessors' approach) by a realtively new bishop with limited time to spend in this one area in what is obviously, when compared to much longer term cooperation with a process of formation of this group, is witnessed to give a pretty quick assessment basing it and "excusing" action taken on one Canon Lawyer coming in from afar - and therefore apparently without any long term personal acquaintance. Did he confer with his predecessor??

When you read the article re: who are the members of the board guarding the property, how does one come to the conclusion that they are or have been irresponsible in their responsibility for the large amount of acreage and other property, due to some refusal to immediately turn that long term responsibility over to perhaps those they might have assessed could be incompetent persons where such matters are concerned. The Church doesn't have a great track record for management and accountability for finances itself. There are numerous recounted problems in that area where experienced lay persons have had to go in and correct matters. I didn't know that was also in a Canon Lawyer's bailiwick. One can make a report and then leave with the responsibility to carry out some alternative plan to those left on the ground. And to, again, try to disparage persons who seemingly gave of their own gifts and broadly paint them in with some assumed guilt of non-compliance is also irresponsible, esp. noted here to be without the full facts.

And then what is the current aftermath to this rather apparent rash means to such an end? Well, an obviously unprepared for situation where the care and housing for these people is relying upon immediate begging for their upkeep??? Sounds more like a neophyte's move before you think approach. The very fact that the majority was so compliant with such unplanned for actions taken would appear rather to a historical preparation toward obedience - even when it results in their own unknown and unplanned for welfare.

This quick one-sided judgement here seeming to applaud created divisions in so many areas appears to be somewhat premature with an unseemly applause for such results going on in the background.

nazareth priest said...

Thank you, Diane.
You are doing a great service to many of the faithful; and to our Holy Church.
Bless you!

nazareth priest said...

Observer II:
Archbishop Lucas is the local bishop.
He has jurisdiction and the authority of a successor of the Apostles.
He carried out a visitation according to the norms of the statutes of the former Intercessors and Canon Law.
He brought in a Canon Lawyer from a Pontifical University in Rome (Gregorian)...there was no rejection of the findings of the visitation by the "vowed community"...what is your beef?
This was done, jot and tittle, according to the Canon Law of the Church.
Just because you don't like the findings doesn't mean it is not legitimate; and as for the subsequent disobedience of the foundress and civil board...scandalous, in my estimation. how can you defend this?
Where has Archbishop Lucas gone wrong here?
He is taking care of the majority of the vowed members who left because of the intolerable situation described. How is he the villain, here?
You have much to defend; the action of this Archbishop is truly pastoral and according to the "heart of Christ".
Where the rest of the bunch is headed (those who are disobedient) is a very frightening thought.

nazareth priest said...

And, not to take advantage of this particular situation, but if you want to donate to a Public Association of the Faithful that was erected by Cardinal-elect Burke, in the Diocese of La Crosse, the Institute of Saint Joseph, comprised of monastics, diocesan priests, consecrated laity and married laity, please consider assisting us:
http://isjoseph.com.
All the information is there.
We need all kinds of help; we're directly under the diocesan bishop, William Callahan.
We have both the EF and OF and live a traditional Catholic life.
Diane, if you don't want this, please delete it.
I just want to let the faithful know that there are legitimate "new forms" of Ecclesial, consecrated life around; and Cardinal-elect Burke approved our Constitution.
He is our spiritual father.
Thanks.

Concerned said...

Nazareth priest - you are no longer living in Nazareth house. You might want to change your pen name. However, at least Oberserver II and I have company in not listing our names. And really, why would we? This Archbishop would probably threaten at least 2 of us with ex-communication. Everyone should quit harping on disobedience. There wasn't any. There isn't any. And BTW, the mission stating "ALL Christians" is exactly what the statement was prior to the Archbishop's suprression. There's not one mention of Catholicism on the website. There's no mention of having Eucharistic or other sacramental celebrations on the website. Be careful what you believe when you read. Be careful you re-state what you read correctly.

observer II said...

He carried out a visitation according to the norms of the statutes of the former Intercessors and Canon Law.

I believe, as reported, he was requested for help for the next step in formation, approached by the foundress. It was a request for assistance (one would assume the history of such former assistance given was expected in this case as well; trusted) and guidance. This is a responsibility under Canon Law of the local bishop for any public assoc. of the faithful. He is to work with the group to offer help, give pastoral guidance, not a removed "visitation" via a Canon Lawyer from afar to base judgements upon, in order to dissolve the same in perhaps disagreement with former approval given. I'm comparing approaches by 3 bishops. Would you then infer that the previous bishop(s) was ignorant of the matter although having a much longer acquaintance? Or perhaps just a different attitude of service to the flock? Soooo, whether or not "jot and tittle" was more observed in this shorter tenure with a fast track use of canon lawyer from elsewhere type of report can certainly be up for more informed deliberation.

There may also be the question as to just what involvement, if at all, this bishop had up until the request was made of him by the foundress to get involved. It doesn't sound as though there were any misgivings by authorities up until that point since this rapid response end quite unexpectedly "shocked" the foundress. A "truly pastoral" description of such an approach is yet to be decided ... esp. in view of his predecessors' approach to same group.

Anonymous said...

For someone who has had much experience with groups separated from Holy Mother Church, I see many similarities here, especially in the cultish boilerplate responses.

There is always a claim that no, we didn't disobey, and if it appears that way, we had good reason.

There is always a reference to persecution and a bringing up of a saint who experienced, what they perceive to be, similar persecution - in this case they used Sts. John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila. You might want to note that the saints were known for their obedience and loyalty to Holy Mother Church. Above all, they were known for their humility.

There are always rationales and justifications galore.

Just another group of non-serviams. Satan knows well that if he can continue to divide us, we will weaken all the more.

God have mercy on us all!

Veronica

Nick said...

Observer,

Your attitude seems typical of dissents. You might want to change it, because Saint Paul warned: "Now the works of the flesh are manifest which are these: Adultery, fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, witchcraft, enmity, quarrels, emulations, wrath, strife, dissension, heresies, envy, murder, drunkenness, rioting, and such like of the which I tell you before as I have also told you in time past that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God" (Gal 5: 19-21)

Matt C. Abbott said...

Yes, the position(s) of the IOL's "post-suppression" defenders appear(s) quite similar to the position(s) of Holy Love Ministry's defenders.

They're now going to be an "ecumenical" group, or so it would seem.

In other words, when the bishop exercises his rightful authority and pulls the plug on a problematic Catholic group, they essentially go Protestant.

Diane M. Korzeniewski, OCDS said...

@Observer II

I hope you will give me a straight-up answer, if I give you a simple question:

Are you in any way associated - directly or indirectly, with the now suppressed Intercessors of the Lamb?

As a matter of transparency, even if you don't want to come out from behind the curtain of your anonymity, it would help us to understand this point.

John said...

I hadn't looked at the notice on the website earlier today.

Now that I'm seeing it firsthand, I have to say I'm having a hard time picking up on the sense of deep humility and obedience that folks heap upon Nadine Brown.

Instead, everything about it drips of pomp and circumstance, right down to the selection of their font. I halfway feel like we're all waiting for Willy Wonka to emerge from his factory so people can redeem their golden tickets.

Another thing that I've concluded regarding the comments of folks like Observer II and many others:

Despite whatever problems Intercessors of the Lamb had or caused, it was a group that provided many sincere catholics with something they deeply cared about, and I'm likening it to those phases of coping with death and dying.

To simply demand that folks immediately accept all of this -- the loss, the sense of finality in the Archbishop's statements, and now the freakshow of mostly anonymous internet flaming-throwing -- is crazy, especially if their attachment to it had lasted for years.

Intercessors of the Lamb did exude something very attractive to many catholics, but it also was deeply flawed. To deny this is to deny the very situation at hand. If it were even close to 100% on the up-and-up it would never have come to this.

Sr. Laurel puts it very well http://notesfromstillsong.blogspot.com/index.html#2475062589261583296
when she says "One of the signs of a community that is ready to become an institute of consecrated life is its ability to accept new leadership and to grow from that rather than simply being demoralized and falling apart or becoming seriously polarized because of it."

observer II said...

Diane M. Korzeniewski, OCDS said...
@Observer II

I hope you will give me a straight-up answer, if I give you a simple question:

Are you in any way associated - directly or indirectly, with the now suppressed Intercessors of the Lamb?

As a matter of transparency, even if you don't want to come out from behind the curtain of your anonymity, it would help us to understand this point.




Look Diane, you ought to first admit yourself your own personal clericalism biases and your own disparagement of certain chosen prelates, while lecturing others re: the same, before you attempt to grandstand over those who simply wish a fuller understanding of any ongoing dispute within the Faith that we should all deal with in love, mercy and their accompanying justice.

Now, having prefaced this courtesy reply to your rather uninvitable request with its own teeth showing, I will respond with a certain no. Your preconceptions and fears of others is once again without basis. You just love to discover something to promote your own ongoing gossip that does nothing to unite others but only serves to divide, never finding anything worthy in those others who have broken your own pharisaical rules; those you have no qualms about attempting to make less in the eyes of others.

When I commented over the years using simply a first name, it turned out to be such a popular name that I, as well as the others, had to constantly make certain that our comments were not attributed to one another. So a title that gives no more clue to anything other than what facts are presented - since truth smells as sweet by any name - and no more clue as well to the person than any generic first name chosen, is nothing that should warrant any paranoia on your part....just an attempt by yourself to try to set up another straw man of derision because you seem to really hate those who differ with you esp. when they present real facts and/or questions for refutation.

But I bet you're just not as yet quite satisfied with such an unsatisfactory (to your mind) reply given to your "simple" question!!!

observer II said...

Nick, I think you had better watch your unfounded accusations made against others as "dissenters". Proves my earlier points though about just how far people here would go in their treatment of others. If a comparison of historical treatment which can only raise questions as to their pretty clear differences by same level of authority, in this case, two outnumbering one, is to your mind "dissent" then you had better go back and refresh your own Catholic training. JPII went to a lot of trouble to teach on faith and reason as jointly necessary. We have a history of your type of mindless response to authority for authority sake without the concept of morality entering in and the Church now suffers the consequences of such ... and, btw, has grown from learning something. And I gave ample foundation for that reason with other examples of historical misunderstandings where the mystical has been concerned. And I gave ample reasoning as well as to what is ordered under canon law with respect to public associations of the faithful and their expected relationship with the local bishop. Now was that spirit followed in this case? I think you ought to confess that many more facts need to be seen before a proper assessment can be made. Meanwhile there continues to be the danger of bearing false witness against your neighbor. What is being defended here are certain principles which, if not seriously abided by, can only set bad precedent for the future of other recognized grassroot communities.

Diane M. Korzeniewski, OCDS said...

Matt,

On target.

Along with the request for donations found on the revised "Intercessors" website, when I first saw that message late yesterday, I immediately thought of Holy Love in Cleveland. They threw a nutty and the "apparitions" wrote their own decree against the archbishop, before going into a grand mal seizure. Catholics are still going there!!!

We still don't know what exactly will happen with the Intercessors Inc, but those are not promising signs on that website. I pray they think long and hard about what possible consequences may come upon them. I suspect the phone and fax wires between the archdiocese and them are running hot explaining those consequences.

Docility in these kinds of matters to the local Ordinary is a sign that the Holy Spirit is in play. Using a litany of excuses to not work with him is anything but docile (i.e., the lay board of directors saying they disagree with his findings).

The Church does not function like a secular institution on these things.

It is duplicitous that the Intercessors of the Lamb had it's members surrendering their assets when they joined, yet would not comply with the Apostolic Successor of that diocese when he wanted control of the books after finding problems (methinks those former 48 members will never see a penny of what they turned over, either).

From a purely spiritual standpoint, truly, the most God-pleasing, humble response out of everyone involved would have been a fiat in the form of a, "Yes, Archbishop".

Instead, they give him a non serviam cloaked in, "we don't agree with his findings".


I'll bet Padre Pio "didn't agree with the findings" of the Holy See which banned him from publicly celebrating Mass for several years, but you wouldn't know it. I can't seem to find anything which indicates he complained about the decision. Nor can I find anything which suggests that he committed even the slightest act of defiance over it. Then again, it takes humility to accept the will of God for us as it comes through others who are put over us - by God. That is part of what proved Padre Pio's sanctity - heroic virtue in the face of such things.

Those who are not cooperating with the archbishop have become their own "magisterium".

What we see now reminds me also of what happened in St. Louis with St. Stanislaus Kostka parish. That too was about a lay board of directors, money, assets, etc.

I go into more detail in my post: Excommunications in St. Louis... of Love and Correction.

In that case, medicinal excommunication was effective for some members.

Wikipedia has more background.

Jairus said...

I hope people would not make any stereotypes here. There are ex-Intercessors who are obeying the Bishop, and there are those who don't want to.

Diane M. Korzeniewski, OCDS said...

Here is a live link of Sr. Laurel's excellent post which John offers.

For some reason, and it could be the newer version of blogger, there are live link problems.

Diane M. Korzeniewski, OCDS said...

Jairus,

It's good to remind everyone of that point about distinguishing cooprative ex-Lambs and uncooperative.

I have tried to make that distinction frequently so it is understood.

As I said in my original post, I do not believe this has anything to do with the 48 souls who are cooperating with the local bishop.

Diane M. Korzeniewski, OCDS said...

Jairus,

It's good to remind everyone of that point about distinguishing cooprative ex-Lambs and uncooperative.

I have tried to make that distinction frequently so it is understood.

As I said in my original post, I do not believe this has anything to do with the 48 souls who are cooperating with the local bishop.

Matt C. Abbott said...

That's true, Jairus.

Nick said...

Jairus, we're trying to avoid the fallacy of generalization, so now worries. We know the difference between the obedient and the disobedient.

Born Again Catholic said...

Hi all--I'm very familiar with the former Intercessors, have been to about a dozen of their annual conferences, and have been in a lay companion prayer group in the Northeast--the actions of (apparently) the former Mother Nadine, and her inner circle of "holdouts" against the Bishop have, frankly, stunned me and all the other lay companions I know. Their refusal to co-operate with the Bishop flies in the face of all their teachings, which I have found to be quite orthodox--they have always staunchly supported the Holy Father, and all church doctrines. Their spirituality was a Charismatic and Marian mix (sure to make both camps nervous).Their teachings on spiritual warfare I found to be totally on target.
Mother Nadine (if I may still use the name, for reference)always emphasized staying "little" (humble).
Sadly, from all existing evidence, she now seems to have gone in the opposite direction. My best guess is that Mother and her friends have arrived at a state of mind that they are getting sort of a "direct line" of info from God; that there is a cataclysmic battle (mostly, but not totally of a spiritual nature)brewing, and that they cannot let the Bishop pull them off the playing field. (I don't get the impression that Bishop Lucas wanted to tamp down their spirituality, but wanted to make needed ((obviously)) changes in their leadership set-up and correct various "deficiencies" taking place on the Bellwether campus).
This is all very sad. I know personally many of the former "hermits", those who obeyed the Bishop (the majority) and those who apparently have not, as yet. These are beautiful,smart, holy, sacrificing people. They are not "loonies" with vacant looks on their faces.---- They are also human beings, flawed as we all are. Apparently the enemy has gained a strong foothold at Bellwether. This is quite a feather in his cap, up to this point. But I believe this will, in the end, turn around for God's greater glory. God bless you all, and especially you, Diane, for hosting this informative, balanced site.

Diane M. Korzeniewski, OCDS said...

Observer II:

Your answer to my question was found in my spam folder (probably for firing off too many answers so closely timed together) so it did not get posted immediately

You can see my original question up a few posts, requoted by Observer II. I asked for a straight up answer to a simple question of whether Observer II is associated - directly or indirectly - with the former Intercessors. To this (he or she) replied thus:

Look Diane, you ought to first admit yourself your own personal clericalism biases and your own disparagement of certain chosen prelates, while lecturing others re: the same, before you attempt to grandstand over those who simply wish a fuller understanding of any ongoing dispute within the Faith that we should all deal with in love, mercy and their accompanying justice.

Now, having prefaced this courtesy reply to your rather uninvitable request with its own teeth showing, I will respond with a certain no. Your preconceptions and fears of others is once again without basis. You just love to discover something to promote your own ongoing gossip that does nothing to unite others but only serves to divide, never finding anything worthy in those others who have broken your own pharisaical rules; those you have no qualms about attempting to make less in the eyes of others.

When I commented over the years using simply a first name, it turned out to be such a popular name that I, as well as the others, had to constantly make certain that our comments were not attributed to one another. So a title that gives no more clue to anything other than what facts are presented - since truth smells as sweet by any name - and no more clue as well to the person than any generic first name chosen, is nothing that should warrant any paranoia on your part....just an attempt by yourself to try to set up another straw man of derision because you seem to really hate those who differ with you esp. when they present real facts and/or questions for refutation.

But I bet you're just not as yet quite satisfied with such an unsatisfactory (to your mind) reply given to your "simple" question!!!


Thanks for that straight up answer.

As I said earlier, there have been three "Observers" making comments in blogposts: Observer, Observer I, and Observer II. In all cases they comments get increasingly obnoxious and all sound like the same person.

Wade St. Onge said...

All these excuses and justifications for disobedience (including saying it is "Not" disobedience) sound eerily similar to Medjugorje believers. It would not surprise me if they are all Medjugorje believers as well and are just applying to this situation what they have learned from that situation. The fruits of Medjugorje ...

Matt C. Abbott said...

Born Again Catholic:

Very well said!

Diane M. Korzeniewski, OCDS said...

@Born again...

With regards to calling Nadine Brown "Mother", I think we should respect the statement and news release by the Archdiocese of Omaha in our discussions. On October 15th, Archbishop Lucas stated:

The vows of the former members have ceased (c. 1194),
and they are to set aside the habit and refrain from using the titles “Mother,” “Brother,”
or “Sister.” They are no longer considered to be in consecrated life or assimilated to it in
the Church.


I think it is ok to say Nadine Brown, or "formerly "Mother" Nadine Brown.

I know it is awkward because many may not recoginze her without that title, but since the suppression, she is no longer a sister or a mother according to the Church.

I agree also that the former Intercessors - all of them - are people who gave their lives to God and should be treated with dignity and respect. Things can seem well in a community for a time, and then things take a turn.

Let's keep in mind that +Lucas took action just 15 days after Nadine Brown resigned - the miminum time interval specified by canon law from what I understand. Those people wanted out sooner and I would gather it pained the archbishop to not be able suppress and bus them out any sooner.

I mean, we have Observer II here feeling sorry for Nadine brown and a handful of souls who seemed to have followed her, but what about the 48 who were traumitized enough to seek help from the archdiocese? What about them?

Archbishop Lucas is not the bad guy here. In fact, people are griping all the time that bishops need to act, and he did.

We need to pray for all ex-Lambs, as well as to archdiocesan officials working through this.

Mary said...

The official statement of Nadine Brown is online now.

For me it seems so contrary to the statement of the Archbishop of Omaha.

Any thoughts?

Mary

PS www.bellwetheromaha.org is the website

Mary said...

Read this email:

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=233167&page=7

so that all of us will know.

Mary

GD said...

I had a hard time finding any humility or docility in the statement of "the foundress".

Nick said...

WHOIS site info:

Domain ID:D3210989-LROR
Domain Name:BELLWETHEROMAHA.ORG
Created On:14-Oct-1998 04:00:00 UTC
Last Updated On:25-Oct-2010 18:41:22 UTC
Expiration Date:13-Oct-2013 04:00:00 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:Network Solutions LLC (R63-LROR)
Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED
Registrant ID:42473632-NSIV
Registrant Name:Mother Nadine
Registrant Organization:Intercessors of the Lamb
Registrant Street1:ATTN insert domain name here
Registrant Street2:care of Network Solutions
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Drums
Registrant State/Province:PA
Registrant Postal Code:18222
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.5707088780
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant Email:
Admin ID:42473632-NSIV
Admin Name:Mother Nadine
Admin Organization:Intercessors of the Lamb
Admin Street1:ATTN insert domain name here
Admin Street2:care of Network Solutions
Admin Street3:
Admin City:Drums
Admin State/Province:PA
Admin Postal Code:18222
Admin Country:US
Admin Phone:+1.5707088780
Admin Phone Ext.:
Admin FAX:
Admin FAX Ext.:
Admin Email:
Tech ID:42473632-NSIV
Tech Name:Mother Nadine
Tech Organization:Intercessors of the Lamb
Tech Street1:ATTN insert domain name here
Tech Street2:care of Network Solutions
Tech Street3:
Tech City:Drums
Tech State/Province:PA
Tech Postal Code:18222
Tech Country:US
Tech Phone:+1.5707088780
Tech Phone Ext.:
Tech FAX:
Tech FAX Ext.:
Tech Email:
Name Server:NS0.HERITAGEDNS.COM
Name Server:NS2.HERITAGEDNS.COM
Name Server:NS3.HERITAGEDNS.COM
Name Server:NS4.HERITAGEDNS.COM
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
DNSSEC:Unsigned

Diane M. Korzeniewski, OCDS said...

I saw it around 8:00 this evening on my iPhone, but was away.

There are several things I can say, but I will wait until the archdiocese speaks.

I am planning a new post which may not come until tomorrow or Friday due to other obligations I have.

Perhaps we can discuss this latest developement in that combox when I make it.

Diane M. Korzeniewski, OCDS said...

OK people, new development.

You will want to go here:

Breaking: Archbp Lucas; former "Intercessors" address "lay companions"