I have spent much of the past week following the latest developments in the ongoing drama between the embattled Carmelite nuns of Arlington, Texas, and Bishop Michael Olson of Fort Worth. I also took some time to look back at the beginning of the conflict, seeking a better understanding of what led to the current stalemate with no peaceful resolution in sight.

Public reactions to the standoff typically line up on the extremes, between those who are cheering the sisters’ refusal to back down to a belligerent bishop and the Vatican, and those who disagree with the nuns for defying Church law and legitimate authority. Ecclesially, the latter position seems to have the upper hand. It is extremely difficult to see how the words and actions of the Arlington Carmelites over the past year have improved the situation. If they don’t back down at all from their current position, the road to an amicable solution is hard to envision.

The sisters’ statement of August 26, 2023, in which they said that they “do not recognize the authority of Bishop Olson over their Monastery,” could be considered schismatic, in that it includes the refusal of submission to their local bishop and the Vatican-appointed “Pontifical Commissary” to the monastery. Additionally, their April 20, 2024, assertion that “neither the President of the Association of Christ the King, nor any delegate of hers, is welcome to enter our monastery at this time,” is a second explicit repudiation of papal authority over the monastery.

That said, the Church is a mother before she is a lawgiver, and I believe it is important to understand why the sisters are frustrated and why they believe they have been treated unjustly. In many ways, this story reflects a much larger crisis and exposes serious pastoral problems afflicting the Church throughout the world.

The Bishop’s Visit

The story began last year, when Bishop Olson arrived at the monastery with a cadre of diocesan officials and a set of official decrees that he was determined to implement. The sisters’ lawsuit against the bishop says, “Defendant Bishop Olson, out of the blue, with just 30 minutes’ notice, informed the Plaintiffs that he was coming to visit the Monastery on April 24, 2023” (no. 15). Once he arrived, it took only a few minutes for the bishop to place their prioress on leave and for the officials to collect their electronic devices. One can imagine their distress at this sudden upheaval. It was not unreasonable for the sisters to feel that their rights had been disrespected and that their privacy had been invaded.

Intentionally or not, trust was broken, and the nuns even began to speculate that the diocese was spying on their electronic communications. Their lawsuit stated that Bishop Olson and the diocese “seem to be aware of all communications of all phones on the Plaintiffs’ account thus violating every Sister’s privacy” (no. 17). Even if the diocese wasn’t conducting electronic surveillance on the sisters, who can blame them for suspecting it after what must have seemed like an ambush?

Listening to the audio recording of his visit, which was played in court, it is clear that Bishop Olson arrived at the monastery with his mind already made up. The audio recording indicates that he did not know many of the details of the case — including the name of the priest in question, the fact that Mother Agnes and this priest had never met in person, and that the alleged violation of the sixth commandment took place exclusively via telephone and electronic communication. When she mentions the name of her canon lawyer, Bishop Olson bluntly tells her she could not retain her preferred canonist, and instead recommends three names he had chosen himself.

Although opinions may differ on whether the bishop is expressing sincere compassion throughout the recording, there are several moments where he can be described as speaking condescendingly to Mother Agnes. For example, at the 3:11 point of the recording, when she is trying to explain the details of the situation, Olson cuts her off and says, “We have a hard time with the truth.” Later, at the 17-minute mark — after discussing that he will be taking away her electronic devices — Bishop Olson abruptly asks, “Mother, what did you just do with your phone while I was talking?” He then interrogates her about who had just sent her a text about ordering more toilet paper.

On April 26, two days later, Bishop Olson returned to the monastery, and according to Mother Agnes’s affidavit, “The Bishop threw a temper tantrum, and in an agitated and raised voice yelled that the Monastery was shut down, no Mass would be celebrated, he then slammed the door and left the Monastery, traumatizing the Sisters” (lawsuit, PDF p. 13, no. 15).

At the moment, even if the situation looks like a classic story of standing up to an abuse of power from the outside, it’s a nightmare from an ecclesial and canonical perspective. There is no question that this situation could have been handled much better. Had the bishop and other diocesan officials entered into a dialogue with the sisters and listened to their side of the story, he may have mitigated some of the anger and hurt that ensued, even if his ultimate decision had been the same.

The nuns’ response

Since Bishop Olson’s visits to their monastery, the nuns have made some baffling decisions that worsened the situation. For example, hiring Matthew Bobo — a combative and outspoken lawyer — likely contributed to the escalation of the conflict, as did filing a million-dollar civil lawsuit against the bishop and diocese. The involvement of the press and the mobilization of their Ladies Auxiliary helped rally public support for their cause. The nuns and their lay supporters hurled unsubstantiated accusations at Olson, such as claiming that his true motive was to steal their donor list. The nuns also tied themselves up with outspoken extremists and conspiracy theorists like Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, whose bombastic letter of support was posted to their website.

Some moments in the story have been surreal. The diocese released photographs allegedly taken inside the monastery revealing a storage room filled with cannabis products and paraphernalia. Attorney Bobo suggested that the pictures had been staged by the diocese. Bobo also denied that Mother Agnes admitted to any wrongdoing in her meeting with Olson, which seems to be contradicted by the audio recording of their meeting. Local philanthropist and monastery benefactor Sheila Johnson told the press that she believed the bishop’s ultimate motive was to get his hands on the community’s 72-acre property.

You get the picture. By the end of last summer, the nuns refused to acknowledge Olson’s authority and he responded by suggesting that they had been excommunicated.

And the drama continues. This week it was reported that the nuns filed a temporary restraining order against Olson, the diocese of Fort Worth, and the Christ the King Association (the group of Carmelite monasteries to which they belong, which includes the nun appointed by the Vatican to serve as their superior).

The media circus

It is clear that Bishop Olson has lost the war of public opinion in this situation. Many of the faithful were already predisposed to line up against Olson because apparently he has a reputation for being a bully, communicating poorly, treating people unfairly, and having a bad temper. The long stretches of silence and lack of transparency from the diocese with the faithful throughout this saga didn’t help.

I have never met Bishop Olson, but I was surprised by the number of people who reached out to me personally about him last year following my first article on this affair. These readers came from different backgrounds — clergy, lay, men, women, conservative, progressive, inside and outside the diocese — just to tell me that in their personal experiences they found that he is a bully, has a bad temper, is a terrible boss, and treats his priests and people poorly. It seems that his leadership style is ill-suited to handle sensitive and highly-charged situations.

Many of us have had experiences with supervisors who make decisions without seeking input from staff or listening different perspectives. It is upsetting to know that our feedback hasn’t been sought and we aren’t being heard. This is a lived reality in the Church especially. The lives of priests, deacons, and members of religious communities can be permanently altered on a superior’s whim or just because the bishop is in a foul mood. Attempts to go over the heads of superiors are rarely successful. Most of the time, complaints and suggestions go unanswered. Often it seems that higher-ups in the Church simply don’t want to be bothered by those who have been entrusted to their pastoral care.

In Arlington, the nuns and their supporters attempted to thwart the Church’s canonical regulations and hierarchical model by utilizing modern media and mobilization tactics. The diocese and the Vatican followed their usual approach, however: top-down decision making and sporadic communication. They have the authority, so it doesn’t matter how they wield it. This, of course, is an approach that has contributed to a climate of mistrust and consternation among the faithful.

Yet acknowledging all this, the fact remains that the nuns of the Arlington Carmel have made unwise decisions. If they continue along this path they will wind up in schism and outside the Catholic Church.

The Road to Schism

The Arlington Carmelites have rejected the Vatican’s appointed superior twice in the last year — Bishop Olson last spring and Mother Marie, the president of the Association of Christ the King, on April 20. Because they belong to the 15 percent of Carmelite nuns who follow the 1990 Constitutions (“1990 Carmelites”), there are few clear outside options who might be given temporary powers of governance over their monastery.

As 1990 Carmelites, the Arlington nuns do not have a major superior in the same way Dominican nuns do, for example. They are not under the authority of the Carmelite Father General, as the nuns who follow the Constitutions of 1991 (the “1991 Carmelites”) are. Each community is directly under the authority of the pope. In some respects, the local bishop has authority and responsibilities over the community. Additionally, as required by the instruction Cor Orans, each monastery must be part of a group of monasteries called a federation — or an “Association” in the Carmelite order — which is a “structure of communion” among autonomous communities.

This being the case, there are very few logical places (outside the monastery itself) to look for a superior to temporarily govern it. It doesn’t appear that Bishop Olson initially expected someone from outside the Arlington Carmel to lead it when he placed Mother Agnes on leave. But after the nuns sued and took their story to the press, the Vatican took the extraordinary step of granting him authority over the monastery. Clearly that didn’t go very well. The Vatican’s next step, a year later, was to appoint the president of their Association as major superior — a nun of the same order, under the same 1990 Constitutions, and presumably with a similar charism.

The Arlington nuns refused the new Vatican decree, writing in their April 20 statement, “The substance of these documents is to ‘entrust’ our monastery—its nuns, its daily life and its material goods—to an overarching ‘Association’ of Carmelite nuns with immediate effect.”

Later in the statement, the nuns explained their refusal in greater detail:

The ‘request’ of the Carmelite Association of Christ the King (USA) to take over the governance of our monastery, made with the “counsel and full support” of Bishop Olson, which Rome has accepted without our knowledge or consent, is in effect a hostile takeover that we cannot in conscience accept.

To accept this would risk the integrity of our monastery as a community, threatening the vocations of individual nuns, our liturgical and spiritual life and the material assets of the monastery. This outside authority could easily disperse us, impose its agenda in respect of our daily observance and dispose of our assets—even of the monastery itself—as it wishes, contrary to our vows and to the intentions of those who founded our community and our benefactors.

Accordingly, neither the President of the Association of Christ the King, nor any delegate of hers, is welcome to enter our monastery at this time.

It is unclear what brought about the request of the Association leaders to the Vatican, but the timing of the decree coincides with a meeting of Carmelite leaders in Rome to review and revise the 1991 Constitutions. Surely the situation in Arlington was on the minds of many there. It should be noted that many of the 1990 Carmels are resistant to the idea of forming Associations, which has been encouraged by the Holy See since 1950 but was made mandatory only in 2018. The Christ the King Association was formed in 2020 by a group of 1990 Carmels to meet this new requirement. Most Carmelite monasteries were already in Associations, and although they did need to make changes in order to be in alignment with Cor Orans, the increased collaboration with other monasteries was welcomed.

Some disagree, and a few even see the requirement as disastrous. Traditionalist writer Hilary White offered an argument against Carmelite Associations in a 2021 article:

“Absolutely at the core of the Carmelite way of life is autonomy. An individual Carmel was intended by St. Teresa to be independent of the whims and vacillating – often political – interests of bishops or generalates. The house was to have independent control of its own financial life, to make decisions about whom to accept as vocations and how they are formed and to elect and obey its own superiors. All of these are currently under direct assault by this pope and this Congregation’s recent revisions.”

But what happens when a particular Carmel goes rogue?

Teaming up with Viganò is a sure sign of going rogue. The “Links” page on their website features a list of traditionalist sites, with arguably only one in full communion with Rome — the FSSP. The top link is to a page directly associated with Viganò, Exsurge Domine. The rest of the links are for groups or media outlets that are in open rebellion against Pope Francis: the SSPX, LifeSiteNews, Catholic Family News, New Liturgical Movement, the Rorate Caeli blog, and the “Return to Tradition” YouTube channel. Of these, the SSPX may be the least radical. These nuns are playing with fire.

The fact that the nuns made a point of affirming that they believe Francis is pope is telling — because if they hadn’t made such a statement, it would have been impossible to tell that they did. The Arlington nuns need to stop their slide into radical traditionalism immediately, or schism is inevitable.

Yes, in this case personalities played a disproportionate role, but the fact that the Arlington sisters outright refused the Vatican’s decree is troubling. Then again, so was the fact that apparently no one from the Vatican, the diocese, or the Association spoke to them as the decision was being made. Once again, Church leadership displaying a troubling lack of transparency.

It’s all a mess. In some ways this saga is the current crisis in the Church in microcosm. We have seen power wielded by the hierarchy without transparency, compromise, dialogue, or compassion. We witnessed members of the faithful growing frustrated, acting out in anger, and hurling accusations at Church leaders. We saw the Vatican finally intervene — but long after opposing views became cemented, sides were dug in, and the possibility of any kind of peaceful resolution passed.

It will be a long road to peace — if there is to be peace, that is.