Talk:Monks of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary of Mount Carmel

If anyone has fuller knowledge about this young religious order, please fill out this article a bit. If I am not correct in my statements of the following in the article then please correct me: "The Monks of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary of Mount Carmel do not belong to either the Discalced or Ancient Observance branches of the Carmelite Order, who originated as hermits and have been mendicant friars since the 13th century--the male Carmelites have never at any time been monastic as the enclosed Carmelite nuns are. Rather, the Carmelite Monks of Wyoming are a new and different independent community inspired by the Carmelite way and the enclosed monastic life, under the authority of the local diocesan Bishop." This is in keeping with what I have seen asserted by individuals but I do not have hard facts about the exact canonical aspects of the Carmelite Monks, and I do not know for sure the nature of their relationship to the two branches of the Carmelite Order except that Fr. Daniel Mary had formerly been a hermit at an O.Carm affiliated monastery in MN (which I am not clear whether they are fully O.Carms or something different but affiliated). Anyway I have never seen any evidence that that relationship between the Carmelite Monks of Wyoming and the Carmelite Orders is one of formal authority and I conclude that they seem to be independent of the main branches of the Order which dismays me a little because I think the authentic charism is best transmitted by keeping that relationship strong. Well, if anyone knows more then edit the article, and give some good reference sources. --Elizdelphi (talk) 02:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The Carmelite Monks are not part of the two branches of the Carmelite Order. In both branches of the order there have always been hermitages where they live an eremitical and hermit life in common. (What else is monasticism but this?) The origin of the Ancient Observance can be seen in the Carmelite Rule which makes no reference to the life of a Friar. The fact that the Pope permitted the early hermits to become Friars to survive in Europe where no one supported them does not change the fact that it is hard to reconcile their mendicant life with the Carmelite Rule for hermits. Not that this change was bad nor the inspiration of God, but for some to recapture the entirety of the life as prescribed in detail by the rule should not lead to "dismay". St. Teresa of Avila had this one motive in mind as did St. John of the Cross when they made their reform, to return to the early life of the hermits from the mitigated life that Carmel had taken on. Later when the Friars took on too much missionary work, she really regretted it. But the sisters stuck to their charism. This you can read in any biography of St. Teresa or St. John of the Cross. For men to do this today is admirable and magnanimous. God is also blessing them with many vocations, which is a great sign. By their fruit you shall know them. What worth is a title? God does not seem to be limited by titles. Actions are what matter and their life is inspiring to many. What else did the first Carmelites have but a bishop to support them? Elizdlephi seems to know very little about them and so seems suspect of them because of ignorance. --Levelheaded333 16:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, the Hermits in MN are part of the O.Carm Order. They are a hermitage in the Order. --Levelheaded333 17:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Monks of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary of Mount Carmel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100113140504/http://www.decorcarmeli.com/Hermits.htm to http://www.decorcarmeli.com/Hermits.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071217214442/http://www.karmel.at/ics/edith/stein_9.html to http://www.karmel.at/ics/edith/stein_9.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Section on abuse allegations
The monastery has, within the past few years, been accused of having a dysfunctional atmosphere and as a result of these accusations was investigated and corrected by the local ordinary. Whether you agree with the accusations or not, whether you think the bishop's decision was just or not, it is obviously a significant event and deserves inclusion in the article.

@Churchhistorian35 gave three reasons for removing the section:

1. "Lack of a credible news source"

I didn't need to link a news article because I linked two documents written by actual ex-novices, one of which was quite detailed, as well as a letter from the bishop himself. There is no reason to reject the credibility of any of those sources.

2. "slanted and biased writing avoiding other sources"

Again, the main source I linked gave pretty detailed, straightforward descriptions of what he saw and experienced. The bishop's letter was the bishop's letter (is it 'slanted and biased' to include that?).

If you have alternative sources that dispute the accounts of the ex-novices or go into more detail regarding the bishop's corrections, then post them alongside my addition. Don't just delete the whole thing.

3. "not sufficient significance for a new section"

Abuse allegations and an episcopal visitation are of immense significance for any religious community, especially a relatively young one. It certainly deserves a new section, especially if you're going to make additions with other perspectives.

I'm reverting. Again, feel free to add to the section with other perspectives, but please don't delete again. Patrickpatrick2 (talk) 04:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)


 * You clearly left out the other side of the story well documented in order to produce a slanted article. This is against the rules of Wikipedia.  No problem.  I fixed it. Churchhistorian35 (talk) 11:15, 27 October 2022 (UTC)