A US socialite who gave it all up to become a Carmelite nun | Hacker News Reader

A US socialite who gave it all up to become a Carmelite nun

bbc.com

150 pointspepys135 comments

I watched this movie a few years ago, I highly recommend it: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1613092/

Anyway, it features a guy who left his well paid finance job to go dedicate his life to working at the Kalighat Home for the Dying. The whole movie is inspiring, but that particular section stuck with me.

It's stories like this article and the one in the movie I mentioned that make me excited for later life. Although, sometimes I think I should do it today...

You should check out Katie Davis Majors'[1] story for someone who took the plunge early, and never regretted it.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katie_Davis_(missionary)

> make me excited for later life

The trick is to be excited for today. Of course that's much easier said than done ;-)

I had a Déjà vu reading this BBC article because it is so close to the original Twitter thread, which appeared on my timeline a few days ago, that in my opinion it is borderline plagiarism. At least the BBC had the decency to link to the original source which most other newspapers never do nowadays.

To save you the detour to the BBC website here is the original:

https://twitter.com/4t9ner/status/1401458601462403077?s=21

I think the problem could have been avoided if she had entered a less strict convent/order (I imagine such a thing exists). That way she could devote her life to it yet still have visiting rights under normal conditions.

As an anecdote/aside, I have a long time friend who - when we met - wasn't religious or spiritual in any outwardly noticeable way. She had a handful of interests, enjoyed discussing many life topics, and had a well-paying sales job with a good company. As the years went on, she had three kids from unhealthy romantic relationships, became more and more spiritual and gave up her job to start a part-time, new age micro business. Not only did her income go way, way down to the point that she constantly struggles to pay her bills, but everything she says is spiritually-motivated. In a real sense, she stopped being a person and became a mouth-piece of her spiritual beliefs. I recently realized she's no different than a monk or a nun (whose beliefs are weaved into everything they say), only she still lives in the real world.

As a result of all this, our deep and diverse weekly discussions became less and less frequent (to the point of being almost non-existent), not to mention extremely unidimensional. She might as well have gone to live in a convent because I lost my friend all the same. Am I happy she's happy doing what she loves? Sure, but I also mourn the almost complete loss of the person I knew.

> no different than a monk or a nun (whose beliefs are weaved into everything they say)

How many monks or nuns have you know? I grew up going to Catholic schools, and can assure you that monks, nun, and priests are real people who have real conversation. Maybe not the ones who choose to join the specific order the woman from the article joined, but in general, yes.

I can sympathize that your friend grew apart from you. I've had friends do the same. But that is life. It would be short-sighted to write off entire groups of people because of one person's experience.

>I grew up going to Catholic schools

Me, too. Church every Sunday and Bible studies every week (for many years), plus Catholic school (for a year).

I'm not saying they are one-dimentional. I'm saying their views on many subjects tend to be filtered through their religious belief. Different from a plumber, a banker or a teacher who wouldn't filter their perspectives on many subjects through their vocation.

> Different from a plumber, a banker or a teacher who wouldn't filter their perspectives on many subjects through their vocation.

Not their job, but in many cases they’d filter it through their religious, political, or otherwise ideological beliefs. Which, ib the case of specifically Catholic religious views would (as well as their status as a married person or committed single) be considered as much part of their vocation as it would be for someone called to religious life and/or holy orders.

Roman Catholics monks often being "real people who have real conversation" is largely the result of certain monastic orders being created with laxer rules on interacting with the secular world. Historically, and still today within stricter Catholics orders and in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, monks and nuns are encouraged to limit conversation on secular themes. Definitely one can go and interact with the monks or nuns, but that interaction is best limited to conversation on spiritual themes, discussion of work that has to be done, or just enjoying the silence together.

My folks knew a woman who became a Discalced Carmelite. Visiting was mostly through a screen. On the other hand, I distinctly remember going with my mom into the convent garden, on the nun's invitation, to get some plants to take home. This would have been about 1973. Whether a man would have been allowed into the garden in the 1950s, of course I have no idea.

This woman did have general conversation, yes. I understand that she later became a hermit.

> I think the problem could have been avoided if she had entered a less strict convent/order (I imagine such a thing exists).

Non-cloistered orders not only exist, but are the largest for both men and women.

Here's a similar, more recent story about a banker turned nun. Good listen if you have some time.

https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/deathsexmoney/episodes/...

The Jesuit Guide to Almost Everything by James Martin is autobiographical and tells about his experience going from a Wharton MBA, accountant at GE making a lot of money to becoming a priest; sitting in a hot room in Haiti with bugs inside to take care of the sick and poor.

It really hit home with me because it was my dream to get a Wharton MBA. Then he says his balance would be higher at the ATM every week but it felt very meaningless. There’s also an interesting side story about the psychopaths (my word) in management at GE.

I am torn on this. On one hand I applaud someone who follows their dream in spite of societal pressures.

On the other hand, she only saw her son twice in 30 years. I would be pretty upset at my mom if she did that, and I can’t imagine doing that to my kids. Not meeting my grandkids, even though I am still alive? That is unimaginable to me.

Yeah, I think this fact shifts this story out of laudable territory for me. I think this is a really sad story.

It sounds like you probably have a fairly healthy and loving relationship with your mother. Not all family relationships are that way whether at the fault of the parents, children or both. I recommend not projecting your family history on to others and judging them based upon it.

Some parents and some children don't deserve to be seen more than twice in 30 years. Some children should never suffer being exposed to their grandparents.

That doesn’t make the story any less tragic. To have 10 kids and not want to see any of them is beyond sad.

Try to remember, a mother, including yours, is just a girl with her own dreams.

You realize there's a whole religious backdrop to this as well right? She seems like a faithful Catholic. If here children are as well, then they probably see nothing wrong with this. It's not about not wanting to see them, it's about wanting to live your calling more. It's like the Sound of Music, when Mother Superior tells Maria that loving Captain Von Trapp does not mean loving God less, but in reverse.

> To have 10 kids and not want to see any of them is beyond sad.

Monastic life is a sacrifice, in part because those who follow it do want to see their family etc. She felt that following Christ in a life of prayer separate from the world was what her heart most wanted, it was what God was calling her to do, and it was important for her salvation. You do not understand that but any faithful Catholic child would even though it is bittersweet for them too.

I'm not torn at all. I find it reprehensible, and I am genuinely surprised that more of the comments here don't find that behavior horrible. There is nothing noble about having 10 kids, then cutting them out of your life once their other parent died. I mean, wtf.

I don't know that we have enough information to judge her. I mean, she was a socialite; how close was she to her children? And, after all, she left each of them with nine siblings. I wish I had nine lifelong friends.

I'm pretty comfortable judging the act of excising all of one's (ten!) children from one's life as being a shitty thing to do.

Even other cloistered orders allow letter-writing, and there are semi-cloistered orders where family can come visit any time. There is nothing about the act of becoming a nun that mandated her cutting of her connections to her children.

Why do we need to judge her at all?

I can only sympathise with the socialite renouncing the society that continues to criticise them; which in much of this entire thread amounts to judging her for not dedicating her entire life to motherhood.

Her grown-ass children will either be happy for her, or they'll be mourning their loss. Or maybe a mix of both. But they'll deal and life will go on.

> I find it reprehensible

I would imagine most people wouldn’t judge her if she was a firefighter who died in the line of duty because she “could have chosen a safer job.” This is because people generally appreciate this kind of sacrifice. Your attitude is based on the assumption that her sacrifice wasn’t worthwhile, well she thought it was and Catholics think it was. Her children were grown, she felt a calling from God, and ultimately it was her life.

Firefighters actively invest in and protect their communities. Her choice was in diametric opposition- the complete severing of human ties outside of her own small world, even of those to her children.

I do not think this is a noble action. Certainly some will disagree with me. So be it, then we disagree.

I think this is the key point. My take on this situation is completely colored by my anti-religious views. I view her sacrifice as completely idiotic and worthless. But it’s clear she needed to do this. I can fake a lot of stuff for some amount of time for whatever particular reason- think along the lines of showing support for my wife. But I can’t sacrifice what she did for 3 decades without having that flame deep inside.

I just cant find interpretation in which your outrage makes sense. 60 years old person leaving for monastery is somehow outrageous abandonment of her 30 years old offspring.

I dont know whether this is being edgy contrarian or sexism in which women dont get to make choices for themselve. HN contains plenty of those.

But projecting 5 years old thinking into her adult children is uttery absurd. Especially since I have never seen outrage over literally anyone else not being involved or leave for long or risks death when his kids are small.

Respectfully, it is neither of the presented options.

Something to keep in mind: I am the one who posted my opinion. Not the nebulous Hacker News gestalt. I, speaking just for myself, find parents willfully rejecting all of their children, at any age, to be ugly across the board. I would say the same if it had been the husband fleeing to a Monastic order, and I would say the same about (for example) Jobs' treatment of his first daughter.

I know we all form general ideas of how any particular forum will think. Boards have moods. But if we allow ourselves to see that impression as a person, of course we will be annoyed at the perceived inconsistencies and hypocrisies. But that is a false impression- those would only hold true if it were an single individual making such varied claims.

Eh, my mom's not 60 yet - but I wouldn't be mad at her if she did something like this (not that she ever would). I think parents are entitled to be individuals, especially if they've already fulfilled the core parental duties of raising their own children. They don't owe their kids anything else after that.

Parents have a responsibility when they create a child that doesn't disappear simply because that kid becomes an adult. If every 18 year old on the planet were left to their own devices, it would be an absolute disaster.

I generally agree. Though we've sort of swung in the opposite direction it seems where parents will fail to instill an upbringing that doesn't end up with their kids being 35 and still at home. Also an absolute disaster by my estimation.

Catholic monastic orders aren't going to accept parents unless they can demonstrate they've already performed their religious duties to children. My guess would be the children were okay with it, and she had to show the order. Given her previous occupation, I doubt her children were left materially wanting

What do you mean? A lot of my friends and I gained independence at 18, and it was liberating for us. Not sure what disaster was supposed to ensue.

I'm sure you're really special.

Most 18 year olds aren't remotely ready for complete isolation from their parents, though.

I moved out at 18. I still remember phoning my dad about 3 months later panicking because I didn't realise that my gas and electricity bills were two separate things that had to be paid.

I was independent, buyi was definitely not ready for isolation.

Just as a counterpoint, moving out at 18 is the norm here in the Nordics, living with your parents when you're 22 is considered weird.

That's not a counterpoint.

We're talking about the US here. Most 18 year olds do not have the ability to acquire their own healthcare AND afford their own housing.

Even aside from that, when a young person starts a family for the first time, they often lean on their parents for advice because this is life experience they don't have and there are plenty of issues that someone without that experience would not anticipate.

This person did not revoke financial support from her kids. She revoked emotional support from them.

Sorry, but are we talking about finance or emotions? You're saying it's different in the US because of health care costs, but go on to say that she didn't revoke financial support, so finance seems a moot point.

With regards to emotional support, it sounds like her youngest child was close to 30, so I don't think that's a big issue. Of course it's nice to have contact with your mother even if you're 30, but it's a bit rich to suggest she "abandoned" her grown children. Presumably she discussed it with them first.

And most likely the kids married people that had at least one parent to get parenting advice from.

Since when has parenting been merely transactional? 30 year olds routinely get advice from parents as they progress through life. The entire world is largely better off for it. Wisdom is something best taken in small doses as required.

Of course it’s not transactional, that’s why i said that it’s nice to have a good relationship with your parents even as a grown up.

My only point is that it’s absurd to talk about “abandoning your children” when these children are close to and over 30!

Independence yes, but complete independence in every way? Of course not. There is an offramping period, and for many, the benefits of familial bonds continue throughout life including things like a safety net in case you lose your job.

She did disappear, but if her kids were all doing fine, and the kids each had 9 siblings to turn of in case of trouble, I think she did her parental duty, and so why should she not follow her calling?

It sounds like she considered it for five years, most likely in communication with her children, and then decided to go ahead with the plan. Of the many things one could decide to do at age 60, this one doesn't sound too bad.

Or, as a counterpoint, no they don't. 18 year olds are adults.

That isn't a counterpoint, and it's frankly ridiculous given any sort of actual consideration of the modern world.

Ok, when are people grown up?

They don't. But we often put on a good show.

How does society help parents of 18 year olds with that tasks?

I see expensive college and unlike it used to be it is nowadays an open question wether you will recoup the cost. Military recruiters trying to "get" your kids. In some countries you can get paid therapy via health care.

When did you ever recoup your cost? Incomes held stagnant through the rise of college attainment, which means that there was no increase in pay to cover the cost.

Rich parents are very different. Imagine sending your children off to boarding school! But that’s seen as perfectly normal in rich people culture, and has been for centuries.

It may be shocking, but this is often what happens when people discover their monastic calling in adulthood. Buddha famously abandoned his wife and infant son when he decided to pursue his path.

Furthermore, some people have little contact with their children for even weaker reasons. The fact is that we are inclined to judge women harshly for actions which would hardly seem remarkable for, say, a male rock star.

Eh, Steve Jobs still gets shit around here for the way he treated his first daughter (and rightfully so).

Are you talking about Lisa?

Are you comparing Steve Jobs refusing to pay child support for His daughter to Buddha?

> The fact is that we are inclined to judge women harshly for actions which would hardly seem remarkable for, say, a male rock star.

I don't think this is true. Walk-out dads are judged very harshly by our culture too.

Her children would have been way past childhood by the time she became a nun... like way past.

But being a parent doesn’t end when the kid turns 18.

The part where you live to fulfill their needs does, though.

It doesn't for many patents. Many people draw meaning from life through their close relationships.

I'd argue that fulfilling a child's needs is the bedrock to a more important parental goal — helping your children attain optimism in a world where many people lose.

Being religious is already enough though. Catholics attending mass are least likely to commit suicide amongst other outcomes

I would hope there is some middle ground between "live to fulfill their needs" and "seeing them twice in 30 years and never seeing your grandchildren".

By the time the offspring is 30, parents are free to make decisions for themselves. At that point, many children themselves left miles away and have only sporadic contact due to living independently. Or joimed army. It is absurd to talk about it as if they were 5.

There is be way to become nun or monk without leaving your parents, siblings, friends, literally everyone.

Depends on which monastic order you join. Some are extremely strict.

Completely agree about "abandoning" your adult children.

That was unfortunate type. I wanted to write "no way"

Hm, and I wanted to write "some are strict, some are not". So there is a way to stay in contact with your family, you don't have to join a trappist order!

I'm not sure this is true, the prime minister of the United Kingdom is literally a deadbeat dad. He went to court to disown one of his children and it's not public knowledge how many children he actually has.

That's complete and utter rubbish. He's had several relationships, and is clearly a philanderer, but no-one has any idea of the nature of his financial or personal relationships with his children, because they're private. He went to court to try to preserve that privacy.

Which bit is rubish? You haven't refuted my points with anything of substance. He's a public figure, if he wants privacy he shouldn't have run in national elections. He had an injunction on the McIntyre child, that sounds like disownment to me. "I love you, child, but nobody can know about you" He has no contact with any of his children apart from the new one, that's a deadbeat dad. We do not know how many children he has. Does he?

Of course he sees his children; there are plenty of documented occasions when he's been with them recently, and why would we know about the others?

Having an injunction on naming a child isn't disownment. It's protecting the privacy of the child. Name it, and now it needs police protection 24/7.

Your characterisation is way off track IMO, but it's a popular viewpoint on Twitter and in the Guardian.

> He's a public figure, if he wants privacy he shouldn't have run in national elections.

That's rubbish. His public life has nothing to do with his private life. The fact that he is a politician doesn't mean the public has to know about his relationship with his children. His public actions speak loud enough for people to judge his quality (or lack thereof) as an elected official.

I think the cultural gap between American and European on this point will probably never be bridged.

> He's a public figure, if he wants privacy he shouldn't have run in national elections.

Others have commented on how absolutely ridiculous and insane this is, but it also highlights one reason (among many) that we generally have such shitty politicians. If you believe that running in national elections should make every single aspect of your private life open to public scrutiny, don't be surprised if the types of people willing to run for public office only care about increasing their own power.

> I would be pretty upset at my mom if she did that, and I can’t imagine doing that to my kids.

Are you or your kids Catholic? I mean... some parents would be upset if their children decided to become vowed celibates, but if you're Catholic, and all your children decided to do this, you may be able to be happy. I am honestly shocked here that Hacker News is responding to this happening as if it is taking place in secular society, when the entire family seems religious.

> I would be pretty upset at my mom if she did that

I’m very surprised at this reaction. I feel like the right approach would be to respect her right to make a personal decisions.

You can both respect people right to make personal decisions and think these decisions are shit and affect their relationship with you negatively.

If my mother decided she was going to join not just a religious order but one of the most strict and one of the only ones preventing her to see us I would not be particularly happy about her choice.

Note that GP wrote about being upset at their mother, this seems different from what you’re describing?

> I would not be particularly happy about her choice.

This seems just being upset in general; which, I agree, isn’t inappropriate.

She did see some grandchildren - tbh, with so many children, keeping track of every single one of their spawn would be hard even for a normal person.

Also, from back-of-envelop calculations, by the time she joined the convent her youngest child was in their 30s, the oldest in her 40s. It's not too different, in practice, from entering a hospice because of health issues.

because your mom might have brought you up differently if she'd wanted to join a nunnery.

I get that too but as I get older I start “getting it” as to why people do what they do.

Doesn’t matter who they are to me, but life is complicated and ultimately it’s easier to just be understanding and let go.

Life does not revolve around a child, especially when you have several. Grandchildren even less.

A parent roamed the earth with their own desires and business long before a child came into the world. Children may feel they are the most important thing in a parent’s life because they are constantly fed, watered, and sheltered without fail, and they have known their parent their whole life. But a child is only a small phase of a parent’s life, a small piece of a larger plan, or sometimes no plan at all.

> Life does not revolve around a child

Of course it does - while they actually are children they should be your number 1 priority and the focus of all you do. But once they're adults it's a different story altogether.

Dolores Hart (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolores_Hart>) left Hollywood to become a Benedictine nun.

What a remarkable, long-lived life! It's common to turn one's attention to spiritual pursuits in one's old age, but a full third of one's life is very long and unusual indeed.

An excellent human interest story!

It is amazing that she could do such a radical change overnight, that too at an older age. Like, how can one go from luxurious lifestyle to sleeping on the floor overnight? Most people would have trouble giving up their luxuries for a couple of days.

Incredible!

In action it was overnight, but she was drawn to being a nun from an early age. I'm sure that this idea, this dream was always in the back of her mind.

But I do take your point. Dropping everything. Heck, I can't miss a coffee in the morning! But it does show internal (and external) fortitude.

Not to downplay her commitment, but given she joined immediately after her husband died, perhaps she wasn’t thinking it was going to be for a full third of her life when she started.

No doubt that is almost certainly true, but if you read the article, you will find that she was intending to become a nun when she fell in love and started a family. It sounds like she practically postponed her dream of becoming a nun and got the family responsibilities over with before heading to the cloister.

>On her 61st birthday [...] [s]he told her guests she had devoted her first 30 years of life to herself, the second 30 to her children and that the last third of her life would be dedicated to God.

Even if it was just a joke, she probably at least knew it was a possibility.

Alot of these comments seem to be some form of trying to justify her decision as not being unique or spiritually inspired. I would encourage you to let things be what they are and not over analyze them

I wish the article delved more into the rich spiritual life that these people have. The article dwells on the material goods and lavish lifestyle and abruptly shoves up the fact that she abandoned it all - almost as if the author can't believe it herself!

Recently I passed the Philadelphia downtown and noticed an amish family selling flowers from their truck. A large crowd gathered and wondered at the sight of the industrious family in 19th century garb. It's a sight unlike many city-dwellers, especially young people, get to see: chastity, family, religious devotion. People of today are so used to living in a culture that tells them owning more, having sex and expressing "your identity" is the path to happiness that many become stumped when shown this amish family doing business in a world so totally different than their own.

I love it. This is diversity of thought and lifestyle. In comparison, modern culture is extremely homogeneous and boring. I appreciate the witness of Ann Russel as a person who shows us that there's more to life than what we can see and touch, and that there's great joy in seeking spiritual union with God.

Your views remind me of this article I read a while back:

https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/18/gender-studies-professo...

I find the concept of pleasure oppression to be interesting. Essentially, the idea is that puritanical roots teach us that things that are pleasurable must be sinful and wrong, and that the oppression is felt most strongly by marginalized groups.

Your positive manifestation of the simple life is living like the Amish. What you’ve omitted is the fact that the Amish/Mennonite societies run as authoritarian patriarchies, where the bishop figure and head of household (the husband) have the final word.

I think there is a misconception that religious people have about the non-religious where they assume non-religious people are living a life of consumerism and materialism in lieu of God.

Ultimately, those concepts aren’t related: believing in a particular brand of God isn’t a prerequisite to helping one another and living a life of service to others. The non-religious just don’t accept biblical stories as fact, and they might believe that any sort of afterlife is not a realistic expectation.

The religious and non-religious alike live within a wide spectrum of materialism. There are certainly materialistic Christians and materialistic atheists, but there are also the opposite.

Locking yourself in a self-imposed religious prison for 30 years is on the extreme end of the spectrum. The reason it’s a news article is because it’s an incredibly rare, strange thing to do. In my opinion, this reputation of strangeness is rightfully deserved.

I think you're misunderstanding and reading too much from my argument. The thrust of it is that I sincerely believe modern society (by which I mean Western, US culture 2020s) places a heavy emphasis on consumption and reaping of pleasure as much as possible and that this culture is oppressive and coerces people to do the same lest they be labeled "old-fashioned, cultist" or worse, "religious" (which in itself carries a bad connotation nowadays).

The fact that the story is strange to you goes straight to my point. Throughout history, monks, wisemen and religious figures have retreated from the world to seek spiritual peace. There's extensive literature and history that shows this to be valid path for a person to take, if they so wish and are in the disposition to do so.

Frankly, I read into your comment as much as I did because it came across as not-so-subtle preaching.

> This is diversity of thought and lifestyle.

Compared to everyone who is not a member of those communities, perhaps. But for the people who grow inside those communities, there's no diversity, the nail that sticks up is hammered down and everyone is just like everyone else. After all, those are religious cults that actively discourage diversity and encourage conformity to the community's norms.

Reminds me of that Nun who gave it all up to become an Austrian socialite. Van Trap something?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_von_Trapp

Not a very flattering picture.

In her case, I think she was still a 'postulate', basically in preparation to become a nun, and the 'Mother Superior' or whatever the head nun was at her convent told her she should marry Captain Avon Trapp. Sometimes reality is stranger than fiction!

I don't think she gave it up to be a socialite. She gave it up to be with the children. Her biography is very interesting

She “gave it up” because she was directed by her religious superior to do so, and was initially unhappy about it. (As well as shifting timing related to external political events, the popular musical retelling changes this, because it makes a less simplistically charming narrative.)

I feel a little bit sorry for the woman's kids and grandkids, because having nearby grandparents, and specifically grandmothers, in your life seems to confer certain advantages in natural selection. [0]

Just this morning my wife and I were talking, almost excitedly, about what our last "job" will be: Helping to raise our grandkids, if and when we have any (in the not-too-distant future, perhaps).

- In the grandkids' infancy: Doing lots of playing, talking, laughing, reading to them, and other interaction with the little buggers, to help their brains develop.

- From their births onward: Being sources of patient, calm, unqualified love, taking delight in their mere existence (but always deferring to their parents). Giving their parents a break in childcare duties from time to time.

And of course your own kids are your kids forever. My parents and in-laws are long gone, yet even now I sometimes catch myself thinking, hmm, I should ask Mom and Dad about that. My wife has said much the same thing. We both want to be around for our own kids for as long as we're able and not a burden.

We're both really looking forward to being grandparents. It gives us a(nother) reason to continue eating right and getting lots of exercise to stay in shape: We want to be physically up to the task for as long as we can manage it.

[0] https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/02/07/6920883...

Reminds me of Dolores Hart (who is now an abbess, IIRC).

I can't say the comments here shock me, exactly, but they certainly are revealing. Specifically, so many of them pass judgement on this woman as if she had done something terrible and project their own categories onto her, characterizing this, without the slightest shred of evidence, as somehow sad. How lost one must be to claim such a thing!

Sister Mary Joseph had only chosen to be a Carmelite nun after her husband had died and her children had grown up. She had no dependents or husbands for whom or to whom she was responsible anymore. She was not a single mother who had somehow abandoned her children. Would she miss her children? Probably, but she found a higher calling for which she sacrificed such contact and there is no higher calling than the religious life. In her case, she clearly felt called to devote herself in this particular way. I have no reason to presume that she didn't know what she was getting herself into (besides, religious orders do not simply let anybody in who isn't serious or even qualified in basic ways). Do her children miss her? Arguably, yes, but if they remain in the faith and see the world through a Catholic lens, they are likely to be joyful about having pursued this calling. There is nothing sad about it. It is a very joyful and wonderful thing. It is inspiring.

Catholics (not of the cafeteria variety, anyway) find happiness in sacrificing lesser goods for higher goods and in the sanctification that comes with the suffering life will inevitably inflict on us. So let's just say she didn't join the order to be comfortable, but to grow spiritually in a particularly austere order. If you aren't Catholic, this may not make much sense to you. Someone who is a slave to comfort and whose horizons are severely limited and parochial will think this is downright crazy. But the Catholic understanding of reality, of Man, and of God imparts a vertical dimension and a breadth that is absent otherwise. Catholic anthropology is not reductive, and Man, after all, does not live by bread alone.

I mean at 60, that’s a ton of socialite living she got done. She only gave up a retirement.

A very different San Francisco.

I’ve had dinner at that Hilton several times.

So she gave them all her money and they kept her behind bars for the rest of her life. How is this not a cult?

> they kept her behind bars for the rest of her life

You are assuming she had no choice to leave.

A religion is the embodiment of spiritual principle.

A cult is an institution which exists to empower and enrich leadership structure of the cult.

Given the infallibility of humans, there can be lot of cultishness in religion.

Paradoxically, a lot of cult members are actually true believers, often trying to - and doing - quite some good, meaning there can in many cases be some good 'conscientious externalizations' of even some otherwise crappy cults. This is harder to grasp but it's real.

There are many otherwise secular groups that exist in this sphere especially among 1) ideologically oriented groups - and 2) corporations. My personal exposure to these kinds of environments triggers that 'weird feeling' whenever I visit such-and-such campus, in the Silicon Valley and elsewhere.

There are political organizations, even 'nice ones' in 'nice countries' that take children, not even teens, off in isolation to places like 'camps on islands' to 'teach them their values'. Because of the lack of obvious religious artifacts, it doesn't set of the usual triggers, but when taking a more holistic view ... it seems a bit unhealthy.

Even more meta, it seems to me that cultures that have very deep and complex behavioural patterns, idioms, norms, language structure etc. exhibit a lot of the same attributes.

You could go so far as to point at many 'major cultures' ... but to be a little less controversial, my experience with both Amish and Mennonite community certainly has elements of this. But I reserve judgment. It's complicated. And also they are some of the most inconceivably kind people on the planet. FYI they are effectively pacifists, as 'God's Children should not take up arms against one another' etc. - they won't join the Army.

Edit: from a purely secular perspective, where the notion of 'there being a god or not' or where 'beliefs' etc. irrelevant ... than really what is the difference between the Soviet Union, for example, and a cult? They exhibit all of the same artifacts. The only difference being, in some cults, there might be some kind of supernatural extra beliefs to go along with it. Stalin used (perverted?) a secular ideology in the same way as a cult would use their own system of beliefs. 99% of the resulting systematic and authoritarian externalizations have nothing to do with the 'core beliefs' in both cases.

Edit 2: whether 'core principles' are ideological, spiritual, corporatist, nationalist, or even cultural, you get a lot of the same type of group dynamics forming.

You make it sound like she was forced to do this. There's nothing in Christianity that forces you to give your money to the Church or to become a nun. You do this on your own free will.

>There's nothing in Christianity that forces you to give your money to the Church

There's a wide variety of Christian churches. Some can be aggressive in asking for money. Most of them do promote donation of some of your money to them. The percentage varies. Some say 10% (tithe), some say whatever you feel is best, some might say all. I don't think the Catholic Church is very aggressive, nor does it say members should give it all their money.

Hmm, also true of Scientology, non?

A nun won't be excommunicated for leaving the convent or shunned. Nor would a priest. You'd be surprised how many laicized priests there are around, some of whom are even married. Or how many ex-nuns there are. My principal at my Catholic elementary school was an ex-nun -- incredibly strict and orthodox Catholic as well. No secret was made of her history. She left the convent when she didn't think it was helping her. Still kept her vow of celibacy, although she was technically dispensed of it, and could have married if she had wanted to.

Fair enough.

>So she gave them all her money

Do you have a source for this? I don't see it in the article.

>and it was then she began the long, considered bid to join one of the strictest orders of nuns in the world.

It sounds like it was hard for her to get in, and the group is fairly exclusive. I think cults try to get people to join by making it easy to join.

There is no shortage of cults that establish a hierarchy with different levels of exclusivity.

I'm wondering what the hierarchy like that is here. There seem to just be 2 levels here: lay Catholic and Carmelite nun. Would the entire Catholic Church be a cult? It doesn't have the "gave them all her money" or "kept her behind bars" aspects that FounderBurr mentioned.

> Five years later she gave away everything she owned to join the Sisters of Our Lady of Mount Carmel in Des Plaines, Illinois.

The source is the linked BBC article

That doesn’t mean she gave it to the church. I interpreted that statement as “she gave away everything [to her children]

Hmm, fair enough. In fact, it appears from https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-10-29-me-56060-... that she gave to her children what they desired and then auctioned the rest to charity (one can imagine that wasn’t necessarily this church).

Usually when you join a religious order that requires a vow of poverty, your stuff goes to to the order. A carmelite nun or Franciscan friar would be examples of that.

I have a friend who was a nun in an order like that who chose to leave because she inherited her parent’s house, and felt strongly about maintaining the gardens to their (very high) standards.

>Usually when you join a religious order that requires a vow of poverty, your stuff goes to to the order.

Do you have a source for this? I know that a vow of poverty means you have to give up everything, such as your friend's house. But I doubt that it has to be given to the order. Also there might be a distinction between things you give away before joining (what I think this thread is about) and things you gain while a nun (such as inherited stuff) that you have to give away.

> I think you can give them to your family. [1]

> When you make final vows, you can give away your possessions (e.g. to family/friends) or donate them to the order. [2]

> Possessions can usually be given to family or friends or sold and donated either to the order or a charity of choice. In the case of inheritance, you can either ask to be left out of the will or accept it and then turn it over to the order or gift it to another. [3]

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/9zaegz/curious...

[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/grtzu1/advice_...

[3] https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/grtzu1/advice_...

> So she gave them all her money and they kept her behind bars for the rest of her life. How is this not a cult?

Because she could leave if she wanted to? Nuns leave somewhat frequently (so do priests). No one is stopping them.

The idea of giving all your stuff away to follow God is something people choose willingly.

I think she had her priorities a little mixed up. When you have a son, your duty, your number one priority, is him. Abandoning your child is a crime against humanity.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com