At the fine Crisis there is a good analysis piece which looks into what the pro-women’s ordination crowd do to push their agenda: dialogue.
I think we’ve all seen how this works: libs demand something – authority says “No” – they violate the law and keep demanding dialogue – authority says “No” – the violations of law continue and they keep badgering about dialogue – authority listens and then says “No” – libs demand more dialogue – and so on and so on and, in many cases, authority caves in enough to keep the defiance and hectoring demands going.
Now to the Crisis piece with my legendary emphases and comments:
When Dialogue is a Distraction
But dialogue is not itself the goal, for history shows us, in faith and in politics, that those of A Certain Mindset use dialogue as a diversion. It generally happens this way: they want some new action to be taken or position to be adopted, so they repeatedly call for dialogue, openness, “continuing the conversation.” Then they push for a power play—a Supreme Court decision or papal decree—which decides the question apart from and outside of the “dialogue” that had been granted. When objections are raised, those of A Certain Mindset declare the matter closed and decided, forever and in perpetuity: settled law, stare decisis, Roma locuta est, and so on. Suddenly, the relativist hardens into the dogmatist.
Those of A Certain Mindset do not truly want dialogue; they want a distraction while they work to achieve their ends. It’s not about seeking the truth, but grasping power and effecting their will. That’s why an article in the National Catholic Reporter[aka Fishwrap aka National Schismatic Reporter] recently called for Pope Francis to issue decrees solidifying his reforms (not sure which, exactly—how many has he truly made, rather than those people think he wants?) lest a future pope attempt to roll them back. They want the matter closed. (Nevermind that no pope could bind a future pope via legislation, since the pope by virtue of his office is the supreme legislator of the Church.) These same often decry alleged legalism and Pharisaism, but are happy to employ it when it suits their ends. [Scratch a liberal and find a Nazi underneath.]
It is disingenuous, akin to the calls for tolerance that result in tolerance only for certain positions—a phenomenon we have seen all too often in recent years, and for which examples abound. This is not a call to Socratic dialogue, a search for wisdom on a deep (and unresolved) question. This is a lawyer continuing to say “Objection!” when the judge has already ruled on the point.
To the original example: [NB] it does not appear that Pope Francis wishes to introduce ordained female deacons into the Church. He stated that reports to that effect angered him, because they did not reflect his words or intentions, and he has stated categorically that female ordination is a closed matter. (A cursory glance at reportage on the commission will find the same phenomenon, encouraged by the usual suspects in the Catholic commentariat.) [Zig and Zag through their nutty commentary and you’l see quickly who those usual suspects are.] Yet the adherents to the cult of perpetual dialogue see no matter as closed—until they declare it so.