Proponents of deaconettes use “dialogue” as a distraction

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.

Well done.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Liberals, Pò sì jiù and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Dr. Edward Peters says:

    You can’t dialogue with ideologues. It just can’t be done.

  2. scotus says:

    In his article, Robert Mickens says, “And if it were a Pope Cyprian I or Pius XIII (also known as Cardinal Robert Sarah), the reversal would be swift and uncompromising. Of course, they’d have to tear down the walls of our churches to prevent people from crushing each other in the mass exodus that might cause.”
    Well, we know who the ‘people’ would be and in the words of the Lord High Executioner (Gilbert and Sullivan, The Mikado), “they never would be missed”. At the front of the queue would, hopefully, be RM himself. Hallelujah.

  3. DonL says:

    Liberal dialogue in three little words.
    “Give us Barabbas.”

  4. To add to Dr. Peter’s dictum:

    The Marxian “dialectic” pits a thesis—for example, Mosaic Law—against its antithesis—in this case, the Jesus’ law of love. This dialectic has been present in the Church history from the beginning as the “reasonableness of the truth of faith” has been tested by the “spirit of the world.” While this dialectic might appear for many to be trite or insignificant, its rationale was made explicit in what theologians call the “Arian doubt” (“Was Jesus God?”) that has led to heresy and division within the Church. Luther later made this radical doubt the centerpiece of his Reform, the Freemasons adopted it as their code, and today it’s upheld by the oligarchy of the world’s elites, as Stanislaw Grygiel recently pointed out in the Italian newspaper Il Foglio.

    For all of those who have been charmed by the Arian doubt throughout Church history, it doesn’t matter much whether or not Jesus is God or whether the sacraments effect what the Church teaches or are mere signs. Why? All of that is “the outcome of the emotional push of concrete situations.” That is, it satisfies how people feel by giving them what they want, irrespective of its intrinsic value.

    Grygiel notes the moral implications of this Marxian goal: “Quantity is transformed into quality when it reaches its critical mass, that is, when the evil committed often ceases to be evil and becomes a good.”

    Simply put, when conservatives give an inch to liberals, the new thesis is the point from which conservatives must now argue. As long as they continue to give in to the goddess “Consensus,” conservatives are doomed. Marx knew it and Catholic liberals, for better or worse, have known it, to…from the beginning.

  5. mike cliffson says:

    Now that the ordinariate exists, praise God, Anglican -RC, ARCIC I conversations are history. ( googling :They continue ! in 2016! worldwide! The clergy shortage is a delusion!) I heard at the time (1971)that the Anglican theologians (first) involved had very early come to accept that somebody had to be something like the Pope, so long as the word Pope wasn’t used, and the only possible understanding of the eucharist had Christ’s real presence, so long as noone mentioned transsubstantion as a term, for, er, transsubstanciation, and everyone was getting chummy over the tea and biscuits.
    But also all sorts of reports seemed clear that shens were being and had been aniganned wholesale. I get lost when it c0mes up on Britcatholic blogs
    I don’t know if it fits the pattern.

  6. Kathleen10 says:

    This is all so true and why we have lost so much ground. Say what we will about the liberals, you have to give them points for cunning, they know how the game must be played and they play it very well. We do not, and we can’t seem to ever get ahead of that learning curve. It is this way in both secular and church politics, and at this point their seems to be about a hair’s difference between them. We are far too concerned with being seen as nice guys, and this is never the concern of the leftists. They don’t seem to care one iota what we think. And once you give them ground, as Motley Monk says, you will have to argue from that point, they will claim it and own it. And as Dr. Peter’s says, you can’t argue with ideologues. Well, you can, but you are going to lose ground if you do it. Better to just say no and hold onto it like grim death. Will our side ever learn this and adapt.
    Pope Francis appears to have jumped on this topic with eagerness. If he didn’t want to discuss it then it would have been far better not to open it up. A lot of money, energy, angst, and time is going to be spent on this topic. It was settled. Now it’s not.

  7. DJAR says:

    From the combox at the New Ways Ministry Bondings 2.0 website, we can see exactly how such people think and what their real plans are:

    “Highly encouraging. Perhaps the most significant sentence in the entire piece is this ‘Bishop Stowe, only 50 years old, was appointed by Pope Francis as Bishop of Lexington, Kentucky, in 2015. ‘ As more bishops are appointed by Francis, sentiments such as these will become increasingly common – and the homophobes pushed out to the margins.”

  8. majuscule says:

    Speaking of “dialogue”…

    Pat Perriello, over at the Fishwrap, was just complaining about the lack of it (dialogue) with regard to the new rules for contemplative women.

    Additionally, it is troubling that there was no dialogue involved in the preparation of these new rules. Specifically it appears that no women were consulted. Although a survey was taken there were no women at the table. A set of rules was simply imposed on contemplatives. I thought one aspect of the Francis revolution was that we no longer did business this way. We of course have to wait and see what direction the commission on female deacons takes, but I am somewhat dubious.

  9. Pingback: TUESDAY EDITION | Big Pulpit

  10. anilwang says:

    I remember reading a quote that captures what’s happening a bit more clearly.

    It goes something like this “When I am weak, I appeal to tolerance (or dialogue or mercy or …) because it’s according to your values. When I am strong, I despise tolerance (or dialogue or mercy or …) because it’s according to your values.”

    So it’s not so much a ruse, it more an attempt to use our own virtues against us to gain the upper hand. If we’re not careful, it can cause us to not only be taken advantage of, we can also begin to distrust the virtues themselves.

    Case in point, I despise street advertisers because they have made me hesitant to respond to people who try to ask me a question on downtown streets. 15 years ago when there were fewer street advertisers, if someone approached me down town it was genuinely to ask for assistance (either a beggar or someone in need of directions). But now, it’s more likely they either want me to respond to some cause or take some leaflets or take a poll or sell me something.

    Similarly I’ve seen some people so jaded by dialogue opportunists (such as the deaconette pushers) that they dismiss genuine dialogue, even the type that brought Father Richard John Neuhaus and Cardinal Newman into the Church once they realized that the reasons for the Protestant Revolt we’re good enough and all their objects were really straw men.

  11. anilwang says:

    Oops, I mean “When I am weak, I appeal to tolerance (or dialogue or mercy or …) because it’s according to your values. When I am strong, I despise tolerance (or dialogue or mercy or …) because it’s according to *MY* values.”

  12. Christ_opher says:

    From experience, the exodus occurs when those males or females influence the mass beyond their capacity of a lay person.

    The liberals that repeat that change is needed to avoid an exodus do not understand that they are the cause of the exodus. Sadly some people can’t accept that the role of the layperson is all that God asks from us but they think that they have some kind of special calling (Pride) to do more within the mass to make it better for themselves using the guise that it’s an act of humility for others.

  13. Andrew D says:

    After this Year of Mercy ends, I’m hoping we go into a Year of Justice on many levels. One of those levels of justice is for the dialog to stop. Those who continue on with blatantly and unapologetically violating the Church’s Teachings need to be shown the door. Seriously, why should these “pro choice nuns” be allowed to call themselves Catholic and receive income and benefits from the Church? The women’s priest movement within the Church. Shut them down. There is nothing more to discuss with these harpies. You either accept the Church’s Teachings – all of them – or you cease being a Catholic. No more dialog. These people contribute nothing to the Catholic Church. They only wish to destroy Her and it’s time for them to be shown the door.

  14. Lavrans says:

    This is one of those interesting times that I hope and pray what has been decided during and after the Second Vatican Council remains the rule of the day, and that is that Holy Orders is a unified Sacrament of three “orders” or levels, including the diaconate, presbyterate, and episcopacy. As the Catechism states:

    1554 “The divinely instituted ecclesiastical ministry is exercised in different degrees by those who even from ancient times have been called bishops, priests, and deacons.”32 Catholic doctrine, expressed in the liturgy, the Magisterium, and the constant practice of the Church, recognizes that there are two degrees of ministerial participation in the priesthood of Christ: the episcopacy and the presbyterate . The diaconate is intended to help and serve them. For this reason the term sacerdos in current usage denotes bishops and priests but not deacons. Yet Catholic doctrine teaches that the degrees of priestly participation (episcopate and presbyterate) and the degree of service (diaconate) are all three conferred by a sacramental act called “ordination,” that is, by the sacrament of Holy Orders: Let everyone revere the deacons as Jesus Christ, the bishop as the image of the Father, and the presbyters as the senate of God and the assembly of the apostles. For without them one cannot speak of the Church.33

    1569 “At a lower level of the hierarchy are to be found deacons, who receive the imposition of hands ‘not unto the priesthood, but unto the ministry.”’53 At an ordination to the diaconate only the bishop lays hands on the candidate, thus signifying the deacon’s special attachment to the bishop in the tasks of his “diakonia.”54

    1570 Deacons share in Christ’s mission and grace in a special way.55 The sacrament of Holy Orders marks them with an imprint (“character”) which cannot be removed and which configures them to Christ, who made himself the “deacon” or servant of all.56 Among other tasks, it is the task of deacons to assist the bishop and priests in the celebration of the divine mysteries, above all the Eucharist, in the distribution of Holy Communion, in assisting at and blessing marriages, in the proclamation of the Gospel and preaching, in presiding over funerals, and in dedicating themselves to the various ministries of charity.57

    1571 Since the Second Vatican Council the Latin Church has restored the diaconate “as a proper and permanent rank of the hierarchy,”58 while the Churches of the East had always maintained it. This permanent diaconate, which can be conferred on married men, constitutes an important enrichment for the Church’s mission. Indeed it is appropriate and useful that men who carry out a truly diaconal ministry in the Church, whether in its liturgical and pastoral life or whether in its social and charitable works, should “be strengthened by the imposition of hands which has come down from the apostles. They would be more closely bound to the altar and their ministry would be made more fruitful through the sacramental grace of the diaconate.”59

  15. Lavrans says:

    Of course, the kicker:

    1577 “Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination.”66 The Lord Jesus chose men (viri) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry.67 The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ’s return. The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible.68

  16. Defender of Truth says:

    “Scratch a liberal and find a Nazi underneath.” Really?

    [Yes, really.]

  17. Sonshine135 says:

    Sonshine’s Definitions:

    Dialogue: A code word used by “c”atholics when they want to throw a temper tantrum about already settled dogmas of the faith.

    When people act like children, sometimes it is best to treat them like children, and send them to their room.

  18. Athelstan says:

    In his article, Robert Mickens says, “And if it were a Pope Cyprian I or Pius XIII (also known as Cardinal Robert Sarah), the reversal would be swift and uncompromising. Of course, they’d have to tear down the walls of our churches to prevent people from crushing each other in the mass exodus that might cause.”

    In many places, what masses are left to even *do* an exodus?

    The liberals did a fine job of emptying out the churches pretty much everywhere they managed the most control. The Dutch Church can probably hold its entire active membership in a Costco.

  19. slainewe says:

    The best interpretation I can give to the Holy Father’s allowing this useless dialogue (again!) is that he is hoping for an answer that will satisfy the malcontented women in the Church. [Fat chance. Did Ordinatio sacerdotalis satisfy them? I doubt that the forthcoming Ordinatio diaconalis will either. They’ll carp and moan about it until the doom falls.]

    Well, the answer is right in front of his nose: officially proclaim Holy Mary as Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate.

    Dogmas about Mary not only define Her role in relation to Her Son; they define the role of the Church in relation to Christ; they define the role of the laity in relation to the clergy; they define the role of consecrated women in relation to the priesthood; they define the role of wives in relation to their husbands.

    If Pope Francis will only take a leap of faith and proclaim the Final Marian Dogma, he may be amazed at the torrents of true feminine theology it may undam, that will satisfy the yearnings of every woman’s heart. It may be so overwhelming that women will cry from one end of the earth to the other, “Stop, Lord, Thou loves us TOO MUCH!”

  20. benedetta says:

    Yes. Look at the “personally” but not really and sometimes “seamless garment” but no ability to participate because the silencing political leaders, some even “Catholic” opticking…There’s no dialogue is there. These are the folks who want us to forget or deny or pretend it never happened back when Obama said he would “dialogue” with prolife advocates. There. Was. No. Dialogue. Ever. Someone must have gotten to him on that one regarding the dialogue.

    I will say though that this is as a general matter a step up from what we experienced when the “method” was to visit secularly hating Catholic npr stations and media and also dissenting theology departments at certain universities, in the alinsky bullying and threatening procedure in lieu of any actual or pretend dialogue.

    But I think that canonist Peters correct. Modernism, even in the best sense and light is often only a collection of “you must” dictates in totalitarian fashion, without any foundation in reason, science, humanism, relying on hysteria, threats, mob tactics, to get the job done. Even what is good and worthy in culture from its currents is only so by reference to the values and principles that guide beauty and aesthetics and rational thought. So understandably there is going to be some anxiety about submitting some proposals to the light of respectful civil discourse with the foundations of the Faith in mind by the self styled American/European leftist/often totalitarian side, regarding how it can stand up to that process.

    One can see it throughout the ripped seam through which big abortion has been grown and idolized over decades in this country, attempted to put a happy face on something macabre and humiliating to our society. I just remember, grown men, ph.d’d intellectuals, engaging in mob shouting and condemnation and shaming and shrieking, as in a witch hunt, as they had lost leave of their senses, their marbles, their humanity, and their reason, at a secular college “forum” for discussing prolife/choice. That was sort of an interesting thing really. In university humanist terms, it tends to scandalize students and disabuse of any notion that higher education is about reason and science and intellectual process. Fast forward to this year: to justify past the many tens of millions gone, in insatiable consumption, big abortion wants everyone to shut their eyes and fantasize that there is no human life there and that it’s never worth saving, and deny basic science and reason to get there, empathy, all the self sacrificing that we are asked to do for animal welfare, the environment, the earth, for each other…all of this is called thereby into question by their stylized establishment pretense. I’m encouraged that dissenting theologians are now ready to come to the table to dialogue, but after decades of being schooled in the tactics of unreason and mob threats, from much of academe, well, I’m not really getting my hopes up in terms of a viable result from this.

Comments are closed.