Fr. Z's Blog | Catholic commentary by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

What’s wrong with this picture?

Posted on 19 July 2012 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

A news story:

Posted in Lighter fare |
87 Comments

SSPX Statement: We wait for the “serious debate” which will bring ecclesiastic authorities back to Tradition

Posted on 19 July 2012 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

At the SSPX site DICI we read the General Chapter Statement.

Bottom line: Not negative, but clarificatory. They left the door open for more discussions under Archbp. Di Noia.

You can read the whole thing there, but here is the most interesting part with my emphases and comments:

[…] We have recovered our profound unity in its essential mission: to preserve and defend the Catholic Faith, to form good priests, and to strive towards the restoration of Christendom. We have determined and approved the necessary conditions for an eventual canonical normalization. We have decided that, in that case, an extraordinary Chapter with deliberative vote will be convened beforehand.

[…]

The Chapter believes that the paramount duty of the Society, in the service which it intends to offer to the Church, is to continue, with God’s help, to profess the Catholic Faith in all its purity and integrity, with a determination matching the intensity of the constant attacks to which this very Faith is subjected nowadays.

For this reason it seems opportune that we reaffirm our faith in the Roman Catholic Church, the unique Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, outside of which there is no salvation nor possibility to find the means leading to salvation; our faith in its monarchical constitution, desired by Our Lord himself, by which the supreme power of government over the universal Church belongs only to the Pope, Vicar of Christ on earth; our faith in the universal Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Creator of both the natural and the supernatural orders, to Whom every man and every society must submit. [A reference, I think, to the question of religious liberty.]

The Society continues to uphold the declarations and the teachings of the constant Magisterium of the Church in regard to all the novelties of the Second Vatican Council which remain tainted with errors, [“Pour toutes les nouveautés du Concile Vatican II qui restent entachées d’erreurs et pour les réformes qui en sont issues, la Fraternité ne peut que continuer à s’en tenir aux affirmations et enseignements du Magistère constant de l’Eglise…” If I read this correctly, they make a distinction between, on the one hand the Magisterium and, on the other, the teachings of Vatican II and the reforms that came from it, as if what pertains to Vatican II doesn’t really belong to the “constant Magisterium”. On the other hand, the SSPX would not see as error what we read in Lumen gentium about the Pope being able to teach infallibly. They would not say that what we read in Gaudium et spes concerning abortion as an abominable sin being in error. So, clearly, some teachings of the Council are fine. They can’t be rejecting the entirety of the Council’s textual content.] and also in regard to the reforms issued from it. We find our sure guide in this uninterrupted Magisterium which, by its teaching authority, transmits the revealed Deposit of Faith in perfect harmony with the truths that the entire Church has professed, always and everywhere. [Thus, since they perceive errors in what came from Vatican II, Vatican II can’t be part of the Magisterium.]

The Society finds its guide as well in the constant Tradition of the Church, which transmits and will transmit until the end of times the teachings required to preserve the Faith and the salvation of souls, while waiting for the day when an open and serious debate will be possible which may allow the return to Tradition of the ecclesiastical authorities. [“…en attendant qu’un débat ouvert et sérieux, visant à un retour des autorités ecclésiastiques à la Tradition, soit rendu possible.” The English is not entirely clear. Such a debate would, for them, aim at “ecclesiastical authorities” returning to Tradition. “Authorities” would include, I suppose, Benedict XVI. I hope the “ecclesiastical authorities” don’t take that as being inflammatory. I suspect the SSPX did not intend it as inflammatory.]

We wish to unite ourselves to the others [sic] Christians persecuted in different countries of the world who are now suffering for the Catholic Faith, some even to the extent of martyrdom. Their blood, shed in union with the Victim of our altars, is the pledge for a true renewal of the Church in capite et membris, according to the old saying sanguis martyrum semen christianorum. [It seems that the see themselves as being persecuted, perhaps in the role of “confessors”.]

“Finally, we turn our eyes to the Blessed Virgin Mary, who is also jealous of the privileges of her Divine Son, jealous of His glory, of His Kingdom on earth as in Heaven. How often has she intervened for the defense, even the armed defense, of Christendom against the enemies of the Kingdom of Our Lord! We entreat her to intervene today to chase the enemies out from inside the Church who are trying to destroy it more radically than its enemies from outside. May she deign to keep in the integrity of the Faith, in the love of the Church, in devotion to the Successor of Peter, all the members of the Society of St. Pius X and all the priests and faithful who labor alongside the Society, in order that she may both keep us from schism and preserve us from heresy.

[…]

Given at Ecône, on the 14th of July of the Year of the Lord 2012.

Déclaration du Chapitre général de la Fraternité Saint-Pie X
Dichiarazione del Capitolo generale della Fraternità Sacerdotale San Pio X
Declaración del Capítulo General de la Fraternidad Sacerdotal San Pío X
Grundsatzerklärung des Generalkapitels der Priesterbruderschaft St. Pius X.

Meanwhile, in “Eternal Rome”, there was issued a Communique concerning the SSPX:

Vatican City, (VIS) – Early this afternoon, the Holy See Press Office released the following English-language communique concerning the declaration which emerged from the General Chapter of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X.

“The recently concluded General Chapter of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X has addressed a declaration regarding the possibility of a canonical normalisation in the relationship of the Society and the Holy See. While it has been made public, the declaration remains primarily an internal document for study and discussion among the members of the Society.
“The Holy See has taken note of this declaration, but awaits the forthcoming official communication of the Priestly Society as their dialogue with the Pontifical Commission ‘Ecclesia Dei’ continues”.

So, the Holy See now waits for the SSPX to communicate officially with the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei“. An internal document is one thing, and what they tell the PCED is another. This statement, though internal to the members of the SSPX (priests) is, however, public. It is therefore also aimed at the people who support the SSPX. Over the years we have seen some bombastic public rhetoric even while Bp. Fellay has moved the SSPX into a dialogue (serious or not) with the Holy See.

On the other hand, I am not sure how entering into a “serious debate” with the aim of getting the authorities of the Holy See to “return to Tradition” is going to win them any points. Perhaps they will leave that part out of their next official communication with the Holy See.

In any event, perhaps this will keep the door open for new discussions with Archbishop Di Noia at the helm. Benedict XVI moved him there for a reason.

Posted in Linking Back, Pope of Christian Unity, SSPX, The Drill, The future and our choices | Tagged Benedict XVI, magisterium, PCED, Pope of Christian Unity, SSPX, tradition
139 Comments

Pack-Rat Psychology

Posted on 19 July 2012 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

I am sorting, cleaning, throwing stuff away. It is hard to throw some things. I, and I bet you, start thinking, “This might be useful.” An article on the site of the Beeb was, therefore, of great interest. It may interest you as well.

Why we love to hoard… and how you can overcome it

Question: How do you make something instantly twice as expensive?

Answer: By thinking about giving it away.

This might sound like a nonsensical riddle, but if you’ve ever felt overly possessive about your regular parking space, your pen, or your Star Wars box sets, then you’re experiencing some elements behind the psychology of ownership. Our brains tell us that we value something merely because it is a thing we have.

This riddle actually describes a phenomenon called the Endowment Effect. The parking space, the pen and the DVDs are probably the same as many others, but they’re special to you. Special because in some way they are yours.

You can see how the endowment effect escalates – how else can you explain the boxes of cassette tapes, shoes or mobile phones that fill several shelves of your room… or even several rooms?

No trade

To put a scientific lens on what’s going on here, a team led by psychologist Daniel Kahneman carried out a simple experiment. They took a class of ordinary University students and gave half of them a University-crested mug, the other half received $6 – the nominal cost of the mug. [This example was in The Road to Freedom: How to Win the Fight for Free Enterprise by Arthur C. Brooks.]

Classic economics states that the students should begin to trade with each other. The people who were given cash but liked mugs should swop some of their cash [for] a mug, and some of the people who were given mugs should swop their mugs for some cash. This, economic theory says, is how prices emerge – the interactions of all buyers and sellers finds the ideal price of goods. The price – in this case, of mugs – will be a perfect balance between the desires of people who want a mug and have cash, and the people who want cash and have a mug. [My mugs would skew the experiment.]

But economic theory lost out to psychology.

[…]

This is the endowment effect, and it is the reason why things reach a higher price at auctions – because people become attached to the thing they’re bidding for, experiencing a premature sense of ownership that pushes them to bid more than they would otherwise. It is also why car dealers want you to test drive the car, encouraging you in everyway to think about what it would be like to possess the car. The endowment effect is so strong that even imagined ownership can increase the value of something.

Breaking habits

The endowment effect is a reflection of a general bias in human psychology to favour the way things are, rather than the way they could be. I call this status quo bias, and we can see reflections of it in the strength of habits that guide our behaviour, in the preference we have for the familiar over the strange or the advantage the incumbent politician has over a challenger. [Not I!]

Knowing the powerful influence that possession has on our psychology, I take a simple step to counteract it. I try to use my knowledge of the endowment effect to help me de-clutter my life. Perhaps this can be useful to you too.

Say I am cleaning out my stuff. Before I learnt about the endowment effect I would go through my things one by one and try to make a decision on what to do with it.

[…]

Now, knowing the power of the bias, for each item I ask myself a simple question: If I didn’t have this, how much effort would I put in to obtain it? And then more often or not I throw it away, concluding that if I didn’t have it, I wouldn’t want this.

Let this anti-endowment effect technique perform its magic for you, and you too will soon be joyously throwing away things that you only think you want, but actually wouldn’t trouble yourself to acquire if you didn’t have them.

And here’s the thing… it works for emails too.

[…]

Declutter!

Posted in SESSIUNCULA | Tagged clutter, Endowment Effect, pack-rat, psychology of ownership
16 Comments

“Somebody else made that happen!”

Posted on 18 July 2012 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Every presidential campaign seems to have it famous phrase.

I think this might be it.

Posted in Dogs and Fleas, Lighter fare | Tagged Pres. Obama
27 Comments

You can’t “unring a bell”, but you can set the record straight about EVIL FALSE ACCUSATIONS!

Posted on 18 July 2012 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From The Catholic League with my emphases. Fellow Catholic bloggers might pick this up too. False accusations are deeply evil and they ruin lives.

BIGOTRY EXPLAINS FALSE ACCUSATIONS

July 18, 2012

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments as follows:

False accusations against priests are hardly uncommon these days, but when anti-Catholicism accounts for lies against lay Catholics, the problem only worsens. Consider the latest news concerning Tim Udinski.

After Udinski was fired as the lacrosse coach at Lansdale Catholic High School last year, he made several accusations over a seven-month period claiming that the football coach and the new lacrosse coach were sexually abusing students. He also maintained that the principal of the suburban Philadelphia school, Tim Quinn, knew about the offenses.

After detectives spent 184 hours on this case, interviewing 97 people (at a cost of more than $8250), they determined that the charges were bogus. Standing by itself, this wouldn’t be big news, but what makes it so disturbing is Udinski’s motive: he has admitted that he fabricated the whole story, just so he could “get the Church.”

Landsdale Catholic High is in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, and it was to the archdiocese that Udinski sent his anonymous e-mails. Montgomery County District Attorney Risa Vetri Ferman acknowledged that Udinski sought to exploit the high profile that the sexual abuse of minors has been given. Indeed, she questioned, “How do you undo that? How do you unring the bell?”

Here’s the clincher. When asked why he lied, Udinski said, “I just wanted to get back at the church, Tim Quinn, and I was just generally mad.” (My italics.)

Over the past three years, 173 false accusations have been made against Catholic priests nationwide. Also, on July 6, Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput stated that four of the six priests who were recently investigated were found suitable for ministry. Isn’t it time we learned the names of those who make false charges? And how do we “unring the bell” for all those priests—and lay persons—whose reputations have been smeared by merchants of bigotry and greed?

Contact our director of communications about Donohue’s remarks:

Jeff Field
Phone: 212-371-3191
E-mail: cl@catholicleague.org

Posted in SESSIUNCULA | Tagged anti-catholicism, Archd. Philadelphia, Catholic League, false accusations
11 Comments

Of Anger Management, Benedict XVI and the SSPX. Wherein Fr. Z imagines dire things.

Posted on 18 July 2012 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Do the SSPXers think that Pope Benedict is so patient and kindly that he would never withdraw his outstretched hand?

Perhaps that is it. Maybe that is why they dawdle and find excuses not to accept what the Holy See has offered and have a canonical structure of their own.

It would be a mistake to think Benedict’s patience is endless.

My old mentor, the late Msgr. Schuler, was calm guy, unruffled by most things. Even in the face of drastic challenges, he was cool. I only saw him angry twice. His face changed. It was scary. Happily, he wasn’t angry at me!

My old mentor, the late Card. Mayer, was a calm guy. He was a monk, and old. He was battle-hardened. He had seen it all. He was the holiest man I have ever known. I only saw him angry once. He didn’t raise his voice. It left a deep impression on me, to be sure. Happily, he wasn’t angry at me!

I used to talk with Card. Ratzinger pretty frequently, years back. I’d pick his brains. I’d talk to him about horrible things written about him. I would challenge and disagree and demure. I never saw him angry. I haven’t really heard of him showing strong anger either. I know people who know Papa Ratzinger better than I. Everyone who knows him affirms that His Holiness is kind, and calm, and patient and sweet-tempered guy. He has the level-head and level-spirit that allows the workings of the theological virtues and the fruits of the Holy Ghost.

I can imagine, however, that if he got to the point where he was actually angry at someone or about something, there could be instant and sharp consequences.

The fact is, even level-headed and holy men get angry.

Let us turn our thoughts now to the followers of Lefebvre.

The Holy Father has offered the SSPX, through the CDF, point after point and chance after chance. He has offered them pretty much everything they need.

Some will say, “But Father! But Father! The Second Vatican Council….”

NO! He has. He really has. There are ways to work through the problematic issues raised by Vatican II within the Church and those avenues would be open to the SSPX.

I think that what the SSPX has done in regard to the “Doctrinal Preamble” and the Pope’s overtures could be quite … vexing. Their maneuvers might vex a saint.

The Holy Father is about the last man on earth who would need anger management. I fear, nevertheless, that the SSPX will manage to make him angry.

I read statements from the SSPX leadership and watch the temporizing and listen to their musings about “Eternal Rome”, as if they were the lone true ones, being truer to a thruthier Church than Pope Benedict could ever fathom, and I can well imagine Pope Benedict getting more and more annoyed.

And we know how Benedict works. He thinks through a problem patiently and then – BAM! – he moves. That’s what happened with two of the big things in his pontificate: Summorum Pontificum and the Anglican Ordinariates. There was lots of opposition, but he wanted them. He consulted, bided his time and – BAM! – they happened. In the first year of his pontificate he simply slashed several days off the schedule of the meeting of that sacred cow of collegiality, the Synod of Bishops. He just did it. In one year’s time Benedict has moved 4 bishops from their sees.

I resonate with a great deal of what the SSPX stands for and wants. I believe the priests of the Society to be zealous for the salvation of souls. They have so much to contribute! But as much as I have sympathy for most of their concerns, sometimes they remind me of a bunch of brooding Batman villains. I long to say to them, “If you vex Benedict enough – BAM! You guys are going to learn what it means to on the business end of schism.”

I hope they don’t slap Benedict’s outstretched hand away. The other hand won’t be so nice.

Please, Society, please. Don’t blow this.

In ancient times Opportunity was personified as a beautiful woman with very long hair in front but with a bald head in back. The idea was that we must catch hold of Opportunity when she approaches, because when she has passed there is nothing to hold her by.

Seize your opportunity with both hands, men.

Submit to the Vicar of Christ.

Benedict XVI is the Pope of Christian Unity.

Posted in Benedict XVI, Four Last Things, Our Catholic Identity, SSPX, The Drill, The future and our choices, Wherein Fr. Z Rants | Tagged anger, Benedict XVI, schism, SSPX
114 Comments

Wheaton College (Protestant) joins Catholic institutions in lawsuit against HHS mandate

Posted on 18 July 2012 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Wheaton College is joining Catholic instititutions to fight the Obama Administrations attacks on our 1st Amendment rights.

Remember: Even though the newsies incessantly talk about contraception contraception contraception, the real objection about the HHS mandate is not the contraception angle. This is about religious liberty for everyone.

In the letter sent out by Wheaton College (I received a fowarded copy) we read:

This morning, the Board of Trustees filed a lawsuit in the Washington, D.C. District Court opposing the mandate, which, if enacted, would force the College to violate its religious beliefs or pay severe fines. We are joining with Catholic University of America in order to demonstrate that a deep concern for the sanctity of human life and a strong belief in the importance of religious freedom are areas of commonality that transcend our theological differences. More information can be found here.

From FoxNews:

Evangelical college joins suit against ObamaCare contraception mandate

An evangelical college is joining Catholic groups in suing the Obama administration over the so-called contraception mandate.
Illinois-based Wheaton College announced Wednesday morning that it had joined The Catholic University of America in filing suit before District of Columbia federal court.
The wave of lawsuits has so far been dominated by Catholic organizations. After the Supreme Court upheld most of the federal health care overhaul last month, those groups vowed to continue their legal challenge against the requirement that employers provide access to contraceptive care.
The announcement Wednesday marks the first time an evangelical group has joined that effort.
“In this case, we recognize we have common cause with the Catholic University of America and other Catholic institutions in defending religious liberty,” Wheaton College President Philip Graham Ryken said on a conference call.
Wheaton, a protestant institution, is objecting to the Department Health and Human Services rule on slightly different grounds than the Catholic institutions. While those institutions are opposed to the requirement regarding all contraceptive coverage, Wheaton objected only to the possibility that they would have to provide access to coverage for “abortion-inducing drugs.” [These blinkered newsies don’t quite get it. Anyway…]
“We’re very clear on the sanctity of life, and this insurance mandate goes against our conscience,” Ryken said. [CONSCIENCE! YES!] He said the fact that Catholic groups are teaming up with an evangelical college in this lawsuit should signal that “something really significant in terms of religious liberty is at stake.”
In May, dozens of Catholic groups filed a dozen separate but related federal lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the requirement. Among the organizations were the University of Notre Dame, the Archdiocese of New York and The Catholic University of America.
The Obama administration several months ago softened its position on the mandate, [B as in B. S as in S. It didn’t.] but some religious organizations complain the administration did not go far enough to ensure the rule would not compel them to violate their religious beliefs.
Ryken accused the administration of creating “two classes” of religious institutions by providing an exemption for churches but not religious-affiliated colleges.
The lawsuit filing came a day after a federal judge in Nebraska dismissed a suit over the HHS rule filed by seven states.
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is representing Wheaton College, claims the ruling will not affect their case.

WDTPRS kudos to Wheaton College.

BTW… I went there with a friend many years ago to look at their Chesterton and C.S. Lewis collections. Did you know that they have the wardrobe that inspired Lewis’s books?

Posted in Brick by Brick, Emanations from Penumbras, Fr. Z KUDOS, Our Catholic Identity, Religious Liberty, The future and our choices, The Last Acceptable Prejudice | Tagged 1st Amendment, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, Catholic University of America, HHS mandate, Obama Administration, Pres. Obama, religious liberty, Wheaton College
18 Comments

As it turns out, standard physics prevailed: Pioneer Spacecraft Anomaly solved.

Posted on 18 July 2012 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

For your “Just Too Cool” file.

From NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab comes a fascinating story about the Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecrafts. When last contacted they were mysteriously slowing down. Someone figured out why.

It was, as it turns out, rocket science!

Study Finds Heat is Source of ‘Pioneer Anomaly’

The unexpected slowing of NASA’s Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft – the so-called “Pioneer Anomaly” – turns out to be due to the slight, but detectable effect of heat pushing back on the spacecraft, according to a recent paper. The heat emanates from electrical current flowing through instruments and the thermoelectric power supply. The results were published on June 12 in the journal Physical Review Letters.

“The effect is something like when you’re driving a car and the photons from your headlights are pushing you backward,” said Slava Turyshev, the paper’s lead author at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. “It is very subtle.”

Launched in 1972 and 1973 respectively, Pioneer 10 and 11 are on an outward trajectory from our sun. In the early 1980s, navigators saw a deceleration on the two spacecraft, in the direction back toward the sun, as the spacecraft were approaching Saturn. They dismissed it as the effect of dribbles of leftover propellant still in the fuel lines after controllers had cut off the propellant. But by 1998, as the spacecraft kept traveling on their journey and were over 8 billion miles (13 billion kilometers) away from the sun, a group of scientists led by John Anderson of JPL realized there was an actual deceleration of about 300 inches per day squared (0.9 nanometers per second squared). [NB] They raised the possibility that this could be some new type of physics that contradicted Einstein’s general theory of relativity.

In 2004, Turyshev decided to start gathering records stored all over the country and analyze the data to see if he could definitively figure out the source of the deceleration. In part, he and colleagues were contemplating a deep space physics mission to investigate the anomaly, and he wanted to be sure there was one before asking NASA for a spacecraft.

He and colleagues went searching for Doppler data, the pattern of data communicated back to Earth from the spacecraft, and telemetry data, the housekeeping data sent back from the spacecraft. At the time these two Pioneers were launched, data were still being stored on punch cards. [Wow. I remember making programs with those.] But Turyshev and colleagues were able to copy digitized files from the computer of JPL navigators who have helped steer the Pioneer spacecraft since the 1970s. They also found over a dozen of boxes of magnetic tapes stored under a staircase at JPL and received files from the National Space Science Data Center at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md., and worked with NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif., to save some of their boxes of magnetic optical tapes. He collected more than 43 gigabytes of data, which may not seem like a lot now, but is quite a lot of data for the 1970s. [I’ll say. I remember my Atari with its massive, what, 64k of RAM? And in my recent cleaning I found a 5″ diskette. Blast from the past.] He also managed to save a vintage tape machine that was about to be discarded, so he could play the magnetic tapes.

The effort was a labor of love for Turyshev and others. The Planetary Society sent out appeals to its members to help fund the data recovery effort. NASA later also provided funding. In the process, a programmer in Canada, Viktor Toth, heard about the effort and contacted Turyshev. He helped Turyshev create a program that could read the telemetry tapes and clean up the old data.

They saw that what was happening to Pioneer wasn’t happening to other spacecraft, mostly because of the way the spacecraft were built. For example, the Voyager spacecraft are less sensitive to the effect seen on Pioneer, because its thrusters align it along three axes, whereas the Pioneer spacecraft rely on spinning to stay stable.

With all the data newly available, Turyshev and colleagues were able to calculate the heat put out by the electrical subsystems and the decay of plutonium in the Pioneer power sources, which matched the anomalous acceleration seen on both Pioneers.

[Bottom line…] “The story is finding its conclusion because it turns out that standard physics prevail,” Turyshev said. “While of course it would’ve been exciting to discover a new kind of physics, we did solve a mystery.”

Pioneer 10 and 11 were managed by NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif. Pioneer 10’s last signal was received on Earth in January 2003. Pioneer 11’s last signal was received in November 1995. JPL is a division of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena.

Posted in Just Too Cool, Look! Up in the sky! | Tagged Atari, JPL, NASA, physics, Pioneer
19 Comments

Analysis of NPR’s interview of LCWR Pres. Sr. Pat Farrell: like a 7-year old’s manipulative obfuscation

Posted on 18 July 2012 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Sr. Pat Farrell of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (a subsidiary of the Magisterium of Nuns) did an interview with the liberal-leaning National Public Radio. Carl Olson of Catholic World Report deftly dissected Sister’s interview. Let’s see the first part with my emphases and comments.

[Don’t forget: The LCWR’s leadership claim that, since they are not clerics, women religious don’t have to stand up for Magisterial teachings in their apostolates. Therefore, they think they can blur and be silent about important moral and doctrinal issues and align themselves through that blurring and silence with a secular feminist agenda or with the Obama Administration’s pro-abortion efforts.]

Sister Pat Farrell, president of the LCWR, deflects, blames, and otherwise obfuscates

By Carl E. Olson

National Public Radio recently interviewed Sister Pat Farrell, the current president of the LCWR (Leadership Conference of Women Religious):

Farrell tells Fresh Air’s Terry Gross that the leadership organization is currently gathering the perspectives of all of its members in preparation for its national assembly in August.

“We’re hoping to come out of that assembly with a much clearer direction about [the Vatican’s decision], and that’s when the national board and presidency can proceed,” she says.

Among the options on the table, she says, are fully complying with the mandate, not complying with the mandate or seeing if the Vatican will negotiate with them.

“In my mind, [I want] to see if we can somehow, in a spirited, nonviolent strategizing, [LOL! She introduces the notion of “violence”? What a manipulative joke!] look for maybe a third way that refuses to define the mandate and the issues in such black and white terms,” she says. [Let’s make everything gray and squishy.]

[Olsen now continues… sorry, the formatting here could be confusing…] In other words, let’s sit down and talk about having further dialogue that will point us in the direction of additional conversations, which in turn will open up new vistas of vague and non-distinct paths ushering in an even more rewarding round of discussions, etc., etc. Frankly, this is what it is like sometimes dealing with my seven-year-old son, who is verbally skilled, sometimes manipulative, very adept at deflection, and usually refuses to back down when caught breaking rules, telling lies, or stealing sweets. A “third way”? That’s simply grown-up talk for “one more chance”. Refusing to define issues in such “black and white terms” is a variation on “why do you always have to be so strict about X, Y, and Z?” The key to this approach is being willing to outlast—often through endless talk!—those in authority. It also helps to be able say one thing while claiming to say another.

But, first, how about a little dose of deflection?

[Another snip of the Farrell interview…] “The question is, ‘Can you be Catholic and have a questioning mind?’ That’s what we’re asking. … I think one of our deepest hopes is that in the way we manage the balancing beam in the position we’re in, if we can make any headways in helping to create a safe and respectful environment [Notice how she goes back to this “violence” theme? She is slyly trying to paint the LCWR as some sort of battered-women’s shelter. If memory serves, however, in schools all across the land it was the nuns that did the battering… of children.] where church leaders along with rank-and-file members can raise questions openly and search for truth freely, with very complex and swiftly changing issues in our day, that would be our hope. [blah blah blah] But the climate is not there. And this mandate coming from the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith putting us in a position of being under the control of certain bishops, that is not a dialogue. If anything, it appears to be shutting down dialogue.”

[Now Olson…] First, begin with a nonsensical question (my son, caught watching a television channel he knows is off limits, says, “Why does my sister get to watch whatever shes wants to?” Well, she doesn’t. But he’s not interested in the answer, is he?) Does Sister Farrell really ponder, with all seriousness, the question, “Can I be a Catholic and have a questioning mind?” Uh, the fact that a Catholic can even ponder such a question indicates the obvious answer: “Yes!” Crack open the Summa Theologica, one of the seminal theological and philosophical texts in the Tradition, and what do you find? Questions! Hundreds of ’em! Because we were made to question, ponder, contemplate, and wonder. But what is really being asked is this: “Can I be a Catholic and reject certain Catholic teachings?” The giveaway is in the term “complex and swiftly shifting issues in our day“. The next part of deflection, of course, is blaming someone else. In this case, it’s the CDF and the bishops appointed by the CDF: “But the climate is not there.” Yes, that’s right: the forecast for the LCWR is stormy weather, not smooth sailing.

[…]

You definitely want to read the rest over THERE.

I am especially pleased that Olson linked to my post NUNS GONE WILD!

In the interview, Sr. Farrell also opined that women religious are closer to understanding women’s health predicaments than are men/clerics. Does that sound to you like opposition to abortion?