The LCWR has made a first response to its receivership status. Not surprising.
It did bring back memories of the times when I worked with a lot of feminists. One of their favorite issues is process. If they don't like an outcome, they attack the process. And process can always be critiqued as insufficient. In this case, "a flawed process that lacked transparency."
In the misogynist part of my soul, I hear echoes of women fighting with their men (or of the feminine in men fighting with their men). Instead of dealing directly with the issue, they move to the process: Why didn't you tell me this sooner? How long have you been keeping this from me? Can't you see what bad timing this is? Your words are so hurtful.
Process is the bureaucracy of the progressives. A way to avoid substance.
It's a funny characteristic of contemporary Catholicism that when groups or individuals migrate out of the historic faith, they deny that this is what they are doing. During the Reformation, the protest-ant people and groups couldn't break with Rome fast enough, establishing their own organizations to confront, reject and expel the Great Whore of Babylon. But the massive diminution and dilution of actual Catholicism by the post-Vatican II generation has almost always been denied by them. They want to stay within the institution's boundaries while altering it beyond recognition.
Perhaps they have noticed that they only have cultural status as dissenters within the Roman Church. Once they actually leave, they cease to be of interest. They no longer serve the liberal narrative of plucky free-thinkers battling the "tired old white men of the Vatican." Remember Matthew Fox? For years he had lots of press and speaking engagements as a courageous prophetic voice. Then he was kicked out of the Dominicans and joined the Episcopal Church and hardly anyone has heard of him since. And when he looks for some press, it's the Pope he chooses to attack. Old habits die hard.
Speaking of transparency, how many people know that the LCWR has repeated refused to give any voice at all to groups who represent young people who assert that they were sexually abused by nuns?
It did bring back memories of the times when I worked with a lot of feminists. One of their favorite issues is process. If they don't like an outcome, they attack the process. And process can always be critiqued as insufficient. In this case, "a flawed process that lacked transparency."
In the misogynist part of my soul, I hear echoes of women fighting with their men (or of the feminine in men fighting with their men). Instead of dealing directly with the issue, they move to the process: Why didn't you tell me this sooner? How long have you been keeping this from me? Can't you see what bad timing this is? Your words are so hurtful.
Process is the bureaucracy of the progressives. A way to avoid substance.
It's a funny characteristic of contemporary Catholicism that when groups or individuals migrate out of the historic faith, they deny that this is what they are doing. During the Reformation, the protest-ant people and groups couldn't break with Rome fast enough, establishing their own organizations to confront, reject and expel the Great Whore of Babylon. But the massive diminution and dilution of actual Catholicism by the post-Vatican II generation has almost always been denied by them. They want to stay within the institution's boundaries while altering it beyond recognition.
Perhaps they have noticed that they only have cultural status as dissenters within the Roman Church. Once they actually leave, they cease to be of interest. They no longer serve the liberal narrative of plucky free-thinkers battling the "tired old white men of the Vatican." Remember Matthew Fox? For years he had lots of press and speaking engagements as a courageous prophetic voice. Then he was kicked out of the Dominicans and joined the Episcopal Church and hardly anyone has heard of him since. And when he looks for some press, it's the Pope he chooses to attack. Old habits die hard.
Speaking of transparency, how many people know that the LCWR has repeated refused to give any voice at all to groups who represent young people who assert that they were sexually abused by nuns?
1 comment:
Why don't we ever hear from the Orthodox (Greeks, Russians, Serbs) nuns who want to do these "progressive" things, like use an accurate calendar or allow people who've lost more than three spouses to accidents or disease to get married a fourth time?
Post a Comment