It has not only been post-Catholic liberals who have been disappointed by the Roman Church after the Second Vatican Council, but traditionalist Catholics as well. The most notable schism from the Right has been the Society of St Pius X, founded by Msr. Lefebvre. They have been in talks with the Vatican over the last years, to see if they can be re-integrated.
The discussions have all been intellectual and very pointed. The break was about ideas, doctrine. Theologians from both sides meet and read each other's documents and talk them through. Of course there is feeling involved, but the medium of dialogue is ideas. The constitutive triadic unity of Catholicism (and Orthodoxy) consists of hierarchy, sacraments, and ideas, that is, doctrine.
The LCWR, IMHO, if it were as honest about its ideas as the SSPX, would also be in schism, if not worse. Luther was more Catholic than they are. But it has taken an entirely different tack. The dominant form of discourse I have read from them has been moral and emotional. The unofficial abbess of the Church of Social Justice & EcoFeminism, Joan Chittister, expressed her pain at being "observed", not being seen fully by these men, as a person, spoken "to" rather than "with". Their meeting with overseer Archbishop Sartain was about (note the adjectives) "mutual respect, careful listening and open dialogue." Covering up their obvious departure from Roman Catholicism, they have made this loaded dialogue about them (ie, their collective ego/persona) and their feelings. Read this article and ask yourself what its content is. It's all about an emotional processing that they are convinced will vindicate them.
Why the diff?
Boyz vs ghyrls.
I have no doubt that there is a lot of feeling and personal hurt and anger on the SSPX side, but the dialogue is between males and is straightforwardly intellectual. Doctrine is the issue. And I have no doubt that there is a lot of ideology on the LCWR side, --oceans of verbiage, in fact--but the female dialogue is emotional. You are not teaching the correct idea vs You don't see me as a good and equal person.
Stereotypical? Sure. But stereotypes are mostly true. That's precisely why people hate them.
Feminism is astonishingly overloaded with ideology. Unlike the intangible Father God whose Word was made flesh, their fleshy Gaia Goddess is obsessed with making words. But at bottom, in most cases, it is a typically female form of argument --animus-possessed, as Jung would call it,* where a thin but high-volume covering of intellectual half-truths hides what is entirely a feeling-based assault. It's what makes men insane when trying to reason with an angry woman.
Perhaps the Archbishop should consult a Jungian analyst.
*If you read some of this, you'll see why I still like old CG.
-
The discussions have all been intellectual and very pointed. The break was about ideas, doctrine. Theologians from both sides meet and read each other's documents and talk them through. Of course there is feeling involved, but the medium of dialogue is ideas. The constitutive triadic unity of Catholicism (and Orthodoxy) consists of hierarchy, sacraments, and ideas, that is, doctrine.
The LCWR, IMHO, if it were as honest about its ideas as the SSPX, would also be in schism, if not worse. Luther was more Catholic than they are. But it has taken an entirely different tack. The dominant form of discourse I have read from them has been moral and emotional. The unofficial abbess of the Church of Social Justice & EcoFeminism, Joan Chittister, expressed her pain at being "observed", not being seen fully by these men, as a person, spoken "to" rather than "with". Their meeting with overseer Archbishop Sartain was about (note the adjectives) "mutual respect, careful listening and open dialogue." Covering up their obvious departure from Roman Catholicism, they have made this loaded dialogue about them (ie, their collective ego/persona) and their feelings. Read this article and ask yourself what its content is. It's all about an emotional processing that they are convinced will vindicate them.
Why the diff?
Boyz vs ghyrls.
I have no doubt that there is a lot of feeling and personal hurt and anger on the SSPX side, but the dialogue is between males and is straightforwardly intellectual. Doctrine is the issue. And I have no doubt that there is a lot of ideology on the LCWR side, --oceans of verbiage, in fact--but the female dialogue is emotional. You are not teaching the correct idea vs You don't see me as a good and equal person.
Stereotypical? Sure. But stereotypes are mostly true. That's precisely why people hate them.
Feminism is astonishingly overloaded with ideology. Unlike the intangible Father God whose Word was made flesh, their fleshy Gaia Goddess is obsessed with making words. But at bottom, in most cases, it is a typically female form of argument --animus-possessed, as Jung would call it,* where a thin but high-volume covering of intellectual half-truths hides what is entirely a feeling-based assault. It's what makes men insane when trying to reason with an angry woman.
Perhaps the Archbishop should consult a Jungian analyst.
*If you read some of this, you'll see why I still like old CG.
-
3 comments:
Why don't they just wait 10 years for the other side to die off?
People get angry because they think they're the only ones with the real invisible friends.
All those quarelous nuns should have had a couple of kids to straighten them out.
Although I wish it did, childbearing, alas, seems not to be a cure for liberalism, Leah.
Although stats show that O's biggest female fan base consists of un-married women.
But boy, since you are a male-friendly woman, would you wish those sistahs on a guy? (ExCathedra shudders).
Post a Comment