Bishop Mitchell Rozanski calls for "listening sessions" in preparation for the Diocesan 'Pastoral' Synod: But who will the Diocese actually listen to?

In his Encyclical Letter Ecclesiam Suam, Pope Paul VI explains that, "Dialogue..is a recognized method of the apostolate. It is a way of making spiritual contact. It should however have the following characteristics:

1) Clarity before all else; the dialogue demands that what is said should be intelligible. We can think of it as a kind of thought transfusion. It is an invitation to the exercise and development of the highest spiritual and mental powers a man possesses. This fact alone would suffice to make such dialogue rank among the greatest manifestations of human activity and culture. In order to satisfy this first requirement, all of us who feel the spur of the apostolate should examine closely the kind of speech we use. Is it easy to understand? Can it be grasped by ordinary people? Is it current idiom?

2) Our dialogue must be accompanied by that meekness which Christ bade us learn from Himself: "Learn of me, for I am meek and humble of heart." It would indeed be a disgrace if our dialogue were marked by arrogance, the use of bared words or offensive bitterness. What gives it its authority is the fact that it affirms the truth, shares with others the gifts of charity, is itself an example of virtue, avoids peremptory language, makes no demands. It is peaceful, has no use for extreme methods, is patient under contradiction and inclines towards generosity.

3) Confidence is also necessary; confidence not only in the power of one's own words, but also in the good will of both parties to the dialogue. Hence dialogue promotes intimacy and friendship on both sides. It unites them in a mutual adherence to the Good, and thus excludes all self-seeking.

4) Finally, the prudence of a teacher who is most careful to make allowances for the psychological and moral circumstances of his hearer, particularly if he is a child, unprepared, suspicious or hostile. The person who speaks is always at pains to learn the sensitivities of his audience, and if reason demands it, he adapts himself and the manner of his presentation to the susceptibilities and the degree of intelligence of his hearers....In a dialogue conducted with this kind of foresight, truth is wedded to charity and understanding to love." (Nos. 81, 82).

As faithful Catholics, we must recognize and embrace these characteristics of authentic dialogue, even when our partners in dialogue refuse to accept these principles. For we will often encounter those who have succumbed to relativism or who do not possess a love of objective truth. For such people, the purpose of dialogue is not to attain truth but rather to achieve personal victory and to triumph at any cost. As Dr. Montague Brown explains in his wonderful book "The One-Minute Philosopher" (Sophia Institute Books): "An argument (emotional, not rational) is a disorderly confrontation based on an unwillingness to learn from one another. Desire for victory takes precedence over love of truth, with the result that agreement becomes impossible....in an argument, I simply want my position to be the right one and you to agree with me. I am, indeed, looking for agreement, but on my terms, not in terms of objective truth." (p. 33). An authentic dialogue (which such people are not really interested in) is, "..an orderly confrontation based on a mutual willingness to learn from one another. It involves the presentation of evidence by each party and then a good-faith attempt of the participants in the discussion to come to agreement...In a discussion [or dialogue], I do not primarily want to disagree: I want to know the truth.." (The One-Minute Philosopher, p. 32).

It was Pope John Paul II, in his Encyclical Letter Ut Unum Sint, No. 36, who said, "There must be charity toward one's partner in dialogue, and humility with regard to the truth which comes to light and which might require a review of assertions and attitudes."

This is what Catholics are called to. Sadly, the Diocese of Springfield, Massachusetts, under the "leadership" of Bishop Mitchell Rozanski, has failed to embrace these fundamental characteristics of dialogue.  Catholics who adhere to the perennial teaching of the Church or who refuse to accept liberal Democratic policies advanced by Bishop Rozanski are routinely excluded from any meaningful participation in parish or diocesan life.

Readers of this Blog know how the Bishop deleted comments I left at his Facebook page regarding his partisan posturing on immigration and how he blocked me from commenting in the future simply because I politely disagreed with him and refuted his arguments with sound logic.  See here.

Now Bishop Rozanski, presiding over a Diocese which is crumbling from within, "..is encouraging the faithful to take part in listening sessions" in preparation for a Diocesan Pastoral Synod.

But who exactly will the Diocese be listening to?  From past experience, it will not not be "the faithful," but only those who embrace dissent from Church teaching or far-left Democratic policies.  See here

Related reading here.

.

Wee Weed Up: Obama dismisses his critics

President Obama, who always seems to be calling for "reason, calm and dialogue," should follow his own advice. On Thursday, Obama took to conservative radio to accuse Republicans of a vast right wing conspiracy to kill health care reform and to undermine the Democratic Congress. Appearing on the Michael Smerconish show, Obama said, "I think early on, a decision was made by the Republican leadership that said, 'Look, let's not give him a victory, maybe we can have a replay of 1993, '94, when Clinton came in, he failed on health care and then we got the majority.' And I think there are some folks who are taking a page out of that playbook."

This isn't the first time the president has attempted to demonize his opponents. Just recently he went on record as saying that Americans who disapprove of homosexuality are clinging to worn arguments and old attitudes. Clearly no one has ever gifted Obama with a copy of Dale Carnegie's best-selling book.

Sophocles, in Antigone 1. 1023, says, "Stubborness and stupidity are twins." How so? Dr. Montague Brown explains as he makes the distinction between tenacity and stubborness: "Tenacity is the dedicated adherence to something we know to be worthwhile. As such, tenacity is positive. It involves a clear purpose - to persevere in what is good - and welcomes new evidence and perspectives that clarify or enrich that good...Tenacity is particularly evident when the adherence required is difficult. If my perseverance requires great effort of body or mind, or if it requires me to face a great deal of peer pressure and perhaps even ridicule, then my holding fast to my good purpose shows strength of mind and courage. In such cases, there may be little to gain in terms of social standing, but much in moral standing. Tenaciously holding to what is true and good not only benefits me in terms of virtue; it also works to ensure the stability of these goods in the community....Stubborness is the uncompromising insistence on having our own way. As such, stubborness is negative. It involves a kind of blindness, along with a willful rejection of evidence and the perspectives of others. Stubborness is particularly evident when the compromise required is easy. If the evidence I need to convince me to change my mind is readily available, or if accepting another's perspective would mean giving up little of importance, then my refusal to yield is not reasonable, but is motivated by stubborness. There is little to lose except my desire to be in control. Such rigid clinging to my own will hurts the community, because I refuse to cooperate with others, and it also prevents me from becoming successful and virtuous." (Dr. Montague Brown, Ph.D, The One-Minute Philosopher, pp. 162-163, Sophia Institute Press).

Rather than addressing the serious and substantive criticisms – or just plain concerns – directed at his policies, Obama has chosen time and again to dismiss his critics by painting them as dishonest, emotionally unstable or simply obstinate. Speaking at a meeting of his Organizing for America network of supporters, Obama fired another salvo of angry and sarcastic rhetoric at critics who believe that the early promise of his presidency is disintegrating and in fact is already spent amid criticism of his controversial policies, some of which have frightening ramifications for this country. Said Obama, “There is something about August going into September where everybody in Washington gets all wee weed up!”

Wee weed up? Does anyone even know what that means? The American Heritage Dictionary defines the word “wee” thusly: “1. Very small; tiny. 2. A tiny bit.” And the word “weed” may be used as slang for marijuana. Is Obama suggesting that everybody in Washington gets high on Mary Jane as August drifts into September?

This would explain much. Have another hit and dismiss any and all reality.