Color me cynical but I have seen this before during the 2014/15 synods and during religious formation in the seminary. Recall Cardinal Pell’s objections at the end of the 2014 synod wherein he cited manipulation; after which he was falsely accused and spent over a year in prison. Also recall that those who objected at the 2014 synod were…
Color me cynical but I have seen this before during the 2014/15 synods and during religious formation in the seminary. Recall Cardinal Pell’s objections at the end of the 2014 synod wherein he cited manipulation; after which he was falsely accused and spent over a year in prison. Also recall that those who objected at the 2014 synod were not invited to the 2015 synod. Recall also how quickly Amoris Laetitia was produced which included previous writings of our new head of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith. In seminary, during a Saturday mandatory house meeting we spent the day “dialoguing” about our particular house’s goals and atmosphere. The brother Presentor came in from another house and had a series of blank newspaper on tripods. And moving from one to the next throughout the morning he guided us toward our goals which were elicited from both the senior and student members. The senior members did the most talking and of them only a few took advantage and his or the few had their comments written down. After lunch, the Presentor began again and started by saying to the house, “This is what you decided this morning.” I stopped him and asked a question along these lines, “You mean if we didn’t say anything this morning during the process we automatically have brought in on this decision?” He said, “Yes.” For this process, silence is consent. I don’t remember the name of the workshop but it had Minnesota something to its title. Anyhow, Fr. Richard Neuhaus commented that the liberals get their way by “meeting” people to death.
St Thomas More has a great argument about "silence betokens consent" with his repulsive accusers in "A man for all seasons". At most meetings and conferences, secular and religious, which I have attended silence does mean consent. If you had any strong coherent objections, you should have spoken up. Unfortunately, the scrupulous debater usually needs time to think out a good response and assemble evidence. The unscrupulous are happy with emotion and bluster.
It's very hard to counter a well-put bad idea coming from a good orator. It's not at all fair to say "if you can't express an objection eloquently, logically, calmly, orally, without consultation with others, and without reading from notes, within the next two hours, you've bought in ". I don't care how universal that practice is, it's manipulative.
At my workplace, when someone wants to ensure people buy in, he names each person and requires him to state an opinion explicitly, and if that opinion is negative he is not allowed to respond or object except to ask legitimately clarifying questions. That doesn't mean we require unanimity on everything but it does give everyone a legitimate opportunity to be heard. Sometimes, and these are my favorite, everyone is required to voice an objection or suggestion for improvement. I would almost go as far as to say that if you haven't done that, you don't have any reason to claim group consensus.
But, I did speak up at that meeting. I’m the one asking the question about the process that should have been made clear at the beginning……viz. “You students in formation (in simple vows taken annually) whom we the senior community (in professed vows) votes on you every May on whether you continue with us or not, you students please go ahead and speak up.” BTW, I left them before taking Solemn Vows.
Color me cynical but I have seen this before during the 2014/15 synods and during religious formation in the seminary. Recall Cardinal Pell’s objections at the end of the 2014 synod wherein he cited manipulation; after which he was falsely accused and spent over a year in prison. Also recall that those who objected at the 2014 synod were not invited to the 2015 synod. Recall also how quickly Amoris Laetitia was produced which included previous writings of our new head of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith. In seminary, during a Saturday mandatory house meeting we spent the day “dialoguing” about our particular house’s goals and atmosphere. The brother Presentor came in from another house and had a series of blank newspaper on tripods. And moving from one to the next throughout the morning he guided us toward our goals which were elicited from both the senior and student members. The senior members did the most talking and of them only a few took advantage and his or the few had their comments written down. After lunch, the Presentor began again and started by saying to the house, “This is what you decided this morning.” I stopped him and asked a question along these lines, “You mean if we didn’t say anything this morning during the process we automatically have brought in on this decision?” He said, “Yes.” For this process, silence is consent. I don’t remember the name of the workshop but it had Minnesota something to its title. Anyhow, Fr. Richard Neuhaus commented that the liberals get their way by “meeting” people to death.
St Thomas More has a great argument about "silence betokens consent" with his repulsive accusers in "A man for all seasons". At most meetings and conferences, secular and religious, which I have attended silence does mean consent. If you had any strong coherent objections, you should have spoken up. Unfortunately, the scrupulous debater usually needs time to think out a good response and assemble evidence. The unscrupulous are happy with emotion and bluster.
It's very hard to counter a well-put bad idea coming from a good orator. It's not at all fair to say "if you can't express an objection eloquently, logically, calmly, orally, without consultation with others, and without reading from notes, within the next two hours, you've bought in ". I don't care how universal that practice is, it's manipulative.
At my workplace, when someone wants to ensure people buy in, he names each person and requires him to state an opinion explicitly, and if that opinion is negative he is not allowed to respond or object except to ask legitimately clarifying questions. That doesn't mean we require unanimity on everything but it does give everyone a legitimate opportunity to be heard. Sometimes, and these are my favorite, everyone is required to voice an objection or suggestion for improvement. I would almost go as far as to say that if you haven't done that, you don't have any reason to claim group consensus.
But, I did speak up at that meeting. I’m the one asking the question about the process that should have been made clear at the beginning……viz. “You students in formation (in simple vows taken annually) whom we the senior community (in professed vows) votes on you every May on whether you continue with us or not, you students please go ahead and speak up.” BTW, I left them before taking Solemn Vows.