The listening sessions are asked to focus on the role of structures and organizations in the Church, and will need to be completed and synthesized by early April.
I wonder if he thinks maybe he doesn't have a realistic choice, as the request is "based on guidance from the permanent secretariat for the Synod of Bishops in Rome".
I believe that the ideological pursuit of power and control blocks the flow of the Holy Spirit since one must either pursue power and control or pursue love--"great is the difference". Since it appears, clearly, that the Synod on Synodality is an exercise of ideological control through the subterfuge of "listening" rather than listening to the Holy Spirit, these questions are at best insulting. The level of deceit is high.
It seems unfair to complain to my local priest that there are more structural restrictions on the celebration of the Latin Mass than upon Fr. Marko Rupnik, but if +Flores wants to pay for me to fly to Rome, I'll happily let the Pope know what I think.
This shouldn’t take till May. Each parish sends a Flocknote asking for responses to the survey questions. Parishes send those to their dioceses, which then feed them into ChatGPT for a “synthesis”. Those syntheses are then sent to the USCCB, are fed again into ChatGPT, which also scans the comboxes of The Pillar, National Catholic Reporter, America Magazine, and Crisis Magazine, and synthesizes all of them into a document sent to the Vatican (or to the USCCB for review).
I think it could easily be done in a week. I’m only partially joking.
Artificial Intelligence doesn't do things in the optimal method, it does them with the biases programmed into it.
Have actual people do the synthesis. They'll be biased too, but they might at least be biased differently from each other. Or have multiple AI (say, Google's and Elon Musk's) run the same analysis and then have people synthesize the AI responses...
I rather like your ideas on data collection. Most parishes don't have flocknote, but a link
and individual codes could be passed out to churchgoers on Sunday - effectively excluding those who don't care enough to show up for an hour a week.
AI's have biases, but they come out more if you try to ask it "what do you think about x" and it draws from everything it's been trained on to respond. If you give it a set of comments and ask it to find common themes it's probably going to be less biased than your average human.
This is almost comical. If the first go round "achieved" 2% participation, this will achieve somewhere around 0.2% participation? The reason it's not comical is that it will be used (assuming the responses align with the goals of those in power) to implement real policy.
Q: “How can the structures and organization of the Church help all the baptized to respond to the call to proclaim the Gospel and to live as a community of love and mercy in Christ?”
Wait, there were listening sessions before in any widespread way? They seem to have been most notable by their absence. I know that I found out about them happening when I read (probably here) that the time had passed; I know that here there were no emails here to the clergy generally about them, as I checked. This new round should have been done before the 'national phase'; (arch)dioceses should have been sent back until they had a representative sample, or simply ignored. I strongly suspect that the results would have been different in important ways. I don't much see the point now.
Every structure and organization in the Church that works to hide sexual abuse and protect the guilty should be forcibly reformed, beginning with Vox estis.
Insanity, I actually think less of Bp. Flores for not recognizing the obvious futility of this
I wonder if he thinks maybe he doesn't have a realistic choice, as the request is "based on guidance from the permanent secretariat for the Synod of Bishops in Rome".
"Where have I seen or experienced distresses within the Church’s structure(s)/organization/leadership/life that hinder the mission?"
Hmm
Distressed when I hear about synod discussions on topics that aren't (or shouldn't be) up for discussion.
Or distressed when asked to comment on synod discussion questions that don't seem to have any relevance to my faith life.
Examples would fill a huge document, but here are a few:
1) All religions are willed by God (Document on Human Fraternity. Feb 2019).
2) I refuse to accept that Islam is violent ( Pope Francis 2016, after brutal murder of 85 year old French priest).
3) Islam is a religion of peace - Evangelii Gaudium, para 253, 2013.
4) "Pope Francis 'abolishes Hell'" (headline in Times of London, Good Friday, 2018).
5) All religions are positively willed by God (Papal Preacher, 2002)......
Good one!
Oh boy do I have thoughts. So many thoughts. A veritable *mosaic* of thoughts.
My mind is a raging torrent, flooded with rivulets of thought cascading into a waterfall of creative alternatives.
👍
I believe that the ideological pursuit of power and control blocks the flow of the Holy Spirit since one must either pursue power and control or pursue love--"great is the difference". Since it appears, clearly, that the Synod on Synodality is an exercise of ideological control through the subterfuge of "listening" rather than listening to the Holy Spirit, these questions are at best insulting. The level of deceit is high.
I think we should send our thoughtful, respectful responses directly to Bishop Flores.
1910 University Blvd
Brownsville, TX 78520
It seems unfair to complain to my local priest that there are more structural restrictions on the celebration of the Latin Mass than upon Fr. Marko Rupnik, but if +Flores wants to pay for me to fly to Rome, I'll happily let the Pope know what I think.
This shouldn’t take till May. Each parish sends a Flocknote asking for responses to the survey questions. Parishes send those to their dioceses, which then feed them into ChatGPT for a “synthesis”. Those syntheses are then sent to the USCCB, are fed again into ChatGPT, which also scans the comboxes of The Pillar, National Catholic Reporter, America Magazine, and Crisis Magazine, and synthesizes all of them into a document sent to the Vatican (or to the USCCB for review).
I think it could easily be done in a week. I’m only partially joking.
Artificial Intelligence doesn't do things in the optimal method, it does them with the biases programmed into it.
Have actual people do the synthesis. They'll be biased too, but they might at least be biased differently from each other. Or have multiple AI (say, Google's and Elon Musk's) run the same analysis and then have people synthesize the AI responses...
I rather like your ideas on data collection. Most parishes don't have flocknote, but a link
and individual codes could be passed out to churchgoers on Sunday - effectively excluding those who don't care enough to show up for an hour a week.
AI's have biases, but they come out more if you try to ask it "what do you think about x" and it draws from everything it's been trained on to respond. If you give it a set of comments and ask it to find common themes it's probably going to be less biased than your average human.
I have heard of ChatGPT lying about whether various statements existed in a searcheable document, repeatedly.
Additional biases can be programmed in if desired. It will then be more biased than your average human.
I’ve never experienced any of my dioceses send out a survey about anything.
This is almost comical. If the first go round "achieved" 2% participation, this will achieve somewhere around 0.2% participation? The reason it's not comical is that it will be used (assuming the responses align with the goals of those in power) to implement real policy.
Q: “How can the structures and organization of the Church help all the baptized to respond to the call to proclaim the Gospel and to live as a community of love and mercy in Christ?”
A: Proclaim the Gospel.
This should be a rather quick listening session.
I haven't even started reading the article yet and that synod logo is making my eyes bleed.
Follow up comment:
"“Further, we are encouraged to continue ongoing engagement with the People of God in the dynamism of a synodal style.”"
What does this word salad even mean?
"What in the Church distresses you?"
Your logo.
Distresses: the lack of transparency and mechanisms to force it other than civil courtrooms.
Successes: Lay Catholics suing the pants of dioceses and compelling disclosure, and journalists digging into the same.
"Where have I seen or experienced distresses within the Church’s structure(s)/organization/leadership/life that hinder the mission?"
My most recent example is explaining to my Protestant (very anti-Catholic) in-laws why the Catholic Church is "blessing gay couples now".
Wait, there were listening sessions before in any widespread way? They seem to have been most notable by their absence. I know that I found out about them happening when I read (probably here) that the time had passed; I know that here there were no emails here to the clergy generally about them, as I checked. This new round should have been done before the 'national phase'; (arch)dioceses should have been sent back until they had a representative sample, or simply ignored. I strongly suspect that the results would have been different in important ways. I don't much see the point now.
It was in my parish bulletin at the time with a number of sessions and where and when they would occur.
PLEASE Church - PREACH THE PURE GOSPEL OF HOPE. Stop all of this nonsense.
Every structure and organization in the Church that works to hide sexual abuse and protect the guilty should be forcibly reformed, beginning with Vox estis.