This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I have a couple of things to say.
The SSPX were morons to do this. One of their new bishops is a nutjob, 'crisis' doesn't hold water when you do it after Francis, and it's unclear why they were unwilling to engage in the Vatican's 'dialogue'- what was so urgent about needing to ordain bishops on this particular day? There's a lot of SSPX faithful, which I have been and almost was again, before the consecrations were announced. More bishops isn't a particularly unreasonable request with that many, and that spread out, a set of people. But bishops need to have jobs to do, and the Vatican will not approve bishops that are not appointed to a hierarchical position.
There seems to be genuine sympathy for the SSPX position from most of the hierarchy. I wasn't paying attention(nor around to) in '88. But the SSPX being a bit painted into a corner is a reality of the situation in a way it wasn't in 1988. There appears to be no one left under the illusion that there is a short term easy solution; even professor Grillo doesn't appear to believe that the Vatican can simply dismiss traditionalist concerns.
We were, in January, very likely to switch to the SSPX over impatience with the FSSP's tolerance for unrelated schizophrenia and pastoral insensitivity. That obviously went on hold in February and is now shelved more-or-less indefinitely. There are, to be clear, perfectly valid pastoral reasons to prefer SSPX priests, they don't tolerate dramatics in their chapels, don't tolerate trying to tie the faith to unrelated right-wing schizoidism, make sure there's a strong community life despite their limited resources, and crack down hard on things that need to be cracked down on. They're excellent confessors and excellent homilists. I wish, not for the first time, that Fellay had been able to talk the society into signing Benedict XVI's framework.
In other news about the society-
Their oldest new bishop is 45(pretty close to the practical minimum for episcopal ordination in the regular hierarchy). They've also ordained the youngest, uh, tracked bishop in the world yesterday; Bishop Marc Hannappier is only 36, and is younger than any novus ordo bishop, any known sedevacantist bishop, any Orthodox bishop. This is what a high TFR looks like in practice.
Cardinal Fernandez, Cardinal Parolin, and Pope Leo himself are all expressing uncharacteristic hope for a speedy resolution to the crisis. This is not the attitude I would expect them to have. Two of the three were quite anti-traditionalist under the last pontificate.
“Pastoral insensitivity?”
More options
Context Copy link
What does this mean? It appears the resolution was excommunication, and now they die off?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link