Is it possible? I don't think so. Here's why... (Main Forum)

by Brian Coyne , LINDEN, NSW, Sunday, February 05, 2012, 09:22 (474 days ago) @ Helen

It's such a deceptively simple question. It's the sort of question I used to be constantly asking when I worked as a communication specialist in the institution and I did think it was possible to "make the church's message brilliant and attractive". I've been thinking about this overnight in a different context — some of the comments herbie has made in the last 24 hours and also the incredible stupidity of Denis Hart's letter in the Fairfax Media.

Why I now think it is impossible to "make the Church's message brilliant and attractive" is because we can't agree in the first place on what that "message" ought to be. There is no agreement way back at the most basic level of what in the dickens the message even is before you start to sell it or broadcast it.

Take the example of herbie and the now cardinal he refers to in his little parable [LINK]. In that "power relationship" herbie simply stood no chance. Same in the entire +Bill Morris matter. It's f*cking b*llshit to suggest as Denis Hart did that there was "a pastoral process of dialogue with Bishop Morris over 11 years" [LINK]. We now know there was never any "dialogue". It was all about +Morris being made to conform to the agenda of the temple police and the curial officials and he was not allowed to put forward any responses of his own, nor to hold any beliefs or opinions that might differ to those of the temple police or those who control the entire agenda of Catholic belief in Rome. Denis Hart's sycophantic, grovelling letter is only revealing as to how morally bankrupt the entire institution has become.

The central constraint...

But back to the central constraint: we can't agree on what the message is in the first place. Pilate asked Jesus the question and he could not, or would not, answer: "what is truth?" We cannot agree on what we're trying to "sell" or convert people to in the first place. For me, I see it, and say, it (the message) is fundamentally about a "search for truth" in our lives. Someone like George Pell, Denis Hart, John George or any member of the Temple Police might also say that they think it is "fundamentally about a 'search for truth'". And this is where we get into difficulties: what I understand by the term truth might be very different, and in fact diametrically opposed to what their concept of truth is. I honestly do believe that our basic problem is right down at that level today. We can't even agree on the definition or meaning of the basic terms we use in the conversation.

Where I disagree with the sort of people I have mentioned above is that I believe they confuse a "search for truth" as a "search for certitude". That chasm today is effectively now "unbridgeable". It is testified to by any analysis of the different styles on certain discussion boards in cyberspace that most of us here know about. YOU SIMPLY CANNOT HAVE A SANE CONVERSATION WITH SOME PEOPLE. YOU SIMPLY CANNOT HAVE A SANE CONVERSATION WITH SOME BISHOPS. YOU SIMPLY CANNOT HAVE A SANE CONVERSATION WITH THE LIKES OF GEORGE PELL, who thinks of himself as the head of the Catholic Church in Australia, OR THE POPE. They all say they are trying to "sell", or "promote", TRUTH. In my perspective though, I simply cannot buy that. I think they are trying to to "sell", or "promote", CERTITUDE, or DOGMA. Certitude and Dogma are not substitutes for TRUTH! There is no way I can convince them that they're not selling, or promoting, TRUTH. They have no way of understanding what I mean when I use the expression "I am searching for TRUTH in my life". What they offer to me is not actually "TRUTH". I'm not sure what it is but it's something more like "emotional security", or a reduction in my anxiety levels, but it certainly is not TRUTH.

What Benedict and friends offer under the name of "TRUTH" appeals to a small, and dwindling proportion in the population. The vast majority of educated people in the world today reject it. That is testified to the fact that nearly 90% of the baptised in the educated world have now ceased listening, ceased believing in what Benedict and friends offer, and have ceased participating. You cannot "get through" to this tiny minority who now control the institutional agenda though. YOU SIMPLY CANNOT HAVE A SANE CONVERSATION WITH THEM. They are incapable of listening to any other perspectives other than their own.

If you don't believe me simply try it yourself on this myriad of "we are so faithful to the magisterium" and "true Catholic" discussion boards that the insecure and zealots have set up in cyberspace. When you have finished come back here and tell us how many "converts" you have made.

So, where do we go from here? I honestly do not know. We're back at the same position that Jesus Christ was in standing before Pilate when Pilate asked him "What is Truth?" Jesus couldn't answer. And neither can we!

Brian Coyne
[Editor & Publisher]