|
COMMENTARY
Conflict/Confrontation as Tactics
From Donna Doucette, VOTF Boston and Region 1 New
England National Representative Council member
On various VOTF discussion lists and affiliate meetings,
the tactics of conflict and confrontation are frequently
called our best tools or even our only tools for dealing
with bishops. Occasionally those promoting such tools
as the primary "weapons" of VOTF see their
use as inevitable; they position them as part of a
healthy debate where diversity of opinion and constructive
engagement can lead to reform.
I would like to explore the notion that conflict and
confrontation are somehow equivalent to diversity of
opinion and constructive engagement.
They are not. And the confusion of those elements,
as if they are two sides of the same coin or as if
they are simply a matter of semantics, is part of what
I see as the continuing problems the National Representative
Council (NRC) encounters as we try to build a Council
sub-community that works collegially with other sub-communities
in the larger VOTF community.
Although one might label differing opinions as being "conflicting," or
conclude that constructive engagement resulted from "confrontation," the
tactics of conflict/confrontation differ significantly
from ones that support opinion-diversity/constructive-engagement.
Conflict and confrontation carry the connotations
of strife, of establishing winners and losers in a
struggle. They are quite suitable for sporting events,
for warfare, and for any dispute where there must,
inevitably, be a winner and a loser.
But diversity of opinion need not result in the anointing
of a winner or a loser. It may lead instead to agreement
on certain principles in common. It may result in a
third
option that meets the needs of all concerned. It recognizes
that there are multiple views, that each has some value,
and that a "common good" approach need not
eliminate all
opinions except for the one that "wins."
Constructive engagement, likewise, implies that through
discussion and the positing of different opinions,
one arrives at a conclusion that embraces and advances
the goals of those involved even if neither "side" in
the discussion is declared a "winner."
The demand for winners in a conflict, the constant
use of "angry forever" voices, to me seem
antithetical to the aims of VOTF. Do we need to confront
what is wrong? Yes.
Certainly. Do we need to do that in a winner-take-all
atmosphere? Do we need always and every time to reach
for the tools of conflict and confrontation and label
as
foolish or frivolous those who prefer a different starting
point? Must we always insist on a confrontation that
will label us "losers" if we do not obtain
capitulation of the
hierarchy to our "demands"?
I hope not. Tactically, it is far better to point
to gains, to improvements, than to trumpet the fact
that we stood toe-to-toe with Bishop X, called him
a retarded moral
pygmy, and then retired to our "camp" to
boast of how we spoke only the truth.
Our wins, our gains, when they come, will be on the
ground, in the parishes, in the dioceses. They will
not come with the public capitulation of the bishops.
So why keep demanding it?
Call for truth, take steps to see that it is revealed,
but insist on the changes that will
make our parishes and dioceses safe for our children,
and will lead
us to communities that embrace the voices of the laity.
The Church did not formally condemn slavery until
1965. That's 1,965 years (give or take a few hundred
when “church” was not "institution")
during which the official teachings of the Church declared
slavery to be "natural." But my guess is
that not a single one of us held onto slaves until
1965. We changed on the ground, as it were, long before
the institution of the Church got around to acknowledging
the truth of what exists.
VOTF, as an agent of change, should be making our
changes on the ground, not waiting for the institution
to acknowledge what we know to be the truth. Instead
of shouting the truth to a deaf hierarchy – continuous
conflict and confrontation -- I prefer to change our
church according to the truth and let the hierarchs
catch up later, if they will.
|
