Yin and Yang

I came across two approaches to managing and/or healing rifts. One focused on personal and the other on political, but I thought both had something pertinent to say about how we might – or in the one case might not – approach and/or heal our own difficulties with gender issues within Catholic leadership and ministry. (Didn’t I put that last part nicely; sometimes, I guess, it’s better to whisper when you want to scream!)

The first came from an article a friend sent me. She is estranged from her only living sibling and truly bitter. Hoping to clarify and justify to me why she has cut this person totally out of her life, she sent me an article, It’s OK to Cut Ties With Toxic Family Members by Cory Turner. His argument is: “Having a toxic family member who takes you on an emotional rollercoaster ride on a regular basis leaves you with a range of conflicting feelings like confusion, obligation, pain, guilt, betrayal, anger and grief.” Substitute “church of our childhood” for “family member” and the feelings are all too familiar. Letting go, walking completely away from this family member, although difficult and painful and requiring great courage, is, according to the author, pretty much the only alternative.

If we do not sever such a relationship completely, he argues, we risk forever being manipulated and hurt by a bond that was supposed to be “enduring, loving, and respectful”. Despite encountering those who call the decision to walk away “selfish”, he still recommends it is as the only alternative especially when we recognize the “negative psychological effects” we have developed as a result of all the years spent in this toxic relationship. We must end it if we are to live our “happiest, healthiest life.”

Hmm. So we are not to work on the “toxicity”?  So we are not to keep persisting if only for the sake of other family members – or in our “substitute the Catholic Church mode” – larger community? And given the number of members worldwide, a huge international community subjected by the Church, yes, to inequality of genders, hoarding of power, shortsightedness, unimaginable suffering at times and awe and majesty and grace and blessing and unity at others? Do we really want to walk away for the sake of our own individual happiness? Is that who we are?

That same week I did not read an article but attended, instead, a presentation by Better Angels. As a citizen’s organization, its mission is to unite ”red and blue Americans in a working alliance to depolarize America” by understanding “the other side’s point of view, even if we don’t agree with it… looking for common ground and ways to work together…(and) support principles that bring us together rather than divide us.” Again, substitute “depolarize the progressive and conservative wings of the Catholic Church” for “depolarize America” and here we go.

What if we tried, for example, these Better Angels workshop and dialogue ideas among Catholic parish and small Eucharistic communities?

Stereotypes Exercise – Separate red (conservative) and blue (progressive) groups generate, discuss, and report back on the most common false stereotypes or misconceptions of their side, why these stereotypes are wrong, what is true instead, and whether there is a kernel of truth in the stereotype.

Fishbowl Exercise – One group sits in chairs in the middle and the other group sits around them to listen and learn. Then the two groups switch positions. There is no interaction between the groups during the fishbowl exercise. Afterwards, people are invited to share what they learned about how the other side sees themselves and if they see anything in common.

Questions Exercise – Separate groups of reds and blues meet to generate questions of understanding (as opposed to “gotcha” questions). They then merge into mixed groups of half reds and half blues, and ask the questions to the other side to gain genuine understanding of the views and experiences of people on the other side.

How Can We Contribute Exercise – Everyone fills out an action grid handout and then pairs up with someone of the other color to share one action step with the whole group. The question: What can each of us do individually, what can our side do, and what might both sides do together to promote better understanding of differences and search for common ground?

The speaker that day, I thought, nailed the true toxicity among divided groups: contempt. Once we let “contempt”for the other rule us, I would argue as he did, we are truly lost. I must admit I was initially put off a bit by Better Angel’s dedication to dialogue without the goal of persuasion. I so want to persuade others that the ordination and leadership of women and all genders is critical to our health, happiness, and endurance. As the speaker asked, however: “Persuasion: how’s that working out for you?” If change of minds is to happen, we concluded, it will come through listening and respect. And from not walking away.

We could tackle the church hierarchy with this approach…um…someday? Soon?  Well, at least we can start practicing now.