Quote

This was the last sentence of another fine post in this thread. But could you please explain a little more about your perception of South American Jesuit houses?

Okay.  This is just a working theory of my own.

In the 1960's a leadership model which grew out of the non-directed psychotherapy of Carl Rodgers became very popular in USA convents.  At some points, at least, it was called 'Therapy for Healthy People'.  Today, as very vastly developed and codified by the LCWR (the nuns on the bus folks) it is called 'systems thinking'.  It has many analogues in business and education.

It is very difficult to summarize and do it justice.  

 Very, very basically, it is a technique for leading that avoids conflict by convincing the parties involved that their grievances were properly understood and that the solution proposed benefits them personally and that they have chosen to participate in the solution freely.

It is very different from an authoritarian model.

Pope Francis, in his interviews, has said that, as a young superior, he learned a 'new way of leadership'.  It is highly likely this is that way.  It was the right place at the right time, as Rogerian techniques diffused through the Americas, and I think it fits his style.

For this reason, I've been watching Francis for signs of this technique.  

It's my opinion that his cozying up to gαys and diminishing protests and abortion is the first stage of the Rogerian technique, the creation of a non-hierarchical, non-judgemental engagement space.

I could be wrong.  Or he may die before he reaches the end of the program.  Who knows.  

PS - BTW in this model, the only people who would be 'punished' are those who refuse to engage the program.  I diagnose this to be why Trads are getting the short end of the stick.  Trads insist on authority and definite guidance.  

Yes, the Carl Rogers and Maslow models were used to destroy the Immaculate Heart nuns. But isn't it an authoritarian model by another name? Basically it would seem to me this is simply a way of finessing the objector. In other words, they may say something like, "I hear and understand your concerns, however...". Then they go into their personal reasons for exploring and adopting a relativistic solution to whatever the problem may be.  

And you are right, I would refuse to engage in these programs and I could definitely see myself in Jack Nicholson's shoes in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. This approach is very feminine.

Either way, I was really asking you what you mean by South American Jesuit Houses wanting to take over the world. What do you know about their philosophy? I get that you see this as their primary method. But what are their primary objectives as you see them? Communist liberation theology?
 

Quote

This was the last sentence of another fine post in this thread. But could you please explain a little more about your perception of South American Jesuit houses?

Okay.  This is just a working theory of my own.

In the 1960's a leadership model which grew out of the non-directed psychotherapy of Carl Rodgers became very popular in USA convents.  At some points, at least, it was called 'Therapy for Healthy People'.  Today, as very vastly developed and codified by the LCWR (the nuns on the bus folks) it is called 'systems thinking'.  It has many analogues in business and education.

It is very difficult to summarize and do it justice.  

 Very, very basically, it is a technique for leading that avoids conflict by convincing the parties involved that their grievances were properly understood and that the solution proposed benefits them personally and that they have chosen to participate in the solution freely.

It is very different from an authoritarian model.

Pope Francis, in his interviews, has said that, as a young superior, he learned a 'new way of leadership'.  It is highly likely this is that way.  It was the right place at the right time, as Rogerian techniques diffused through the Americas, and I think it fits his style.

For this reason, I've been watching Francis for signs of this technique.  

It's my opinion that his cozying up to gαys and diminishing protests and abortion is the first stage of the Rogerian technique, the creation of a non-hierarchical, non-judgemental engagement space.

I could be wrong.  Or he may die before he reaches the end of the program.  Who knows.  

PS - BTW in this model, the only people who would be 'punished' are those who refuse to engage the program.  I diagnose this to be why Trads are getting the short end of the stick.  Trads insist on authority and definite guidance.  

"non-hierarchical, non-judgemental engagement space."

Good Lord, with limp-wristed phrases like this being typed out with a straight face, it's no wonder there's some sodomite panic going on in this thread.

Would it be overly simplistic and anti-intellectual of me to simply chalk all of this up to Modernism? Who cares if it's a fetish for the Rodgerian or Kantian or Hegelian or existentialist or Freudian or Jungian variety that this Pope or any other prelate personally holds dear? All of this shit (for shit is what it is - vile errors deserve vile names) flows down into that same "Sewer of All Heresies" that St Pius X warned the Church about.

It is not merely "trads" who "insist on authority and definite guidance" - It is Catholic Tradition; the Catholic Faith itself that demands it.

All of this hair splitting over what brand of modernism appeals to the current occupier of the Throne of St Peter is of very limited usefulness, and in fact serves to obscure what is otherwise a very clear problem - The Modernist Crisis.

A prominent Freemason - it may have been Albert Pike, but I'm not entirely sure (sorry to those footnote-obsessors out there) once said that it would not be necessary or even desirable to have a Freemason sitting on the Throne of St Peter - it would suffice to simply have a man who thinks like one elected pope. I think that's what we have here - a man whose formation and education has been so thoroughly corrupted with non-Catholic and anti-Catholic modernistic rot that he believes implicitly what the Lodge professes, regardless of whether or not he is a member.