|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The Sisters of Bethany
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Having re-read new Posts, I think I’ll respond in a general way with just the one quote.
Liopleurodon
Thank you for your very interesting post. I particularly liked: quote:
The denizens of SoF are, as others have noted, a particularly argumentative bunch…
which is, of course, what makes reading here such a rewarding pursuit!
***
In a way, this topic was not so much intended as a discussion, although the views expressed have been most interesting, but ssimply a follow-up sort of report on what I said I would do in order to further, if only minimally, my knowledge of religious orders. I see that I should have made it clearer that the amount of time I had to talk to a few individuals was in fact very brief and there was certainly not time to interrogate anyone. I can say with total honesty that my aim is never to score points off people in a hurtful way. I’ve had that done to me and have tried never to do it to others. On a message board like this, I assume others like to hear contrary views to challenge. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I have watched the videos (although I did fast forward for several minutes here and there and am pleased I have done so. I’ve been trying to think of comments, but so far have not come up with anything constructive or useful - apologies! .
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
SusanDoris: In a way, this topic was not so much intended as a discussion
It does feel like a cop-out and disrespectful towards other people when you post in Purgatory, being rather argumentative at points, criticizing people who received you hospitably, and then say "it wasn't intended as a discussion".
[ 23. February 2016, 17:25: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
A book about monasticism I found very inspiring was Nicholas Buxton Tantalus and the Pelican.
He combines his account of his personal spiritual journey (from atheist to Anglican priest via a Buddhist monastery in the East) with an account of monastic theology and his experience of contemplative prayer and its central role.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
SusanDoris: In a way, this topic was not so much intended as a discussion
It does feel like a cop-out and disrespectful towards other people when you post in Purgatory, being rather argumentative at points, criticizing people who received you hospitably, and then say "it wasn't intended as a discussion".
Now that we have the "interrogation" business out of the way, I agree that it is pretty unfair to criticize people you only observed one day and didn't get much of a chance to speak to at all.
And I personally wouldn't bother with a institutionally- produced infomercial (for lack of a better word) at all. The whole purpose of such a video is to broadly address general information; it is not meat. If I wanted to learn more about the contemplative life, I would put together a reading list from the suggestions on this thread, and with that under my belt, hold out for an interview with that one contemplative who revels in discourse.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Qoheleth.
Semi-Sagacious One
# 9265
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I obviously misjudged the situation.
As someone who knows the Sisters a little, I think SusanDoris nails here it herself.
There is much wisdom about monastic and religious life upthread, so I have nothing to add, save that SusanDoris may wish to consider apologising for her mistaken assumptions.
Q.
--------------------
The Benedictine Community at Alton Abbey offers a friendly, personal service for the exclusive supply of Rosa Mystica incense.
Posts: 2532 | From: the radiator of life | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hilda of Whitby
Shipmate
# 7341
|
Posted
Another really good book about monastic/spiritual life is "In the spirit of happiness" by the Monks of New Skete. New Skete is an Orthodox monastery in NY State. The "plot" of the book is that a person is invited to come to the monastery for an extended stay and learns about the monastic life, its challenges and rewards. It is non-fiction, although the visitor (called the Seeker) is probably an amalgam of several people. It's a terrific book, and you don't have to be Orthodox (I'm not) to learn a great deal from it.
--------------------
"Born with the gift of laughter and a sense that the world is mad."
Posts: 412 | From: Nickel City | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Qoheleth.:
As someone who knows the Sisters a little, I think SusanDoris nails here it herself.
There is much wisdom about monastic and religious life upthread, so I have nothing to add, save that SusanDoris may wish to consider apologising for her mistaken assumptions.
Q.
To whom do you think I should apologise? I was friendly and polite to all I met there and wrote a letter the following day to thank them very much for having me there, so am not quite sure what you mean.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
If I delivered possibly misleading negative information about a group to people, I would consider apologizing to those people for giving them possibly misleading information. It just seems to serve the interests of fairness.I think that is the suggestion. Only a suggestion.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Hmmm ... Unless I'm missing something, I don't see what SusanDoris has to apologise for ...
All she's done is discuss her visit to the convent community with us here on this Board. It's not as if she's posted things on Facebook or Twitter slagging them off or if she's come on here bad-mouthing them ... as she says, she thanked them for their hospitality and sent a note of thanks after her stay.
Why would she have to apologise to them for things she may have said here? It's not as if any of the posters here appear to have been 'swayed' in some way by her observations or perceptions ...
'Those bloody Sisters of Bethany, I was going to leave all my money to them in my will ... but I've decided not to now ... SusanDoris has convinced me otherwise. In fact, I'm so annoyed at the kind of reception that SusanDoris received that I'm going to go round there now and pour petrol through their letter box and set the place on fire ...'
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
The most SusanDoris could be accused of is getting the wrong end of the stick with some of the things that go on in retreat centres and so on ... but I doubt it'll be the first time anyone's done that - nor will it be the last.
I can see why some Shippies find SusanDoris's posting style a bit caustic at times ... but again, that's not unusual here aboard Ship either.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
If I delivered possibly misleading negative information about a group to people, I would consider apologizing to those people for giving them possibly misleading information. It just seems to serve the interests of fairness.I think that is the suggestion. Only a suggestion.
With Gamaliel, I don't see any place where Susan Doris has done that. Her only crime, if any, may have been in an uncharitable response on this thread to their hospitality. But even that was probably more our/my defensiveness rather than any hostile intent on her part. I don't think there's anything Susan Doris needs to apologize for. I would just encourage her to continue asking her questions, but recognize that not everyone in religious life is going to want to engage that discussion (or they may want to engage it in a different time/place) for reasons that have been detailed here already.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
'Those bloody Sisters of Bethany, I was going to leave all my money to them in my will ... but I've decided not to now ... SusanDoris has convinced me otherwise. In fact, I'm so annoyed at the kind of reception that SusanDoris received that I'm going to go round there now and pour petrol through their letter box and set the place on fire ...'
You could pour petrol in your USB drive and email it to them...
[ 25. February 2016, 21:37: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Agree with Gamaliel and cliffdweller.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Thank you for the above posts.
Today I find that I have placed myself in a rather awkward position: I have received a letter from the nun who was my initial contact (the one who was unwell) thanking me for my letter and asking if I will send her a copy of my SofF post of appreciation of my visit for their records. First I checked the text of my thank you letter as I was sure I had not mentioned SofF in it,however I know that I did mention in conversation with her that the visit was in connection with a topic on this site and originally gave them a link to it.
Looking back at the OP here,I see that it could be seen by the nuns as an unfair comment, not uncritical appreciation, and I certainly would not wish to appear to be rude to them in anyway, so I think the best solution is to phone and explain what I wrote and why,my words and tone of voice will solve the dilemma I hope.
Have I embarrassed myself, been hoist with my own petard? Yes, I'm afraid so.
Any helpful comments will be muchappreciated.
[ 26. February 2016, 13:02: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Well I don't think you are in any sense obligated to send them your thoughts recorded here, on a blog, as tweets or anywhere else, Susan.
I think that's a pretty strange request given that they've clearly not met your expectations for a visit. Given that they expected you come as an observer, it seems a bit unreasonable for them to insist on seeing your observations.
Personally I'd just ignore the request and move on.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
mr cheesy
Thank you for your response - much appreciated.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Well I don't think you are in any sense obligated to send them your thoughts recorded here, on a blog, as tweets or anywhere else, Susan.
I think that's a pretty strange request given that they've clearly not met your expectations for a visit. Given that they expected you come as an observer, it seems a bit unreasonable for them to insist on seeing your observations.
Personally I'd just ignore the request and move on.
From their pov, I don't see how they would "clearly" not have met Susan's expectations. Sure, in retrospect as we read this thread, it's quite clear, but unless Susan was inordinately rude during her visit (and there's no indication she was) they wouldn't know how far short they fell. I imagine they were doing their best to meet her needs, although they may have sensed at times her disappointment or frustration.
Which may be precisely why they want to read the post. They want to know where they stand, how they are appearing to outsiders and to Susan in particular. They are expecting an honesty here that courtesy may have prevented them from getting in the moment-- and boy, will they get it.
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
I would agree that Susan is under no obligation, legal or otherwise, to send her the info. With a bit of effort they should be able to find the thread and read it for themselves. But I think it would kind to send them the link and/or text of the OP for their info. It could be prefaced however she wishes, perhaps something like, "this may appear a bit harsh-- on the Ship we tend toward honest, sometimes brutal speaking. I do appreciate the hospitality I was given, but was disappointed we couldn't spend more time discussing some questions..."
But that's entirely up to her. There's nothing wrong with the sisters for making the request, but there's no obligation to oblige.
[ 26. February 2016, 13:30: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
At 2015 there were 8 remaining Sisters of Bethany and they are unlikely to get any further novices.
They are in a very vulnerable situation and bravely trying to continue a viable ministry (through Facebook and Twitter among other things.)
I don't know whether they asked for Susan's feedback for reassurance (which they must badly need) or to courageously face criticism.
Susan's idea of phoning them up is both gracious and kind.
The golden rule is never to post anything on the internet you don't want anyone to see.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
If they really want to know what you have said, the Ship like the internet at large is, as the saying goes, permanent and public. So it will be easy enough for them to access it if they are interested. It's easy for any of us to lose that focus in the context of an online discussion. We may say things which we would not say to someone's face, or which we might say to their face, but would rather they heard it from us first than found it online.
Perhaps if you take some time to review what you have said, and then, as you suggest have a person to person conversation with the sister you are in touch with. You can explain to her what was different from your expectations, and that you posted about it, and that quote:
Looking back at the OP here, [you] see that it could be seen by the nuns as an unfair comment, not uncritical appreciation, and [you] certainly would not wish to appear to be rude to them in anyway
I don't think BTW they would be expecting uncritical appreciation, and as others have said on this thread, there may just have been a mismatch of expectations. (From what I read on the Sisters' web site, you went on the day of one of their regular Julian meetings. A Julian group would expect only to be of interest to someone from a Christian background interested in the particular practice of contemplative prayer.)
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
From their pov, I don't see how they would "clearly" not have met Susan's expectations. Sure, in retrospect as we read this thread, it's quite clear, but unless Susan was inordinately rude during her visit (and there's no indication she was) they wouldn't know how far short they fell. I imagine they were doing their best to meet her needs, although they may have sensed at times her disappointment or frustration.
Well we know what Susan intended, and as far as we understand she made someone at the convent fairly clear what her expectations were. For whatever reason (illness, etc) those were not met and (not unreasonably, in my view) Susan set them out here. She's given them the name of this bulletin board, which is on public view.
I don't think Susan is obliged to dig a bigger hole by sending them the criticisms. If they wanted to engage with Susan, they had an opportunity when she visited. As it was, they appeared to want SD just to observe what was going on during the day rather than engage with questions of faith. In that situation, I think, the best course of action is to let things lie.
quote:
Which may be precisely why they want to read the post. They want to know where they stand, how they are appearing to outsiders and to Susan in particular. They are expecting an honesty here that courtesy may have prevented them from getting in the moment-- and boy, will they get it.
Or maybe they just have a scrap-book where everyone who visits says something nice about them. Maybe they're as uninterested in any negative feedback as they appeared to be to SD's questions - which, I note, were clearly flagged to them long before the visit.
As I said, in that situation I wouldn't continue the correspondence beyond sending some appreciation for their time in having me to visit. Because it isn't worth it.
quote:
I would agree that Susan is under no obligation, legal or otherwise, to send her the info. With a bit of effort they should be able to find the thread and read it for themselves. But I think it would kind to send them the link and/or text of the OP for their info. It could be prefaced however she wishes, perhaps something like, "this may appear a bit harsh-- on the Ship we tend toward honest, sometimes brutal speaking. I do appreciate the hospitality I was given, but was disappointed we couldn't spend more time discussing some questions..."
I honestly cannot see that there is anything to be gained from this course of action. If the Sisters or their friends find this discussion then fair enough.
quote:
But that's entirely up to her. There's nothing wrong with the sisters for making the request, but there's no obligation to oblige.
Well I agree - there is nothing "wrong" with making a strange request, and thus there is nothing wrong with totally ignoring it.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
At 2015 there were 8 remaining Sisters of Bethany and they are unlikely to get any further novices.
They are in a very vulnerable situation and bravely trying to continue a viable ministry (through Facebook and Twitter among other things.)
First the "value" of their ministry is in the eye of the beholder. Second if they are using the internet they may well find this discussion anyway.
quote:
I don't know whether they asked for Susan's feedback for reassurance (which they must badly need) or to courageously face criticism.
Susan's idea of phoning them up is both gracious and kind.
I don't think it is. I think at worst it might be an attempt at emotional blackmail.
Personally I don't see that SD has done anything to apologise for. A phone call would appear to me to achieve nothing at all.
quote:
The golden rule is never to post anything on the internet you don't want anyone to see.
A rule to live by - but again the problem is not that Susan is unwilling to discuss her criticisms but that she's (SD) is worried about hurting the feelings of the Sisters by being too direct. In my view that's a very magnanimous view - which shows a person prepared to be honest but also prepared to appreciate that some are not able to hear criticisms very well.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
I think you are needlessly framing this in polarizing terms where there has to be a good guy and a bad guy. I don't see either the sisters or Susan that way. Rather, I think you just have two groups (or one small group and one individual) with very different world views and very different expectations/understandings of what a visit would entail. I don't think anyone deliberately set out to disappoint or hurt anyone-- rather, they each took the somewhat courageous step of reaching out/making oneself available for a potentially uncomfortable conversation with the goal of simply increasing understanding. The fact that the result was polite but disappointingly shallow is not surprising under the circumstances. It was a noble effort. No apologies are needed on either side. The sisters are who they are and Susan is who she is. I don't see any reason to blame either for what results that, while disappointing, are certainly not disastrous.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I think you are needlessly framing this in polarizing terms where there has to be a good guy and a bad guy. I don't see either the sisters or Susan that way. Rather, I think you just have two groups (or one small group and one individual) with very different world views and very different expectations/understandings of what a visit would entail.
I agree. But that doesn't therefore follow that the Sisters might not get upset by criticisms nor that they might not try to emotionally blackmail Susan because of her direct criticisms.
SD was given to understand that the Sisters understood the purpose of the visit, but this turned out not to be the case. As discussed above, there could be many different reasons for that - but there seems no purpose in SD attempting to engage further.
quote:
I don't think anyone deliberately set out to disappoint or hurt anyone-- rather, they each took the somewhat courageous step of reaching out/making oneself available for a potentially uncomfortable conversation with the goal of simply increasing understanding.
That's not really the case. The Sisters invited SD to share their day, whereas SD thought she was going to be able to ask the kinds of questions she asks here. That wasn't possible, but clearly the Sisters were not actually prepared to answer those questions. Somewhere the wires got crossed.
quote:
The fact that the result was polite but disappointingly shallow is not surprising under the circumstances. It was a noble effort. No apologies are needed on either side. The sisters are who they are and Susan is who she is. I don't see any reason to blame either for what results that, while disappointing, are certainly not disastrous.
No, I agree with all of that. Which is why I think it would be better just to let things lie.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Thank you all very much for your thoughtful and helpful replies. I'll have a good think over the next couple of days before I make up my mind what to do - which I will of course post here!
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
You have met the sisters, Susan, so you are the best judge of what to do.
Personally I would think that having had a reply to your own letter, it would be kind to acknowledge it.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I wonder if it's possible if someone had a wander round SOF, saw the Mystery Worshipper thingy, and thought what SusanDoris was doing was a similar effort with a writeup attached?
If not, I think the kindest thing to do (and probably fairest, given the misunderstandings) would be to simply repeat your thanks and fail to give them the link, as if you hadn't noticed the request. Most people are not so bold as to reply saying, "Hey, you got your thank you letter wrong, you forgot to include X in it."
[ 26. February 2016, 17:17: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
Good idea, LC
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I wonder if it's possible if someone had a wander round SOF, saw the Mystery Worshipper thingy, and thought what SusanDoris was doing was a similar effort with a writeup attached?
To that point I think there are several ways the sisters could have understood Susan's request to talk about what motivates people to enter religious life. Susan's intent seems to be something like "I'm convinced there is no god so curious why others think differently". But I think the sisters may have heard "I'm an unbeliever but exploring the possibility of faith" or even " I'm a believer considering entering a religious order". This could explain the disconnect and the type of retreat Susan was invited to. No ones fault, miscommunication happens
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I'm not sure. Susan sometimes starts by saying "I'm interested why religious people do X", which people perceive as an invitation for an open conversation. However, this can soon evolve into "doing X is ridiculous because you can't prove God exists. Justify yourselves!" I can imagine that not everyone would be very happy with that.
Susan hasn't said much about her conversations either before or during her visit, but I'm not ruling out that this is what happened.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
LC's approach re replying seems wisest to me.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I wonder if it's possible if someone had a wander round SOF, saw the Mystery Worshipper thingy, and thought what SusanDoris was doing was a similar effort with a writeup attached?
If not, I think the kindest thing to do (and probably fairest, given the misunderstandings) would be to simply repeat your thanks and fail to give them the link, as if you hadn't noticed the request. Most people are not so bold as to reply saying, "Hey, you got your thank you letter wrong, you forgot to include X in it."
Yes, I agree - and it may have just been a request made out of polite interest, so soon forgotten.
(Hopefully)
Otherwise - just be honest! We may get some new and interesting Shippies who join from the convent
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
I think that honesty is the best policy. I would ring and say what you intended to achieve by your visit, why it wasn't achieved, and give them a chance to respond. It's only fair.
They have given you the opportunity to open up your questions again. I am uncertain as to whether they are questions you genuinely seek answers for, or an interrogation to challenge their existence. Did you not indicate that in your view they are an anachronism, according to the prior thread, should not receive any public funding (or tax breaks), and could not justify their existence?
If you have been duplicitous, an apology is in order. If you have been open and honest, none is needed.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
Perhaps I have the wrong end of the stick here but from my reading (please correct/clarify)
quote:
] Susan Doris Then I had an interesting conversation with the Vicar. His knowledge of the Order and Anglicanism was evidently wide and authoritative, but he did not have responses for an atheist. I had taken a printed copy of the OP, at which he glanced but made no direct comment, or even get as far as the second paragraph.
So it seems that Susan had a chat with the Vicar that was lengthy enough to ascertain his wide and authoritative knowledge and she showed him a printed copy of the OP. I can only assume the OP is the following:
quote:
Posted 13 November, 2015 01:32 AM SusanDoris
Religious orders: their purposes funding and
achievements.
In the topic about theologians *, the subject of monks and nuns occurred briefly. I thought it might be interesting to see what opinions there are here about religious orders, their value, benefits and/or drawbacks to society, how they are funded and their prospects for the future. I am thinking specifically of Christian orders, where those people who freely choose this way of life enrol nowadays, and who choose to set themselves apart** in order to serve God.
As an atheist I think such orders are a very long way past their sell-by date and are slowly but surely becoming an anachronism, but no doubt they will continue for a long time to come. I have googled ‘public funding for religious orders’ and a quick look shows that, for instance, one Dominican group are going to do a sponsored walk to raise £1 million to cover costs of training etc etc. Whether there is any government money allocated to any of these orders, or which ones may have charitable status, I do not know.
I can sort of understand their belief that the prayers they offer up, following a set format have a good effect, but think they are wrong. Well over ten years ago scientists, using Newton’s and later physicists’ knowledge, planned for a journey for a space module carrying a probe to travel for ten years, arrive at a comet and land the probe on said comet. This has happened just as planned. Do members of religious orders think that the God they believe in had any part in such an endeavour, or that their prayers are more useful than such an achievement?
I look forward to learning more about present-day orders and their justification for their place in society.
*i.e. the factthat they know nothing
** this phrase from a google linkabout God!!
Frankly, that seems pretty confrontational to me and although Susan Doris seems to sincerely believe that she was polite to everyone, if the OP to which she refers is the above, I can imagine that perhaps her overtures were not received in the polite and courteous fashion that she intended. I think if I was on the receiving end I'd actually be a bit stunned by, let's say the directness of the approach and I probably wouldn't feel inclined to engage in an debate begun in such confrontational terms (my personal reaction only).
Sorry, if I have the wrong end of the stick, please clarify what it is that you gave the Vicar to read Susan if not the OP I quoted.
I believe the wisest course of action is just to ignore the request for the link.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
SusanDoris may well have intended that her visit be an opportunity to ask the Sisters (and the Vicar as well) about their lives and how it came about that their beliefs led them to take their orders. She may also believe that is how her approach should have appeared, that she was a genuine enquirer.
I suspect that that is not how she was perceived, that she seemed to be confronting them with her unbelief and challenging them in a manner they considered inappropriate from a guest - as that is how she often appears on these boards.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
(I'm still unsure whether we should discuss this in Purg. I'm hoping that I'll get a response with a Hostly or Adminly sig below it on the thread I started in the Styx. And I do realise that they are volunteers and that it's weekend.)
What weighs heavily for me is that Susan got a personal invitation to spend this time with the Sisters. Maybe this is because I've been immersed in Latin American mores about hospitality for a long time, but I feel that there are certain things you don't do in response to a personal invitation.
I don't have the impression that Susan informed the Sisters beforehand that their discussions, and her personal impressions of the visit, would be publicised on an open internet forum. Being personally invited to something, and then publicly posting that some of the Sisters were sleeping at the end of their silence period (this is just an example; there are more things like this on this thread) … Once again, this may be a cultural thing but I find this an inappropriate response to their hospitality.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Being personally invited to something, and then publicly posting that some of the Sisters were sleeping at the end of their silence period (this is just an example;
What she actually said was: "One person there was most definitely asleep at the end of that!" It doesn't say that the person was a nun - it may have been one of the other visitors - or that there was more than one.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Hindsight ia a wonderful thing. SD wouls have been better anonymising the identity of the convent and not mentioning SoF.
This is Purgatory, not the Mystery Worshipper.
As it us, she has hoist herself with her own petard and is now in a dilemma - although she clearly cares about the sisters as individuals and does not wish to offend.
Further engagement could exacerbate things - but then that might also clear the air. Best sleep on it for a few days but wise words from mr cheesy, LC and Cliffdweller here I think.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Being personally invited to something, and then publicly posting that some of the Sisters were sleeping at the end of their silence period (this is just an example;
What she actually said was: "One person there was most definitely asleep at the end of that!" It doesn't say that the person was a nun - it may have been one of the other visitors - or that there was more than one.
Is that any less rude than saying one of the sisters was asleep?
Given SD's visual impairment that she references in this thread, then unless the person was snoring I don't know how SD knew that anybody was asleep much less been able to identify who it was. I suppose she could have been referencing herself but it seems less than straightforward to do so in such a way.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
Once again, sensitivities may vary, but for me, the courtesy you owe to your host extends to other visitors that may be in their house.
quote:
Gamaliel: As it us, she has hoist herself with her own petard and is now in a dilemma - although she clearly cares about the sisters as individuals and does not wish to offend.
Yes, I do appreciate that. I also feel that as people who post on the Ship, we aren't entirely without blame. On the earlier thread that Susan started about religious orders, various people said to her "You are talking about religious orders without knowing much about them. You should visit one to find out how it is for real!" We challenged her, and I want to give kudos to Susan for taking up this challenge.
quote:
Gamaliel: This is Purgatory, not the Mystery Worshipper.
Yes, and I've been thinking a bit about where the comparison with MWing lies.
One thing that is important to me is that when a MWer leaves the card, it gives a link to the Ship forum. We invite the church to react so that at least in theory, it becomes a two-sided discussion. I understand that after her visit, the Sisters reached out to Susan asking for such a link. It seems that the consensus on this thread is not to provide this to them. I'm not sure if that is the right thing.
My personal opinion is that the decent thing for Susan would be to apologise to the Sisters of Bethany for reacting inappropriately to their hospitality, and to provide a link to this discussion thread.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Is that any less rude than saying one of the sisters was asleep?
Well I don't really accept that there is rudeness here. As you say it is possible that SD was just mistaken, but even so it seems a fair observation if that is what SD thought was happening.
If an observer visited the church gaff where we normally attend and later mentioned here that the preacher was hard to hear, the organ was too loud, people were walking in and out throughout the service and that others appeared to be asleep - well, I'd recognise that this was a reasonable way to describe what was happening, albeit possibly biased. I'd probably just roll my eyes and reflect upon how others perceive what we're doing.
I'd probably be able to hear the observations in the context of a wider conversation when I might get upset (probably not on this specific issue) if they were said to my face.
Given their age etc, maybe the Sisters are not like that. Maybe lots of things. I'm not sure what we're achieving her by further analysing SD's words and the reported response by the Sisters.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
As has been stated elsewhere, some of us seem to understand that the visit to the Sisters was a little different from going to a public worship service or event.
Would you go to a wedding reception, bowl up to the father of bride and hand him a treatise about how outdated the institution of marriage is and question him about where the money to pay for this wedding came from and whether it was appropriate to be spent in such a way?
Would you then follow up with a post on a public forum that you attended Joe Bloggs and Mary Smith's wedding and at least one person was asleep at the end of the speeches and the hosts completely failed to answer the concerns you had about the institution of marriage?
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
As has been stated elsewhere, some of us seem to understand that the visit to the Sisters was a little different from going to a public worship service or event.
Would you go to a wedding reception, bowl up to the father of bride and hand him a treatise about how outdated the institution of marriage is and question him about where the money to pay for this wedding came from and whether it was appropriate to be spent in such a way?
I don't think this is a fair comparison. As I understand the sequence of events, SD contacted the convent with a view to observing their day and hopefully having a conversation with them about what they're doing and why. They agreed, but the questions were apparently largely unanswered. SD had a reasonable time but felt that the questions were left unanswered and posted her thoughts here.
The only way one could compare this to your example would be to be in correspondence with a Bishop about the value of marriage, be invited to witness his day which included a marriage, hope to ask him questions about it but find that there were few opportunities to do so and that when asked the bishop didn't want to talk about it.
And then later to post a review of the day as you see it.
This isn't rocket science, it is a form of (albeit rather crude) journalism.
quote:
Would you then follow up with a post on a public forum that you attended Joe Bloggs and Mary Smith's wedding and at least one person was asleep at the end of the speeches and the hosts completely failed to answer the concerns you had about the institution of marriage?
Again, I don't see that this example is relevant to what happened here.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Is that any less rude than saying one of the sisters was asleep?
Yes; it's not being rude about her hosts. I'm not entirely sure whether it would be rude to mention in an MW report - which is what this reminds me of - that a member of the congregation appeared to have dozed off during the sermon.
(I was once at a Mass where a homeless man wandered in, stretched out on an unoccupied pew and fell asleep. The church was shortly filled with resounding snores that almost drowned the sermon out and there was a wave of suppressed mirth. I don't now know whether that was wrong, right, rude, acceptable or funny, or what the "correct" reaction should be.)
quote:
Given SD's visual impairment that she references in this thread, then unless the person was snoring I don't know how SD knew that anybody was asleep much less been able to identify who it was.
Yes, I don't know either. And the person may not even have been asleep.
It's not a comfortable thread to read. The visit doesn't seem to have been made in a spirit of genuine open-minded inquiry.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Evangeline: As has been stated elsewhere, some of us seem to understand that the visit to the Sisters was a little different from going to a public worship service or event.
Yes, I have been thinking about this: how public was the event Susan was attending? On the Sisters' website, some events are listed as public. Was it one of those? Even so, some aspects of her visit, for example some of the conversations she had, were not in a public setting.
I'm sorry to keep hammering on this, but the fact that she was personally invited makes a distinction to me.
I get invited to Evangelical services sometimes. For those who have seen my posting on the Ship, it is no secret that I disagree with certain elements of Evangelical theology. And yes, there are some aspects of Evangelical worship that I may find a bit daft. But accepting a personal invitation to a service does influence my attitude.
I would be happy to have a discussion on the Ship about an Evangelical service that was publicly broadcast on the BBC. "This guy is waving his hands but he is yawning!" I would definitely not say such a thing about a church service I was personally invited to.
If I wanted the Ship's opinion on something I watched during such a service, I would be rather careful to phrase my question in general terms, anonymising the church I had been invited to.
Another thing (which has been said before on this thread): I think there is a difference between a middle-of-the-road Anglican church service, and a moment of worship in a religious order where a small number of people live closely together. Even if the latter is publicised as public, there is a much larger intimacy to it than to the former.
I appreciate that Susan may have been unfamiliar with this difference. OTOH, this distinction may be irrelevant to her. After all, they can't scientifically prove the existence of God, so why take their sensitivities into account?
[ 27. February 2016, 10:45: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I appreciate that Susan may have been unfamiliar with this difference. OTOH, this distinction may be irrelevant to her. After all, they can't scientifically prove the existence of God, so why take their sensitivities into account?
If she had no qualms about offending their sensibilities, I don't think she'd be worried about telling them exactly what she thought of them. Just FWIW.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
mr cheesy: If she had no qualms about offending their sensibilities, I don't think she'd be worried about telling them exactly what she thought of them. Just FWIW.
LOL, I sometimes have trouble parsing sentences that contain (or imply) triple negatives.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
LOL, I sometimes have trouble parsing sentences that contain (or imply) triple negatives.
OK - she is worried about replying to their request for a print out of her OP here. If she was unconcerned about their sensibilities, why would she be?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
mr cheesy: OK - she is worried about replying to their request for a print out of her OP here. If she was unconcerned about their sensibilities, why would she be?
Thanks for the clarification. Yes, I do believe that her worries are genuine here. I am still unsure of whether she gets the 'intimacy' aspect of this kind of worship; I don't think she replied to earlier questions about this on this thread.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
If I was a Sister of Bethany, or anyone else there on the day and was handed the OP as a sort of opener for conversation I'm afraid I would say nothing. The OP indicates that she has already made up her mind and expresses this very clearly on more than one occasion. There was no conversation to be had. I said it earlier too and I think it was seen as flippant when it wasn't meant to be at all: order, especially contemplatives, will listen more than they speak, in my experience. If you enter that experience long enough and have the patience for it and can face the rigour of it, there is something deeply transformative about being genuinely listened to. Most times the result of 'hearing yourself' are not always welcome.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
fletcher christian: The OP indicates that she has already made up her mind
I'm sure I'm not the only one dazzled by the irony of continuously arguing that the scientific approach is the only valid world view, and repeatedly approaching things with a made up mind.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
