It's not working: let's do more of the same...

I was interested to read this article on anti-bullying programmes at MercatorNet.  I don't know enough about the background and the research to come to an informed view, but the thesis resonated with me.  As did Izzy Kalman's interesting analysis… done some years ago, about why anti-bullying programmes might not have the desired results.

To take the second point first, Kalman suggests that actions have consequences; and frequently they have unintended consequences, which undermine the outcomes intended by those taking the actions.  This is classic open systems stuff, about which I have blogged more than once (follow the label).

But the Mercator.net article caught my attention because of the phenomenon of research demonstrating that something isn't working - and the researchers concluding that we should therefore do more of it, to get the intended result.

That isn't necessarily an incorrect conclusion, but it is certainly open to question. Consider a drug such as aspirin: if one tablet doesn't stop a headache, a second tablet may be advisable; but not another twenty.  We really need to understand a little more about why it is not working to discover whether an increased dosage is the right solution.

But this finding and conclusion is of course identical with those relating to sex education for children.  And I suspect there is something else going on here.  

I am not, for a moment, impugning the academic integrity of the researchers; but I do think that Lewis' observation, which I have quoted before, comes into play:

It is therefore useless to appeal to experience before we have settled, as well as we can, the philosophical question.

So it seems to me that the researchers, understandably enough, start with a philosophical assumption in favour of education.

However, when interrogated, that assumption reveals its flaws. For the assumption at root is that bad behaviour (in this case bullying; in the other, sexual irresponsibility) is caused by ignorance. 

However, we know that ignorance is only one of the causes of sin. Therefore to seek to address all sinful behaviour by education alone is a flawed strategy.

I would go further, and say that in some arenas (certainly sexuality, and quite possibly bullying) education - in the form that is meant here, at any rate, is more likely to exacerbate the problem than to solve it. 

What is really needed on the supernatural level is grace; and on the natural level, character, which is formed by the practice of the virtues. Of course education has a role there too, but in a rather different sense.

More on American Nuns’ Leadership

I have been wading through the LCWR  (Leadership Conference of Women Religious) booklet: An Invitation to Systems Thinking about which I have already blogged here.  Perhaps the saddest and most telling indictment is this:

10. What experience, skills, relationships, and resources do we bring to this effort?

As a leadership team we bring a variety of life experience, academic backgrounds, and enneagram and Meyers-Briggs configurations. Our strongest resource is the conviction that we do not have to change the congregation. We have first to change ourselves and stay in relationship with our members. Changes in the congregational system and consequently in other systems will eventually follow.

First, note what they do not say that they bring, as a leadership team, to this conflict: 

• The Theological Virtues: Faith, Hope, Charity; 
• The Cardinal Virtues: Justice, Fortitude, Prudence, Temperance; 
• The Gospel or the Apostolic Tradition and Teaching of the Church; 
• The Gifts of the Holy Spirit: wisdom, understanding, counsel, fortitude, knowledge, piety, the fear of the Lord; 
• The Fruits of the Holy Spirit: charity, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, generosity, gentleness, faithfulness, modesty, self-control, chastity.

Second, note what they do say that they bring - A variety of:

• Life experiences
• Academic backgrounds
• Enneagram configurations
• Meyers-Briggs (sic) configurations

and their strongest resource: 

• the conviction that we do not have to change the congregation.

No wonder they are morally and spiritually in such a wilderness.

Let’s consider briefly each of their sacred cows - or golden calves.

Life experiences teach only when interpreted.  To teach in a Catholic sense, they need to be interpreted through a Catholic hermeneutic, or (as Open Systems theory would have it) a Catholic Mental Model.

The same is true of academic backgrounds, and it would seem, at least from the evidence of this document, that a rather different hermeneutic has been brought to bear.

The Enneagram I see as highly problematic, of dubious origins and a weird thing for Christians, let alone Catholics, to pay such heed to.  But I know many love it.

The Myers Briggs model is more useful, perhaps, but it is a tool, not an end.  Its genesis in Jungian psychology is problematic (for me at least) but it does raise some interesting questions that are worth discussing.

None of these (with the possible exception of the Enneagram) is intrinsically inimical to the Catholic Faith, but to elevate them in your thinking to a place above the virtues and the teaching of Christ and His Church is somewhat problematic,particularly for the leaders of Catholic Nuns.

How did they get there?  I can’t help wondering if this is part of the legacy of the work of Carl Rogers who wreaked such havoc in the Catholic Nuns’ Congregations in the US from the early 1960s on. It all has the same flavour: placing process above outcome, and relativity and ‘understanding’ above the search for truth (indeed denying that truth exists, let alone that it can be found.)

That is so well expressed in 'the conviction that we do not have to change the congregation.'  Given they are leaders of a congregation in which some nuns clearly detest the Mass (see previous post) that is an extraordinary abdication of responsibility.

(Incidentally, I’ve blogged about Carl Rogers passim - there’s a search button at the bottom of the sidebar if you are interested...)

So one can see that it is not surprising that the Holy See is having a good long look at the Nuns and their leadership in the US. In fact, if that were not happening, one could say it was a dereliction of duty.

Am I in deep trouble?...

I had a look at the Holy See's comments on the reasons for the crack down on the dissident American nuns (LCWR).

I was somewhat perturbed to see that particular mention was made of their booklet: An Invitation to Systems Thinking. This was not to be used any more, until it had been reviewed...

As the avid reader of this blog will be only too aware, I have referred positively to Systems Thinking on more than one occasion (here, here, and here for example).  Am I a fellow traveller with the LCWR?  Will the Holy See have to proscribe my blog?

So I decided to have a look at An Invitation to Systems Thinking.  Whilst poorly written in parts, the overview of Systems Thinking it presents is consonant with my understanding of it.  I was starting to get worried. Have I really fallen so deeply into error?

Then I started to read the Case Studies, and was relieved.  Here, I thought, was sufficient reason to suspend the use of the booklet.  It was not the theory, but the way it was being applied that was so questionable.

To give you a flavour, here is an extract from the first case study, discussing the different mental models of those on either side of a dispute about whether a Mass is a suitable way of celebrating their Founder's anniversary (imagine nuns even having that dispute!):

Not only the assumptions and needs, but also the values inherent in both of these mental models influence how we do theology and how we express spirituality. Generally speaking ”the Western mind” values orderliness, predictability, efficiency, continuity, productivity and a clear chain of authority. Theology stemming from this system influenced many of us during our most formative years. Grounded in this theology sisters believe that the celebration of Eucharist is the summit of worship and at the core of what holds us together as a group.
Generally speaking the “Organic” mental model values chaos, connectedness, process, inclusivity, relationship, and a non-linear expression of authority. Process, liberationist and feminist theologies develop in this kind of a milieu. Some sisters, schooled in these theologies and situated within this mental model, believe that the celebration of Eucharist is so bound up with a church structure caught in negative aspects of the Western mind they can no longer participate with a sense of integrity. 

What is even more disturbing is that the approach, as practiced here, outlaws making any judgement on either model.

In responding we intentionally created our own ‘disturbance.’ We wrote and spoke with many of those who expressed concerns. In our response we
1)  resisted the temptation to ‘fix’ the situation;
2)  provided information by sharing our understanding of what the planners had in mind;
3)  attempted to clarify both our own and the congregation’s identity at this time, by stating our belief that our current situation of differing understandings about the Eucharist and differing ways of celebrating Eucharist not only create uncertainty and frustration, but also offer new opportunities for the Spirit to lead us in life giving patterns of prayer;
4)  attempted to strengthen relationships by thanking the writers and at the same time voicing our support for allowing the planning committee to do its work as it saw fit;                              5)  tried to honor all the voices by receiving without judgment each one’s uncertainty and frustration around the Eucharist question facing the Congregation; and by affirming the desire in each of us to have the best possible celebration of our founder.

6)  invited a broader discussion of the Planning Committee’s proposal at our open representative
Governing Board meeting a month later where the tensions around the issue were aired, and the
authority of the Planning Committee was respected.

I am relieved to say, I find myself a very long way away from the LCWR after all... 

Sad Stories

I have a friend who is ill.  It is a debilitating and degenerative illness: she is getting worse, and it makes her increasingly irritable.  She is, of course, aware of this.  Her husband, a professional man with a responsible job, has left her for another woman.  She is alone, now, and getting increasingly ill.

I have another friend.  She has four children.  Her husband, another professional man with a responsible job, has left her too.  She is alone, now, struggling to cope with the children, and all that entails.

Both of their husbands, of course, had promised to stay with them for better or for worse; to give up all other women for them, and so on.

Why do I mention this?

Because I believe that in both of those cases (and doubtless in many thousands of others), the husband would not have left if divorce and re-marriage were not acceptable in modern society.

This is the problem when hard cases are allowed to drive the law in a permissive direction: innocent people suffer - and it is almost impossible to turn the clock back.  The fantasy that such changes only affect those who would otherwise be stuck in a bad marriage is quite false.  Every marriage is at least potentially weakened by such laws.

And of course, not only the abandoned women (or abandoned men), but also the children, are the victims - and ultimately we all are.

That is one reason why I believe any move to mask the dreadfulness of divorce and 're-marriage' in the Catholic Church would actually be uncharitable: it might ease the pain for many, but would have the unintended consequence of increasing it for many more, for generations to come.

Corrupting the majority for the sake of the minority...

James Preece has posted a link to Patricia Wocial's TV appearance about sex education in school. Patricia is very sensible, and many of the comments very supportive.

But I think it instructive to look at those with opposed views. For example:

It's all well and good for Patricia to be saying that loving parents should teach their lovely children about lovely sex. But what about kids without parents? What about kids who have parents who are unwilling to talk about the subject, or are not exactly 'experts', to put it nicely.

This is the argument that is repeatedly used, and has some face-validity. However to design progammes for everyone based on the minority is potentially very problematic. In fact it seems to me to be a main driver of our current problems with teenage promiscuity (leading to STDs, abortions and other tragedies) and marital breakdown.

The argument goes that in a few cases something terrible happens (eg a girl gets pregnant because she didn't know that's how babies are made); therefore we must minimise that risk by teaching EVERYONE all there is to know about how babies are made.

Or some marriages really do break down irretrievably. Therefore we must avoid moralising or stigmatising, and make it as easy and acceptable as possible for people to divorce.

In both cases, the small minority argument drives a policy that exacerbates the problem - so we now have a huge number of promiscuous teenagers (as opposed to the very small numbers before all this 'enlightened' practice was introduced) and catastrophic rates of marriage and relationship breakdown.

STI's relentless march - and the inevitable jerking knees...

The BBC reports (both in the Today programme this morning and on its www site here) that STIs continue to rise, particularly among the young.

The usual knee-jerk responses were also available:

Dr Colm O'Mahony, a consultant physician in sexual health, told BBC Radio 5 live, that the safe sex message was still not getting through to young people.

"In general, most STIs occur in young people because they lack the knowledge and self-esteem to actually avoid getting sexually transmitted infections - and that's what we've been shouting about for years," he said.

"We really need proper sex and relationship education in schools, and it needs to be a statutory obligation or this relentless increase will just continue unabated."

Perhaps the most worrying thing, apart from the moral bankruptcy and sheer idiocy of reflected in the comments above ('the fire is still raging, no matter how much petrol we pour on it. We must pour some more!') is the following:

The HPA says the bacteria which cause gonorrhoea are becoming more resistant to the most commonly used antibiotics.
Professor Cathy Ison, from the agency's Centre for Infections, said: "We could see gonorrhoea becoming a very difficult infection to treat within the next five years.

So the inevitable is happening (see my previous posts tagged 'open systems') and the diseases are now becoming resistant to antibiotics.

Quick - pass the petrol!

The Great Condom Con Part Three: Open systems theory and unintended consequences

I have had occasion before to write about open systems theory. But it is less well understood than it needs to be. The basic premise is that in an open system (any natural or social system, for example) actions lead to (often unforeseen) reactions, which may modify, negate, or accelerate the impact of the original action.

One fascinating example of this is the wearing of bike helmets. It seems that drivers respond differently to cyclists with or without helmets, giving those without helmets a wider berth. Thus, paradoxically, wearing a helmet may not actually make you safer: you may be more likely to be knocked off (though it is also likely that you will come to less harm if you are wearing a helmet when knocked off).

The promotion of condoms and ‘safer sex’ (note the change from the original ‘safe sex’...) follows the same pattern. In order to reach those they want to reach, the health and education people insist that we are non-judgemental. And as the policy doesn’t have the impact they hoped for, they insist we get more and more explicit, and push it at younger and younger kids.


The result is to take out any positive pressures (eg social disapproval, stigma etc) that may incline children (because that’s what many of them are) to restrain their urges; and vastly to increase curiosity and acceptability around sexual experimentation and promiscuity.

There are other unintended consequences, too: we trust the health professionals less, and a whole industry grows up around ‘sexual health services’ which may not be in society’s best interests: and that’s the subject of my next post in this series (cue The Archers theme tune...)

Just because they won't listen...

... is no reason to stay silent.

The Advertising Standards Agency is conducting a consultation on their decision (oh, sorry, it's just a proposal at the moment, I'm sure no decision has been taken prior to the consultation... of course I am...) to allow the promotion of abortions via television advertising, and the further promotion of the condom culture.

My Heart Was Restless tells you all you need to know about the proposals, and in particular how to respond.

These people don't seem to understand Open Systems Theory, a well-known way of analysing how actions may have results contrary to their intentions.

A classic example is using antibiotics to treat diseases. In the short term, it works (which is why we do it) but in the longer term we risk creating diseases which are resistant to antibiotics.

Likewise, the welfare system: in the short-term it prevents immediate, acute poverty, but in the long term it creates a culture of chronic poverty, handed on from generation to generation.

And so the condom: on each individual occasion of condom use, it may reduce (but certainly not eliminate) the risk of HIV. However, the promotion of condoms creates a culture in which young people (in particular) come to believe that recreational sex is normative and socially approved behaviour. This leads, (and has clearly and demonstrably led) to vast increases in early promiscuous sexual activity, leading to far higher rates of teenage pregnancy and STIs.

Likewise, the provision of 'sexual health services' free of any stigma (non-judgemental etc), intended (at best) to reach that small minority of young people who are promiscuous in every generation, has de-stigmatised and normalised what used to be rare and socially disapproved behaviour, contributing to the same problem.

And yet the establishment, in blind oblivion, and continuing to proclaim their rhetoric of 'evidence-based practice' ignore both the evidence (huge increases in STIs, ever-growing teenage pregnancy rates etc) and the sound theoretical explanations for that evidence, and instead say: the policy's not working: we must do more of the same...

So, in a triumph of hope over experience, I exhort you to take part in this consultation, and tell them why their thinking is so fatally flawed.