In Taming the Wolf I take up the important topic of the hidden influence—the outside party that causes two other parties to clash.
This is most often found when a destructive third party gossips to Party A about Party B—then gossips to Party B about Party A. The destructive hidden influence plants the seeds of conflict, and swears both parties to secrecy so the source of the hostility becomes difficult to uncover.
Distrust and dislike escalate; soon Party A and Party B are at one another’s throats. The destructive third party imagines he benefits from the turmoil; typically he is insecure or frightened and believes he must keep other people off balance to escape scrutiny.
These conflicts are difficult to resolve, as parties are unable to locate the precise cause of the conflict: lies, deception, and misdirection make it difficult to get to the bottom of the dispute. In Taming I wrote:
Francis understood that a fraternity, a marriage, a group, an organization, even a nation, cannot survive while the venom of the destructive third party’s bite courses through its veins.”
A variation on this dynamic is the hidden influence that works behind the scenes to create discord though they may not have access to both parties.
As a mediator this is often the first factor I assess: Has anyone been acting as a hidden influence or destructive third party? Who might have motive to foment conflict? Who has something to gain? Who seeks to achieve their goals covertly?
It is likely this situation exists within the Catholic Church today. A schism between liberal members of the faith and more traditional or conservative members has become increasingly public.
At first glance, one might assume the presence of irreconcilable differences in philosophy and theology; one might assume two groups are reading the same Catechism but seeing very different movies in their heads. However, a quick analysis suggests we have a hidden influence at work—a hidden influence that is being uncovered.
The situation has been chronicled in the Catholic blogosphere, so I will not rehash the details. (See the links below for underlying story.) In brief, it turns out that George Soros, a Jewish atheist who promotes an “open society” based on tenets that are at odds with Catholic teaching has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to Catholic organizations.
It would be a mistake to leap into a discussion of the merits of political ideologies, for example, left versus right. This would cause us to miss the important question a mediator would take up at once: Why does an atheist, with a Jewish background, who does not support Catholic teachings, fund a Catholic organization? The Soros funding appears illogical and waves a red flag. One cannot help but think “something odd is going on here.”
A mediator would immediately pull strings to discover why events that depart so drastically from logic have taken place; a mediator gathers the disputing parties and asks them to explain what exactly is going on. A mediator is persistent in wanting to know how parties reconcile facts that appear contradictory. He or she would suspect the presence of a destructive hidden influence who has a stake in causing conflict. It would be time to investigate whether or not a “divide and conquer” strategy was in play.
A body responsible for unity and harmony within the group—for example the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops—might investigate in an effort to address the increasing rancor and division among the faithful. The resulting investigation would not be a partisan witch-hunt but rather would explore “things that did not make sense.”
While they might discover an explanation for that which appeared illogical, they also might discover a fox had entered the henhouse based on his promise to guard the chickens. Knowing the nature of the fox, the investigators might recognize this was an unwise decision.
A mediator also might decide facts warrant an investigation to determine if there has been a history of hidden influences. Often a negative influence hides in plain sight, as a result of having become “part of the landscape.” In this particular case, the revelation that Saul Alinsky played a significant role in Catholic charities would be an illogical fact that would prompt investigation.
Alinsky was not Catholic, and did not share a respect for the teachings of the Church. An even more significant red flag, however, was his praising acknowledgment of Lucifer:
Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins—or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom—Lucifer.”
— Saul Alinsky from Rules for Radicals
In an attempt to resolve conflict, a mediator would “pull strings” upon discovering the Catholic Church funded many of Alinsky’s early activities. When the mediator discovers that individuals and groups working with Catholic charities continue to train in Alinsky methods to this day, he would see ample reason to closely assess the situation.
He might ask obvious questions: Why would Catholics follow a man who praises Lucifer? Why would Catholics train as radicals using the works of a man who praises Lucifer as a radical? What could be going on? Do Catholics secretly wish to emulate Lucifer? How much sense would that make? It appears illogical.
If Lucifer is sneaked into the Church through a back door should it not raise concern that a hidden influence who intends to sow discord is at work among the faithful?
The illogical nature of these events should lead a responsible body, such as the USCCB, to investigate whether or not they face a hidden influence stirring up conflict among the faithful. Ironically, Alinsky, in Rules for Radicals, advocates that radicals bring about division and dissension in their establishment target. He promotes the destructive work of a hidden influence—an influence we know to be a primary factor behind conflict. Thus, there is sufficient reason to investigate with considerable diligence.
Does this mean Catholics cannot hold varying opinions on how to best carry out the social teachings of the Church? Of course not. This analysis is not meant to mean everyone must walk lockstep as they carry out the gospel mission. What it suggests is that men of faith should be able to embrace differences; such differences do not inherently lead to conflict. When one finds increasing discord, hostility, and rancor, when it seems conflict will not resolve—then one should investigate and look for the hidden influence, the destructive party from outside that intends to create division.
Once you remove the destructive outside influence and set policy that bars the door to such attack in the future, it may be necessary to determine if the outside influence has become internalized. In mediation, for example, we might ask a party to recount the gossip that hardened their heart. As they recall past events they see how their views have been shaped by the destructive influence; views they thought were their own turn out to be the work of the hidden influence.
In this instance, in which outside influences have brought disharmony to the Church, there are many stories that must be told, many hearts that must be softened. Nonetheless, as our mentor Francis has demonstrated, the wolf can be tamed.
Reference Articles
- George Soros Funds Catholic Left
- SEIU/Catholic United front for George Soros on Obama Care Vote
- Atheist Soros Funds Catholic Groups
- Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good: A Religious and Political Trojan Horse Organization
- Soros money seems to be “Paying Off” Catholics may compromise on abortion / Health Care in Senate
- Catholic Left Funded by George Soros says Bill Donohue
- The Big Con
An excellent article, sir. I tend to think that some have found themselves so caught up in the ecumenical movement that they have found themselves in the position of endorsing even movements that honor Lucifer. Surely ecumenism must have its limits.
Many blessings.
Interesting thought. I would not have attributed the phenomenon to “ecumenism.”
Typically, in true ecumenism one does not find attempts to undermine and subvert as much as attempts at understanding and mutual respect.
In actual ecumenism, one is happy that the other finds peace or salvation or understanding in what they are doing. In Nostro Aetate, from Vatican II, there is a sense not of undermining others, but rather recognizing the spark of the divine that lives within. In a sense, it is a celebration that recognizes God works in ways that are not limited by our narrow experience. There is a sense of awe involved.
The destructive hidden influence has none of that quality. For example, Alinsky, from my point of view, is not about respect. He clearly states his agenda is causing dissension, as a prelude to revolution. Inherent in his approach is a need to destroy, to bring about dissension.
The hidden influence or destructive third party rarely has a constructive end in mind, but rather must disrupt to make sure others do not become too powerful or too happy. They must keep attention off themselves, as they fear scrutiny will uncover that which others will reject or destroy. There is a black hole of insecurity at the center of their universe.
In Taming I write about this fear-driven response, which is typically a response to an imagined, but not real, threat. From this analysis flows various approaches to handling the situation.
Really cool..!! Great article..!!