Dear Editor:

The PUP-force's [The Theological Task Force on the Peace, Unity and Purity of the Church] consideration of a consensus-model appears to be an attempt to apply win/win thinking at the heart of a lose/lose debate, and it certainly aims to preserve the feelings of everyone involved, but it will only prolong the very conflicts the PUP-force was called to address. Bad idea.

The consensus model seems to work best in organizations with low conflict levels – the less conflict, the better it works. As such, it is madness to talk about a consensus model in an organization crippled with conflict.

The chief problem with the "consensus" model is that it functionally disdains all conviction not held in common by all. If consensus per se becomes a cardinal virtue, then personal conviction is recast as an obstacle to be removed or overcome. Rather than honoring the conscience (Spirit-driven mechanism that it is) and its capacity to add new strength to both will and reason, a consensus model demands that those of dissenting convictions either compromise or altogether drop items of conscience in service to the collective group-think.