Skip to main content

Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt - FUD

I was first exposed to this concept during a job interview with Digital (rip) Corporation for a technical sales support role.

While I did not get the job, I have never forgotten the acronym FUD that was used:
FUD is the tactic of instilling fear, uncertainty, and doubt in the minds of potential customers about a competing product when your own product is not competitive.
This is very close to the quotation provided in the linked wiki article  and more importantly FUD is basically an "appeal to fear" fallacy.

The FUD strategy works by planting a seed of doubt in the mind of the listener, then nurturing that doubt with further insinuations.

It is remarkably similar to the method of conspiracy theorists.
Conspiracy theories are unsubstantiated, less plausible alternatives to the mainstream explanation of an event; they assume everything is intended, with malignity.Crucially, they are also epistemically self insulating in their construction and arguments. (PsyPAG)
The key word is 'unsubstantiated'.

The real problem with conspiracy theories occurs when a person believes so strongly in them, that when presented with proof that the belief is false, they will modify their perception  in order to retain the belief (see 'cognitive dissonance')  .

The persistent belief that Bishop Fellay is going to 'sellout' the SSPX / Tradition is a good example of cognitive dissonance.

In this case, ever since the communications with Rome started in 2000, there has been a fear that the SSPX would compromise. This came to a head in 2012 when, by all appearances, it seemed that the Pope was going to accept the SSPX 'as they are'.  The predictions of 'sell out' were screamed, especially by Bishop Williamson, Fr. Pfeiffer et al.  When the predicted compromise did not occur, en-masse the Resistors switched to a number of alternative perceptions of the reality. Such as either the compromise has occurred or it is still in process.

This is a perfect example of cognitive dissonance and it is scary how close to the behaviour of Bishop Williamson et al (including lay resistors) match the theoretical predictions.

I believe that for Bishop Williamson et al, there is another belief that is the foundation for their 'cognitive dissonance'.  While Bishop Williamson et al's discourses normally stay at a superficial level, a few times they have shone a little light on their underlying reasons.  The defense of Bishop Williamson's 'Various Churches' article by Fr. Rua is just one such occasion.
Where is the error in Bishop Fellay’s theology? It is the ecclesiological model from which he draws his conclusions. He considers the visible structure of the church to be the Conciliar Church. (Fr. Rua - Resistance to What Rebuttal)
Bishop Fellay believes that the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church is the one united under the Pope (currently Francis, but at the time Benedict). Furthermore, he sees the 'conciliar Church' as a label for a movement within the Church. This is evident from his  speeches / letters and is completely consistent with Catholic theology and dogma.

Bishop Williamson et al, due to the scandals etc, cannot accept this belief. To the extent that they see any link between the SSPX and what they perceive as the 'conciliar Church' as a schism from Tradition.

I will examine this thought in another article, because it touches on a number of areas key to the Faith.

So beware of FUD, because a person who operates from misguided fear, abandoning Catholic princpiples is:

  1. Susceptible to manipulation because their reaction is predictable (Sun Tzu comes to mind)
  2. In danger of significant errors in judgment as the engendered mistrust will narrow the perceptions of situations requiring decisions based on limited information.

P^3
Prayer
Penance
Patience

Reference: wiki FUD article



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is it sinful to attend the Novus Ordo (New Mass) - Is it Sinful to Not Attend the Novus Ordo on Sunday?

+ JMJ A non-SSPX Catholic is upset over the SSPX statements on not attending the Novus Ordo Missae. Ladies and gentlemen, what the SSPX, or at least its website editor, is advocating is a mortal sin against the Third Commandment.  Unless the priest deviates from the language of the Sacramentary, the consecration, and thus the rest of Mass is to be considered valid.  No one may elect not to attend Mass simply because abuses are occurring therein.  Might I suggest that such absenteeism is its own abuse?  The Third Commandment binds under mortal sin.  Father So-And-So from the SSPX has no authority whatsoever to excuse attendance at Mass, be that Mass ever so unpalatable. Source:Restore DC Catholicism Well, this is interesting. First why does the SSPX issue this statement? Because it is sinful to put your faith in danger by attending a protestant service.  It is likewise dangerous to put your faith in danger by attending a protestantized mass (ie the Novus Ordo Missae

Morning and Evening and other sundry Prayers

+ JMJ Along the theme of P^3 (Prayer, Penance, Patience), and for my own reference ... here is a collection of Morning and Evening prayers from the Ideal Daily Missal along with some additional prayers. In this crisis of the Church, I do not think it is possible to do too much prayer, penance and have patience. P^3

Regarding Post: Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer no longer ... now Bishop Joseph Pfeiffer (Can't see this being a problem...)

 + JMJ   I've been watching the popularity of the post about Fr. Pfeiffer's attempted episcopal consecration and its continued top listing on the 'popular posts' list at the bottom of posts.  After some thought, I decided that I don't want to be responsible for anyone joining Fr. Pfeiffer's 'group', however unlikely that would be at this time. So I have reverted the article to the draft state. If anyone wants it reinstated, I would ask that they comment on this post with a rationale for reinstatement. P^3

Fr. Burfitt on Fr. Pfeiffer's Attempted Consecration

 + JMJ   Amidst the shadows cast by the publication of Traditionis Custodes, I am working on a map of the 'resistance' splinters to put their reaction in contrast with that of the SSPX.  In the midst of this, I just came across Fr. Burfitt letter on the attempted consecration. Breaking it down (see below)  items 2 and 3 are key.  Just as the consecrating bishop is 'doubtful', even if he hadn't muffed the first attempt, Fr. Pfeiffer remain doubtful and therefore this impacts those men is attempts to 'ordain'. There were rumours that Fr. Pfeiffer was seeking episcopal consecration for years as he cast about for various bishops (also doubtful) to help him achieve this goal. I wonder how he convinced the 'doubtful' bishop to provide (twice) the doubtful consecration. What a mess!  This creates a danger to the souls of his followers and wonder where it will end. Will he go full sede and have himself 'elected' pontiff as others have done before him

The Vatican and SSPX – An Organizational Culture Perspective

Introduction The recent and continuing interactions between the Vatican and the SSPX have been a great opportunity for prayer and reflection.  The basis for the disagreement is theological and not liturgical. As noted by Dr. Lamont (2012), the SSPX theological position on the four key controversial aspects of the Second Vatican Council are base on prior theological work that resulted from relevant magisterial pronouncements.  So it is difficult to understand the apparent rejection of the theological position of the SSPX.