That’s exactly what Elizabeth Johnson did, which you would know if you had bothered to read her response to the bishops.
Now you’re just making stuff up, and acting abusive.
If you had taken the time to think before you wrote, you wouldn’t have said this.
Finally you make an intelligible statement. READ HER RESPONSE!
I am at a loss for this type of reaction. So to avoid more of it, let me be clear.
I have read her response. Several times in fact. So no I am not making anything up.
I’ll cut you a break on calling me abusive. But objectively I was not doing so;
coming off as puts this squarely in the realm of interpretation. Over-sensitive (say), I am willing to entertain. But let’s chill on that in any event, OK?
The Sister is still punting. The ball is in her court,
even if the Bishops did misinterpret her. Her solution to this is to converse with them until they get the proper clarification. While strictly speaking that might yield a statement to the fact that OK, her book is objectively acceptable for its intended use, it completely avoids the fact that the book still presents a tangible danger of the reader being misled. It is at best highly imprudent to clarify the issues only to the Bishops, because that still leaves issues with future readers.
Think about this scenario. What if a dialog like she wants does take place, and the Bishops see where she is coming from…what will then likely happen? Almost surely the response will be: OK we see these points now, so now make those same clarifications in your book. While she may not be objectively wrong to want to go only that route, it still doesn’t look good. Even just a public statement that she will cooperate in
revising the text to be acceptable. Her statement merely expresses desire to converse with the folks who formally criticized her work. (I will consider the very remote possibility that the glittering generalities of her closing remarks in the statement include an implicit promise to revise her work to address the issues or ambiguities. But if so the entire vague, hand-waving tone supports the hypothesis that she is a poor writer - and thus even more so that her book would be very well served to be significantly revised).
When my boss tells me “I am not sure what you’re saying, but this may give people the wrong impression”, naturally my immediate response is to clarify to him. But the main response is always to revise the content to avoid others’ similar confusion, to make it clearer up front what the message is. So even if I was right, it would behoove me to say things in a different way. I do not yet see any of that same sentiment from the Sister that appears genuine.
A more egregious example of the same issue is with Roxanne Martino at Notre Dame. I actually was willing to give her the benefit of the doubt about keeping track of where her charitable spending ends up. But she AFAIK has not made any post hoc repudiation of her benefactee or admitted her support was a grave mistake, even if only a grave oversight. Rather it (only) was the undue attention and controversy. The best we can say of Martino now is that she might be simply extraordinarily prideful and stubborn. I am not yet willing to sell you a bridge if you believe that, but I would a toll booth.
I give Johnson plenty benefit of the doubt for now. But so long as we think it was all a simple misunderstanding, even my peabrain can see the
huge merit in fessing up to having to bring the text into compliance with the Bishops’ concerns. And Johnson clearly has more than a peabrain, so her obtuseness in this matter is all the more puzzling.
I’ll try a slightly different segue here. You write as if you are quite familiar with her, certainly with her work but perhaps with her personally. If you are, would you be willing to share anything about her personality? Something which may make her reaction seem less problematic? I am being flippant or anything, I would genuinely like to know more about her personally if you actually knew her. You certainly don’t have to reveal anything which would endanger your own privacy, either.
p) two meanings of confusing here. One means intelligible, which is what you claim, and not having read the book I will definitely take your word for it that is intelligible and thus not confusing. The other meaning is enabling mistakes, and this is the meaning intended.