Elisabeth Schieffer

“Who Would Have Thought That?”

I have worked in various areas of the Catholic Church for at least thirty years: in (hospital) pastoral care and in the congregation, in the direction of training for pastoral staff, and ultimately in student pastoral care. In recent years, I have worked in city pastoral care. Communication defines my profession as a lay pastor, and accompanying people as they deal with conflicts is one of my responsibilities. Even the church structures are sometimes a challenge when it comes to taking a position, speaking about what is unclear, and structuring communication on the various levels.

For a long time, conflicts cost me much energy and made me fearful; it was not unusual for me to simply respond by retreating. Or I “snapped” in the conflict and suddenly defended positions that were otherwise not all that important to me. Then I ultimately found myself in a dead-end street again: How did I actual wind up there? As a Christian, I increasingly asked myself about how I wanted to deal with the high standards of the Gospel regarding peace and reconciliation.

A woman friend spoke to me about a seminar with Marshall Rosenberg in Frankfurt: “This could also interest you.” It was just one weekend, after which I would know more about what this “Nonviolent Communication” was all about.

The first impression was actually strong, even though I couldn’t imagine at the time how I should learn this new way of speaking. But I took at least one step with me: paying attention to my judgments and differentiating them as much as possible from perception. This became my first task and the one that I have practiced the longest – to this day.

In the following years, I repeatedly lost sight of NVC but still got involved with it again: Basic training, the training to become a mediator on the basis of NVC, and IITs with Marshall Rosenberg and other trainers – especially the diversity with which each of these events opened access to it anew has helped me – and so NVC became increasingly “implanted” in my speaking and thinking and the way in which I deal with myself and others. The trust that diversity doesn’t lead to one-sided restrictions but can achieve a good equilibrium and that conflicts do not destroy relationships but can make them even deeper through more understanding for each other has given my life more serenity, calmness, and ease. What I didn’t even see at the beginning has now increasingly become the main content of my work: introducing other people to NVC and accompanying them on their further path – especially in the horizon of the Christian faith as one form of communication that opens up the paths for forgiveness and peace despite all of the differences.

But NVC has become important to me not only in view of these “noble” goals. I also experience it as a relief in everyday life, as shown by the following “success story”:

I live in a townhouse, which is quite precisely in the middle of a row of six houses. Every house has a main house in which the respective owners live. The attic of each house has a 1.5-room studio apartment, which is generally rented out.

Some years ago, a new owner pointed out that a cable television provider offers a collective contract for house rows with a joint basement that would result in a much cheaper annual rate for every house than an individual contract. Everyone was happy to accept this offer. They cancelled their individual contracts and have enjoyed the much lower rate per house since then.

With absolute reliability, the neighbor (Mr. C.) who made this suggestion passes around the invoice for the collective contract to all of the houses once every year, lists two connections (main house and studio apartment) for each house, and calculates the amount for all of the participants. Then every owner pays a portion of this amount for his / her house into a joint bank account.

So the neighbor also stood at the door this year. He handed me the copy of the contract and the list for the individual houses, then added: “It will be a bit more expensive for everyone this year because Mr. A.’s renter isn’t participating. He doesn’t want cable. I hope that other people won’t also drop out because it will be more expensive for all of us.”

I thanked him for the list; I didn’t understand the comment at that moment since I was just leaving the house. So I let the matter rest.

I had a long day away from home. In the evening, the neighbor from the right side (Mr. D.) rang the doorbell. He was visibly indignant as he said to me: “We are writing a letter to Mr. A. to tell him that this won’t work. Ms. B. has already agreed, and you will certainly also sign it.”

In response to my astonished question, it became clear that each of the owners would have to pay about 10 € more if just one connection per house was included in the collective contract. Up to now, each of the owners had taken responsibility for both amounts; how they paid them – whether the renter additionally paid the amount or whether it was calculated in the rent – was up to each owner. Some time ago, Mr. A. had just made a brief comment on the street to the effect that his new renter wasn’t participating. The neighbor who was in charge of the bill had divided the missing amount among the collective, which had become clear for everyone involved during the course of the day.

Some of the neighbors didn’t want to get involved; they didn’t want to provoke trouble due to such a small amount; others had become very indignant in the meantime. Above all, my neighbor to the right – who lived directly next to Mr. A. – associated this experience with previous ones in which he had experienced the other man as ruthless: “Things are always like that with him …” – and he told me a long story about his own suffering.

In the meantime, I had understood the issues and suggested that we speak with Mr. A. to be certain that he was aware of the consequences for everyone involved and expressly desired them.

The suggestion met with a decisive objection: That wouldn’t help at all; attempts at talking to each other had always failed up to now; Mr. and Ms. A. did whatever they wanted and were not considerate at all of other people.

I knew – and had also directly experienced some situations – that this assessment was also based on concrete experiences, but still felt my alarm at this fundamental condemnation.

I offered to speak with Mr. A. Should the conversation not lead to a solution that is acceptable for everyone, I would participate in a letter.

My neighbor gave me a look that was almost fearful: “Do you really want to do that? Do you want to do that to yourself?”

Two days later, as I rang the doorbell at Mr. A.’s house in the late morning, I had the feeling of walking into the lion’s cave. He was at home and responded to my question as to whether he had a few minutes with friendly astonishment.

I had already thought about how to describe the situation: “Mr. C. brought me the cable bill the day before yesterday. I see that one amount was included for your house and not two as before. This increases the amount for all of us. I hear that there is indignation about this in the neighborhood and would like to ask what has caused you to come up with this arrangement.”

His response was that he had heard nothing about the indignation up to now; he was surprised about it. In the further conversation, it became clear that Mr. A. was not (or no longer) aware of the arrangement that every owner is responsible for the two amounts and how he or she collects them. “But I can’t force my renter to pay if he doesn’t even want the conn