Dialogue….or DISSENT?

[Philip_P]

How’s that for a splashy, menacingly ominous thread heading?

On a more serious note, though, the role of dialogue within the Church seems an issue worth discussing. My heading was mostly tongue in cheek, but with a grain of truth to it – some people really do seem to believe that dialogue and dissent are one and the same, and that neither has a legitimate place.

The absolutists (yes, my bias is showing) argue that since the Truth is unchanging, no dialog is necessary. One is either with us or against us, and that’s that. Yet clearly the application of truth can change (as evidenced by the changes in liturgy over the centuries), and our understanding of it can change (as evidenced by the development of doctrine). Truth may be immutable, but human beings are not.

Vatican II and the social and political revolutions of the last half century have dramatically changed our world, and it’s not surprising to find many of the issues related to these changes remain topics of fierce dispute. Some criticize the Church for being too willing to dialogue. Given that the number of Catholics, including in the US, has steadily grown, though, it’s hard to say it’s been all bad. US Catholics make up around a quarter of the population, virtually the same percentage they made up 25 years ago. We’ve also become far more prominent in public life, with significant and growing influence across the political spectrum. And just look at the overwhelming response to JPII’s passing.

So, obviously I’m firmly on the side of those who believe in dialogue. Still, there are important question. Is dialogue necessary? Is it possible? How can we safeguard the intellectual freedom necessary for constructive dialogue while keeping ourselves grounded in truth to keeping us from drifting into irrelevant relativism? Thoughts?

 

[fix]

**For pope, dialogue does not mean toning down doctrinal teachings

** ROME (CNS) – Soon after his election in April, Pope Benedict XVI said promoting unity in the church and dialogue with the world were high priorities of his papal ministry.

In early May, the pope made it clear that those goals do not mean toning down the church’s doctrinal teachings.

The occasion was the new pope’s installation as the bishop of Rome May 7 at the Basilica of St. John Lateran. The Mass was packed with Romans who turned out to welcome the German-born pontiff as one of their own.

Pope Benedict decided to speak at length about the meaning of the “cathedra” or chair that he now occupies as bishop of Rome, the symbol of his episcopal power and responsibility.

In a special way, he said, it is a symbol of “the authority to teach” that has been handed down by Christ to St. Peter and his other disciples.

This ministry includes that of authentically interpreting Scripture, which surpasses the interpretations and analyses of scholars, he said.

“Where Holy Scripture is disjoined from the living voice of the church, it falls prey to the disputes of experts,” he said. While scholarly study is important, he said, “science alone cannot furnish us with a definitive and binding interpretation.”

“For this is needed a greater mandate, one that cannot stem from mere human abilities. For this is needed the voice of the living church,” he said.

Pope Benedict acknowledged that the church’s teaching ministry is not always popular.

“This authority to teach frightens many people inside and outside the church. They ask themselves whether this doesn’t threaten the freedom of conscience, or whether it is not a presumption that goes against freedom of thought,” he said.

“It is not so,” he said. He added that the church’s authority to teach should not be seen as an imposition on others but as an act of service to the church and obedience to the faith.

In that sense, he said, the pope is not “an absolute sovereign” who proclaims his own ideas, but one who must strongly defend the word of God from “all attempts of adaptation or watering down.”

The pope’s words echoed many of his statements made during his 24-year tenure as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but he took care to emphasize that he was speaking not as a doctrinal expert but as the universal shepherd.

He noted that his predecessor, Pope John Paul II, held the same strong views about the need to defend church teaching, especially on human life issues. That includes the “inviolability of human life from conception to natural death,” he said.

“The freedom to kill is not true freedom, but rather a tyranny that reduces the human being to slavery,” he said.

The fact that Pope Benedict used his first major appearance in Rome to underline church teachings on life issues like abortion and euthanasia was quickly noticed by the Italian media. Some observers felt that this sermon may have been designed to set the tone of his papacy.

The pope seemed to suggest it could not be otherwise – that it was not a question of papal policies or personalities but of his fundamental duty to be a “guide in the profession of the faith.”

He said that when it comes to big decisions any pope feels tied to the “binding interpretations that have grown up along the pilgrim path of the church.”

*** The pope, he said, bears the huge responsibility of defending the purity of the word of God and making sure it is “not torn to pieces by continuous changes in fashion.”***

In early appearances after his election, Pope Benedict described himself as a humble servant. With his latest remarks, he made it clear that this form of service also means wielding the church’s teaching authority against “erroneous interpretations of freedom.”

END

 

[fix]

***The Limitations on Dialog and Toleration

***It is difficult to imagine Jesus dialoguing with the merchants whom He drove out of the Temple with a whip. Just as there did not seem to be an exceptional amount of dialog with the soldiers who beat and whipped Him, or with Caiaphas and Annas. There are times, I think, when our Lord’s example teaches us in our present ecclesiastical circumstances that dialog and toleration have limits.

catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=1016

 

[Lisa_N]

I have no problem with dialogue IF it has a basis other than the self centered desires of a particular group. For example, if homosexuals want dialogue regarding the nature of their condition and why the Church’s approach is incorrect, then they need to provide some evidence. I don’t think they’ll be able to do that but it would make a lot more sense than their basic theme “we want it because we want it.” Similarly teaching on abortion, ABC, women priests etc. If you look at the arguments they are some variation on the theme of a child wanting Santa to bring him the latest toy.

Why they think that their OPINIONS are compelling is beyond me. My opinion is that I deserve a Mercedes Benz, my friends all drive Porsches…IOW who CARES? If you have no scriptural, traditional, or any basis whatsoever for requesting a change, why all the nattering? Either find a basis for your demand, change or leave.

Lisa N

 

[BobCatholic]

For liberals, “dialogue” means “resistance is futile, you will change your mind to agree with us. You have no choice. We will talk until you agree with us. We have no intention of being faithful, we will dissent and you will join us.”

 

[space_ghost]

BobCatholic:

For liberals, “dialogue” means “resistance is futile, you will change your mind to agree with us. You have no choice. We will talk until you agree with us. We have no intention of being faithful, we will dissent and you will join us.”

for conservative finatics “dialogue” means it’s my way or the highway, you will agree with me or your going to hell, my interpretation is the only interpretation, i know more than Rome, if you have a problem with what i think we will duke it out or nuke it out, regardless of your beliefs, just remember, if you don’t think like me your doomed…

 

[fix]

space ghost:

for conservative finatics “dialogue” means it’s my way or the highway, you will agree with me or your going to hell, my interpretation is the only interpretation, i know more than Rome, if you have a problem with what i think we will duke it out or nuke it out, regardless of your beliefs, just remember, if you don’t think like me your doomed…

Actually, orthodox Catholics bind themselves to the barque of Peter. Liberals speak of dialogue as if there are multiple truths and and that truth changes with time.

 

[ElizabethAnne]

First, I would say that there are certain issues the Catholic Church addresses that can never change. The Church will never accept abortion and does not have the power to ordain women priests. Of course, there may be other issues that Catholics can discuss like how to best serve the poor.

Second, I would argue that diologue is absolutely necessary for understanding. Even when the topic is an issue that the Catholic Church has spoken difinitively on, the Church and her members must dialogue with others and give them the opportunity to understand the truth. Without the conversations I had with many faithful Catholics, I would never have reached the understanding I have today.

God bless.

 

[fix]

Dialoguing to grow in faith is great. What people are arguing against is dissent using so-called dialogue as cover.

One example would be “gay” groups within the church who constantly agitate for “change” and call for a dialogue. Now, these folks can read the same documents and books everyone else can read. The arguments are all there. They can be explained time and again, but the real desire is not to grow in appreciation of the Truth, but to demand that the Church accept homosexual sex as virtuous.

There are other examples as well.

 

[Richardols]

fix:

Actually, orthodox Catholics bind themselves to the barque of Peter. Liberals speak of dialogue as if there are multiple truths and and that truth changes with time.

Not liberals, but dissenters may think that there are multiple truths. One can be a liberal and be as religiously orthodox as any conservative.

 

[Richardols]

space ghost:

for conservative finatics “dialogue” means it’s my way or the highway, you will agree with me or your going to hell, my interpretation is the only interpretation, i know more than Rome, if you have a problem with what i think we will duke it out or nuke it out, regardless of your beliefs, just remember, if you don’t think like me your doomed…

This is not universally true, but IMO, all too often true about many “traditionalists.” Self-righteousness judgmentalism is part of their approach.

 

[fix]

Richardols:

Not liberals, but dissenters may think that there are multiple truths. One can be a liberal and be as religiously orthodox as any conservative.

The poster used the word conservative. I was illustrating a point.

 

[Philip_P]

Clearly there are limits to dialogue, a point where it really is flat out dissent and has no further aim than dissent for its own sake. On the other side,there are also clearly cases where people pass beyond orthodoxy to tyranny or blindness, thus stifling the Church’s growth, development, and ultimately mission. So how do we tell when we’ve gone too far in either direction?

Let’s look at women’s ordination, for instance. It is highly unlikely that we will see women ordained. Insisting that women OUGHT to be ordained, as an end in itself, is not going to lead to any especially constructive conversations. However, the issue of women’s ordination DOES raise valid criticisms of the Church. By completely shutting down all dialogue here, we deprive ourselves of the opportunity to acknowledge and address legitimate criticisms.

For instance, there has been increased attention to developing a theology more relevant to daily life. I have in mind here the theology of the body, for instance, which does not grudgingly accept, but instead celebrates, marital love. At the same time, the importance of the laity has dramatically increased, as laity takes on more responsibility and leadership role. In the face of a growing Church with shrinking clergy, this will only continue.

None of this is an argument for women’s ordination. However, women’s ordination touches on this, as women are always de-facto laity, thus the question of women’s ordination is AS MUCH a question of the role of the laity as it is about gender. Shutting down dialogue here often threatens to not only cut off the far left pushing for full ordination, but also can stifle needed discussion on the legitimate question of the role of the laity. How do we keep the necessary dialog open here without falling into the trap of diffusing our identity?

 

[space_ghost]

fix:

Actually, orthodox Catholics bind themselves to the barque of Peter. Liberals speak of dialogue as if there are multiple truths and and that truth changes with time.

…i’ve noticed both camps suffer the same illness:thumbsup:

 

[space_ghost]

Richardols:

This is not universally true, but IMO, all too often true about many “traditionalists.” Self-righteousness judgmentalism is part of their approach.

…i guess it all depends what universe you traverse

 

[fix]

space ghost:

…i’ve noticed both camps suffer the same illness:thumbsup:

That means there are no faithful Catholics? I think there are many folks out there who accept the faith on His terms. There are a few on the right who dissent, but there are tons on the left.

 

[fix]

Philip P:

C How do we keep the necessary dialog open here without falling into the trap of diffusing our identity?

Obedience. Start there and the rest falls into place. Few want to submit.

 

[Lisa_N]

Philip P:

Clearly there are limits to dialogue, a point where it really is flat out dissent and has no further aim than dissent for its own sake. On the other side,there are also clearly cases where people pass beyond orthodoxy to tyranny or blindness, thus stifling the Church’s growth, development, and ultimately mission. So how do we tell when we’ve gone too far in either direction??

Philip again I have no problem with dialogue, but at some point rehashing the same points, bringing up the same subjects without new evidence that change is justified, is just an exercise in gum flapping. Just because someone WANTS to dialogue doesn’t mean they can compel others to participate. Those who WANT dialogue need to understand when their approach, their subject, their desires are irrelevant.

Basically I believe that some groups believe that if they keep nattering they will simply wear down the opposition. It’s like being nibbled to death by a duck. At some point though, they have to understand that the dripping faucet approach may not work.
Philip P:

Let’s look at women’s ordination, for instance. It is highly unlikely that we will see women ordained. Insisting that women OUGHT to be ordained, as an end in itself, is not going to lead to any especially constructive conversations. However, the issue of women’s ordination DOES raise valid criticisms of the Church. By completely shutting down all dialogue here, we deprive ourselves of the opportunity to acknowledge and address legitimate criticisms.?

How about shutting down dialogue on issues where there is a clearly stated position and the protestors have nothing but their own desires (women OUGHT to be ordained) as compelling evidence for change? For example, if the subject of women priests is brought up, what’s the point? However if the issue is the role of women in the church that’s another story.
Philip P:

For instance, there has been increased attention to developing a theology more relevant to daily life. I have in mind here the theology of the body, for instance, which does not grudgingly accept, but instead celebrates, marital love. At the same time, the importance of the laity has dramatically increased, as laity takes on more responsibility and leadership role. In the face of a growing Church with shrinking clergy, this will only continue.?

Again, you are pointing to an area that does have room for further discussion. I think not only does the laity want to get involved, they are needed. However I don’t think we’ll see laity consecrating the Host anytime soon. That they do have a role in the Eucharist as Extraordinary Ministers is an example of finding an appropriate role and filling a need.
Philip P:

None of this is an argument for women’s ordination. However, women’s ordination touches on this, as women are always de-facto laity, thus the question of women’s ordination is AS MUCH a question of the role of the laity as it is about gender. Shutting down dialogue here often threatens to not only cut off the far left pushing for full ordination, but also can stifle needed discussion on the legitimate question of the role of the laity. How do we keep the necessary dialog open here without falling into the trap of diffusing our identity?

Again, if the issue is the role of the laity, the discussion can center on appropriate roles and involvement. It does not need to extend into a 'today Extraordinary Minister tomorrow a priest." I do think there are some areas that are ‘settled’ that could be discussed but again, until the protestors have something germane to bring to the argument, it’s a waste of time.

Lisa N

 

[TPJCatholic]

fix,

I agree, the concept of obedience has been lost to a great many people–I sure know I continue to have great trouble with full obedience. Yet, from the very beginning we humans have had trouble withb obedience to God (just think of Adam and Eve). It seems we sinful humans always want things our way, and we will justify and bend all sorts of teachings in order to make things seem as if we have the “right way.”

If we trust Christ, we should also work at trusting His Church…imo.

 

[fix]

TPJCatholic:

fix,

I agree, the concept of obedience has been lost to a great many people–I sure know I continue to have great trouble with full obedience. Yet, from the very beginning we humans have had trouble withb obedience to God (just think of Adam and Eve). It seems we sinful humans always want things our way, and we will justify and bend all sorts of teachings in order to make things seem as if we have the “right way.”

If we trust Christ, we should also work at trusting His Church…imo.

I never hear a homily about obedience. This notion of dialogue really is nuanced. I can’t say I have read anyone saying questions cannot be asked or answered. There are plenty of documents and words written about all types of sexual and gender issues in the Church. Few actually read them.

The bishops and priests have dropped the ball. Catechesis is poor and the laity do not have the inclination to teach themselves that faith. There is plenty of blame to go around, but the issue, imo, is not that dialogue is refused by Rome. The issue is few want to inform themselves, or they hold poorly formed opinions by their own desire.