Dissenters: Why do you call yourself a Catholic?

[Joe_5859]

To answer the OP’s question, I think that most “dissenters” do not believe they are dissenters. They believe and have been taught that it is perfectly acceptable for Catholics to disagree on these issues (abortion, homosexuality, women’s ordination, etc.). In their mind, there is no dissent. Being called a “dissenter” is offensive to them because they feel it is a misnomer. In their minds, they are just as much Catholic as the next person in the pew. The idea of leaving the Church would not even cross their mind. Why should they leave if their beliefs are compatible with the Church (at least the way that they see it)?

I think many of the posts on this thread support this description. You might also try reading Charles Curran’s “Faithful Dissent” for more insight. I have not read it myself (nor do I have the desire to, nor do I recommend anyone read without a firm foundation in their faith), but it would probably give you the insight to answer your questions.

 

[fix]

To answer the OP’s question, I think that most “dissenters” do not believe they are dissenters. They believe and have been taught that it is perfectly acceptable for Catholics to disagree on these issues (abortion, homosexuality, women’s ordination, etc.). In their mind, there is no dissent. Being called a “dissenter” is offensive to them because they feel it is a misnomer. In their minds, they are just as much Catholic as the next person in the pew. The idea of leaving the Church would not even cross their mind. Why should they leave if their beliefs are compatible with the Church (at least the way that they see it)?

I think many of the posts on this thread support this description. You might also try reading Charles Curran’s “Faithful Dissent” for more insight. I have not read it myself (nor do I have the desire to, nor do I recommend anyone read without a firm foundation in their faith), but it would probably give you the insight to answer your questions.

Great post.

 

[Ender]

… your assertions about the Pope’s authority in evaluating local conditions seemed less damning to bring up.

The pope may have an opinion on anything at all, just as you and I may, and he may certainly voice that opinion. Expressing an opinion does not exceed his authority.

Ender:

You can demonstrate that my position is incorrect by citing any Church document that defines the assent that a prudential teaching must be accorded. Please though, only refer to comments about prudential teachings; I am well aware of the obligations to the other three forms and they are not at issue here.

SoCalRC:

This is the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church …

Sigh. NOTHING in that document you keep posting refers to prudential teachings. You are intelligent enough to see that; I don’t understand why you keep referring to this document when you know it doesn’t address the question I raise.

With regards to the death penalty…

I am disappointed that you muddy the waters in this thread by taking it off in this direction; there is another thread where the death penalty discussion is appropriate. There are topics where there is room for disagreement and topics where there is not. We can let the OP clarify it but it seems to me this thread is really about those who dissent on those issues where there is no room at all for disagreement: abortion, contraception, homosexual behavior. The death penalty, like the war, is not in that group.

Ender

 

[Contarini]

The Church clearly teaches that socialism is evil.

The Church has not said that everything right-wing Americans label “socialism” is evil.

The Church condemns liberation theology.

No, the one Vatican document cited on the subject explicitly speaks of certain aspects and certain forms of liberation theology, not of liberation theology in general. Yet the anti-LT folks ignore this. Why, if you are so respectful of official Catholic teaching?

If I was in a group where the expressed values and norms of the group diverged from mine, I would find a group that more clearly reflected my values. I wouldn’t stick around. I’m not that masochistic.

Perhaps you have forgotten that for many of your fellow Catholics–dare I say for orthodox Catholics (as opposed to your implicitly Protestant/secular ecclesiology)–the Church is more than just a “group”?

OK, I’m tweaking you. I presume that in fact you do not think that the Church is just a “group,” but you assume that if your fellow Catholics dissent from the official Vatican teaching on any point they must think the Catholic Church is just a “group.” This is not so. I have hung out with liberal Catholics a lot. They helped drive me away from Catholicism, both because I was more conservative back then and because then and now, if I’m going to dissent from official Catholic teaching I’d rather do so as an Anglican! As an academic, I run into a lot of liberal Catholics. I think in all humility that I may understand how they think better than some Catholics on this forum do. And they sincerely believe that the Catholic Church is divine. They do not that that this requires them to adhere to all official “Vatican” teaching (as they see it). They take the “pilgrim Church” concept of Vatican II to an extreme probably not warranted by the texts of Vatican II. But that’s their position. Not that the Church is just a club to which one belongs because one agrees with it, but that the Church is the pilgrim people of God on a journey toward perfection. To abandon the Church because it is not yet where it should be would be terribly wrong, from their perspective.

I don’t claim that all “dissenters” take this pious approach. But I’ve known many who do.

Edwin

 

[Ender]

… the Church’s prohibitation of contraceptives …

… the Church’s position on homosexuality …

… if you find yourself wholly and totally in agreement with all Church teachings …

Many are simple sinners that legitimately disagree in some areas and are striving to better align their consciences, as well as their actions, with God’s will.

If you believe that the “Church’s teachings” are the collective theology of the popes and bishops then your position makes a great deal of sense and dissent can legitimately exist.

The Church, however, doesn’t see the teachings as hers but as God’s, and thus dissent can almost never be legitimate. Before one calls himself a Catholic he should really ask himself whether he believes what the Catholic Church says about herself:

*"… the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ." *(Dei verbum 10)

If you cannot accept that statement, which goes directly to the purpose for the existence of the Church, why would you want to call yourself a Catholic? On the other hand, if you accept that proposition how do you justify dissenting on those issues about which she has definitively spoken?

Ender

 

[Sagefrakrobatik]

As a nominal catholic, I would consider myself mostly moderate with a slight liberal inclination. controversial issues like abortion, homosexuality and contraception etc. never before became a prerequiste for me being a Catholic. I hadn’t learn the scopes of these polemical issues until 20 years into my existence. I have attend church long before that. In my Catholic upbrining the Church i went to never mentioned anything about homosexuality nor did my Catechism classes say anything about abortion. I havent made a decision on the churches teachings yet because i feel that i should be entrusted to make my own decisions when it comes to social matters and let the church decide on religious issues. I should base my opinions on evidence not merely ideology or blinded dogma. Yes Catholic dogma should play a role in the way i think about the world if am to indentify my self as Catholic, but that doesnt necessarily mean I will automatically agree with the Church’s teachings. The reason why i still consider my self a Catholic isnt because of the Church’s social teachings on issues like contraception, homosexuality, but because of tradition. What attracks me most concerning Catholicism is my grandmother’s story about how she converted, and how that led her to be the woman she is today.

 

[markomalley]

To answer the OP’s question, I think that most “dissenters” do not believe they are dissenters. They believe and have been taught that it is perfectly acceptable for Catholics to disagree on these issues (abortion, homosexuality, women’s ordination, etc.). In their mind, there is no dissent. Being called a “dissenter” is offensive to them because they feel it is a misnomer. In their minds, they are just as much Catholic as the next person in the pew. The idea of leaving the Church would not even cross their mind. Why should they leave if their beliefs are compatible with the Church (at least the way that they see it)?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

I think many of the posts on this thread support this description. You might also try reading Charles Curran’s “Faithful Dissent” for more insight. I have not read it myself (nor do I have the desire to, nor do I recommend anyone read without a firm foundation in their faith), but it would probably give you the insight to answer your questions.

http://picasaweb.google.com/montereale/CatholicNewsAndComment/photo#5200413417360405554

I remember having a conversation with a “dissenter” a few years ago. His rationale justifying his dissent was the “primacy of conscience.” He understood this to mean that if his conscience said something was wrong, it was wrong. If his conscience said that something was right, it was right.

I asked him if he understood that the context of this was the “well formed” conscience and that it was his responsibility to form that conscience according to the teachings of the Church. Of course, he didn’t want to hear any part of that (he wanted to remain in, what he thought, was a state of invincible ignorance LOL)

 

[markomalley]

I have seen more than one thread about how CAF is weakening their faith. Threads such as this one are part of the problem.

What we discuss here in CAF rarely concerns the heart of Christianity - what Jesus taught. I think it is entirely possible to be a “good Catholic” and yet not be very Christian.

When members talk about how good it would be if the Church would shrink to only “true Catholics,” I have to shake my head. They just don’t get it.

Threads where supposedly good Catholics shake their fist at unambiguous Church teachings (such as the teachings on abortion) make me shake my head and wonder, at times, if the protestants were right. Or make me think that maybe I should seek out an SSPX chapel somewhere.

Look, there is a fundamental difference when a person is confused about Church teaching, when they don’t understand it, or if they are mistaken about it. People like that should be treated with the utmost respect and patience.

On the other hand, people who don’t want to know what the Church says about a subject, do everything they can to wiggle out of it, or out-and-out say that the Church is wrong about a matter of faith and morals, I have very little patience with.

Again, the example, abortion. I don’t think that ANYBODY could possible construe that the teaching of the Magesterium is anything but unambiguous on the subject. It’s not a new teaching. It’s not an updated position. It’s been there from time immemorial.

Somebody could say “what about this, what about that, what about the other.” “It doesn’t seem right to penalize a person with a baby they don’t want.” “A woman shouldn’t have to bear the fruit of a rape.” “It’s my body.” “But what if the mother’s life is in danger.” “What about incest?” “What if the mother is mentally deficient?” Or whatever. Any of the many, many excuses.

Each one of those excuses could be dealt with. And it is perfectly understandable that a Catholic could hold one or more of those excuses as a rationale for holding a position against the Church’s position on that issue. Particularly considering the so-called “enlightened” position held by modern, secular society. Particularly considering the influence of modern media. Particularly considering societal pressure communicated by that secular society, largely through the media, on the individual…pressuring that individual to conform to the societal mold.

Those of us who are pro-life should take the challenge on to catechize those who were poorly educated as youth and influenced by society. That catechesis should be given with patience, love, and respect.

HOWEVER, when a person gets to the point of saying “I fully comprehend what the Church teaches, and I really don’t care…” then that is another thing altogether. And when one goes public with that attitude, then, at that point, is when I label somebody a dissenter.

And if you read my original post carefully, you will note that I did not, at any time, suggest that the Church purge herself of these people. I simply asked why they would associate themselves with a group with whom they disagree on so many levels. An earlier post on the thread indicated that they believe themselves to be right and so, therefore, they aren’t dissenters (rather they think I think I’m holier than the Pope or some such thing).

Obviously, I think that the best option is for one to form his/her conscience according to the teachings of the Church and to then act in accordance with that well-formed conscience. Even if that person is not fully successful in freeing him/herself from all societal attitudes that are in opposition to the teachings of the Church, the effort is still there, along with the humility that comes with that effort.

But if one is unwilling even to attempt to form one’s conscience according to the teachings of the Church, then I simply don’t understand the rationale of wanting to stay a member of a group whose norms are utterly rejected.

Of course, then again, maybe I should follow my own advice. If I don’t like the “norms” of the social justice forum, maybe I should just stay clear of it. Maybe I should just do that for Catholic Answers in general.

(Note to mod: no, the above was not an opus, just a stray thought)

 

[markomalley]

The Church has not said that everything right-wing Americans label “socialism” is evil.

You know, I just know what I read. Starting with Leo XIII.

No, the one Vatican document cited on the subject explicitly speaks of certain aspects and certain forms of liberation theology, not of liberation theology in general. Yet the anti-LT folks ignore this. Why, if you are so respectful of official Catholic teaching?

Perhaps you have forgotten that for many of your fellow Catholics–dare I say for orthodox Catholics (as opposed to your implicitly Protestant/secular ecclesiology)–the Church is more than just a “group”?

OK, I’m tweaking you. I presume that in fact you do not think that the Church is just a “group,” but you assume that if your fellow Catholics dissent from the official Vatican teaching on any point they must think the Catholic Church is just a “group.” This is not so. I have hung out with liberal Catholics a lot. They helped drive me away from Catholicism, both because I was more conservative back then and because then and now, if I’m going to dissent from official Catholic teaching I’d rather do so as an Anglican! As an academic, I run into a lot of liberal Catholics. I think in all humility that I may understand how they think better than some Catholics on this forum do. And they sincerely believe that the Catholic Church is divine. They do not that that this requires them to adhere to all official “Vatican” teaching (as they see it). They take the “pilgrim Church” concept of Vatican II to an extreme probably not warranted by the texts of Vatican II. But that’s their position. Not that the Church is just a club to which one belongs because one agrees with it, but that the Church is the pilgrim people of God on a journey toward perfection. To abandon the Church because it is not yet where it should be would be terribly wrong, from their perspective.

I don’t claim that all “dissenters” take this pious approach. But I’ve known many who do.

Edwin

I understand what you are saying in regards to the “divine Church” not being a social club.

But if it is what they claim, how is it that they can so freely disregard her teachings? OTOH, if it is merely a group, then they can disagree all they want, for it is simply man-against-man. But, if it is a group, then there should be no reason not to leave if one is in an unresolvable disagreement.

 

[St_Aloysius]

Ender:

The Church, however, doesn’t see the teachings as hers but as God’s, and thus dissent can almost never be legitimate. Before one calls himself a Catholic he should really ask himself whether he believes what the Catholic Church says about herself

It’s interesting that these are your words, as they were mine not too long ago. In Catechism, a kid my age asked, after hearing the Church’s teachings on various issues pertaining to human sexuality, if we had to agree with all Church teachings. The catechist was honest and sincere in replying that even she sometimes struggled with various issues of Church teaching. I instinctively chimed in, repeating almost verbatim what you just said.

“Legitimate dissent” is a matter of individual conscience.

Should we violate sure conscience in favor of a dogma about which our moral compass possesses no certainty? Though I understand the importance of the Church’s role in the lives of the faithful as teacher, surrendering to an ideal that is directly at odds with my conscience is, to me, a decidedly less noble move than being true to that which I inwardly believe–whether I’m correct or not–is morally right.

 

[Exalt]

 Dissenters: Why do you call yourself a Catholic?

This is a question you conservatives need to ask YOURSELVES. In other words, Why do YOU call liberal catholics Catholic?

Every easter vigil, there are press releases about how the Church is growing. Every week, someone cites the one billion number of “Catholics” as grounds for it’s truth. Every week, you look around at all the other Catholics in your parish and feel pride at the strength of your community.

And yet, by your own definition, the majority of American Catholics, at least, ought to not call themselves Catholics.

If you’re willing to de-facto excommunicate all dissenting Catholics, no matter the issue, you must be willing to live with a much smaller church. And you ought to stop citing the vastness of the Church as evidence for whatever argument you’re trying to support.

 

[estesbob]

It’s interesting that these are your words, as they were mine not too long ago. In Catechism, a kid my age asked, after hearing the Church’s teachings on various issues pertaining to human sexuality, if we had to agree with all Church teachings. The catechist was honest and sincere in replying that even she sometimes struggled with various issues of Church teaching. I instinctively chimed in, repeating almost verbatim what you just said.

“Legitimate dissent” is a matter of individual conscience.

Should we violate sure conscience in favor of a dogma about which our moral compass possesses no certainty? Though I understand the importance of the Church’s role in the lives of the faithful as teacher, surrendering to an ideal that is directly at odds with my conscience is, to me, a decidedly less noble move than being true to that which I inwardly believe–whether I’m correct or not–is morally right.

So if my conscience tells me murder, rape and incest are OK do i betray my ideals if I dont follow it? If conscience is King we dont need a Church.

 

[leftistdestroye]

This is a question you conservatives need to ask YOURSELVES. In other words, Why do YOU call liberal catholics Catholic?

Every easter vigil, there are press releases about how the Church is growing. Every week, someone cites the one billion number of “Catholics” as grounds for it’s truth. Every week, you look around at all the other Catholics in your parish and feel pride at the strength of your community.

And yet, by your own definition, the majority of American Catholics, at least, ought to not call themselves Catholics.

If you’re willing to de-facto excommunicate all dissenting Catholics, no matter the issue, you must be willing to live with a much smaller church. And you ought to stop citing the vastness of the Church as evidence for whatever argument you’re trying to support.

Good point. I know that I would prefer quality over quantity. I also see, like in Mass. for example, that Catholics vote primarily for Liberal Democrats. I guess the man made global warming hoax, socialism, gay marriage(rights), big government, loving the sinner more than hating the sin(acceptance) are more important than 45 million dead babies, freedom from government, and God’s word.

 

[Ender]

“Legitimate dissent” is a matter of individual conscience.

I think this nails down the heart of the matter: the correct understanding of the role and nature of our conscience.

Should we violate sure conscience in favor of a dogma about which our moral compass possesses no certainty?

I’ll repeat what I asked earlier: If you accept what the Church claims to be then the answer is yes; if you don’t accept what the Church claims to be, why would you want to be a member?

Though I understand the importance of the Church’s role in the lives of the faithful as teacher, surrendering to an ideal that is directly at odds with my conscience is, to me, a decidedly less noble move than being true to that which I inwardly believe–whether I’m correct or not–is morally right.

It’s too late tonight for me to get into this, but, again, this is the heart of the issue.

Ender

 

[markomalley]

This is a question you conservatives need to ask YOURSELVES. In other words, Why do YOU call liberal catholics Catholic?

Every easter vigil, there are press releases about how the Church is growing. Every week, someone cites the one billion number of “Catholics” as grounds for it’s truth. Every week, you look around at all the other Catholics in your parish and feel pride at the strength of your community.

And yet, by your own definition, the majority of American Catholics, at least, ought to not call themselves Catholics.

If you’re willing to de-facto excommunicate all dissenting Catholics, no matter the issue, you must be willing to live with a much smaller church. And you ought to stop citing the vastness of the Church as evidence for whatever argument you’re trying to support.

You are attributing some implicit action that was not stated in the title or in the original post.

Neither the title nor the original post stated: “Dissenters should be excommunicated.” Neither the title nor the original post stated: “Dissenters should be censured.”

The title of the article, “Dissenters: Why do you call yourself a Catholic?” asks people who dissent (i.e., those who, after consideration, disagree with Church teaching and who have absolutely no interest in modifying their thought processes to align with that teaching – and are very verbal about that disagreement) why they continue to call themselves Catholic (i.e., why identify yourself with a group with whom you profoundly disagree and are not ever going to disagree…unless the group makes fundamental changes – as you refuse to change).

The body of the original post initially expresses frustration that there are so many long and drawn out discussions, between people who are members of the same Church with the same teachings…especially on teachings where the Church has definitively and unambiguously spoken. I carefully caveat that the concern wouldn’t be there if the discussions went on between members of different groups. I then indicate my confusion at why people who dissent (see above definition) would voluntarily choose to remain identified to a group with which they so profoundly disagree.

AT NO POINT did I advocate that the Church excommunicate or shun those people. YOU are attributing that advocacy where it did not (and does not) exist.

(Having said that, I did express frustration with the threads that would simply not die…particularly threads discussing topics where the Church has definitively and unambiguously spoken…but that is not the same thing)

---

Now, looking at your post:

I, for one, do not particularly take “pride” in size. I take “pride” in orthodoxy. I take “pride” in the Church militant faithfully living the whole gospel. I take “pride” in bishops who are faithful to their charge as shepherds (I’ve lived for several years in sheep-herding territory in the Mediterranean…I probably have a profoundly different mind picture on sheep and shepherds than most Americans for that reason)

And, by the way, I did not cite size as a proof of correctness. That would be an Argumentum ad populum (I try to avoid basing my arguments upon logical fallacies, thank you)

I am thankful when I see people being received into the Church on Easter Vigil. Thankfulness is not pride. I also am thankful when I see large numbers of men being ordained. I am also thankful when I see long lines at confession. I am also thankful when I see a beautiful liturgy and am really thankful when I see consistently beautiful liturgies.

I am NOT thankful when I see catechists not teaching the cardinal virtues. I am NOT thankful when I see confirmands not being taught the gospel of life. I am NOT thankful when I see priests avoid preaching on difficult subjects in their homilies. I am NOT thankful when I see bishops not living up to their responsibilities as shepherds (see the above note on sheep and shepherds).

The definition of one who is Catholic is, as I stated in an earlier post, one who is baptized as a Catholic or one who is received into the Church through the Sacrament of Confirmation (unless that one has formally defected from the Church). That is distinctly different from one who is a practicing Catholic. That is distinctly different from one who is an orthodox Catholic.

As to what I’d like to see: de-facto excommunications is absolutely NOT it. What I’d LIKE to see is these folks getting with the program. But if they are unwilling (not unable but unwilling) to do so, I would think that they would like to take an examination of themselves and where they are at and look at changing their affiliations to line up with their personal values. There is a world of difference between that and making a call for the Church to start vigorously enforcing Canons 1364 and 1369. A world of difference!

 

[MrS]

So if my conscience tells me murder, rape and incest are OK do i betray my ideals if I dont follow it? If conscience is King we dont need a Church.

So then we get into the topic of conscience vs well-formed conscience. And there is a hugh difference.

The Church helps us to acquire the well-formed conscience. Even Hitler had one, but it was certainly not well-formed. And we must have a well-formed conscience as we work our way to heaven.

.

 

[patg]

So then we get into the topic of conscience vs well-formed conscience. And there is a hugh difference.

The Church helps us to acquire the well-formed conscience. Even Hitler had one, but it was certainly not well-formed. And we must have a well-formed conscience as we work our way to heaven.
.

And would the only litmus test for a conscience being properly formed be that it completely agrees with every church teaching? If so, then the process of forming it would seem to be a total waste of time and effort.

 

[patg]

If there is no alternative which is anywhere near as good as the Catholic Church, why leave? Yes, I certainly disagree with some things for what I see as very good reason but it’s still the best there is.

I disagree with my parents on many things but I still know where m home is and I know I am still loved and accepted there. Why not here? Is the quality of “God the Father” somehow less than my human father? And I am certainly not affecting anyone else’s relationship with God by my struggles with the Church.

I understand how some can just say the believe and agree with everything the church says, does, and requires - but what possible good is it to do that when one can’t rationally accept it?

Does God have a bad day if I mumble the words *“Women should be allowed to be priests…” ? *(even though I have not personally ordained one…). Better yet, does this this affect anyone’s relationship with God?

 

[fix]

“Legitimate dissent” is a matter of individual conscience.

What is legitimate dissent from Truth?

 

[estesbob]

So then we get into the topic of conscience vs well-formed conscience. And there is a hugh difference.

The Church helps us to acquire the well-formed conscience. Even Hitler had one, but it was certainly not well-formed. And we must have a well-formed conscience as we work our way to heaven.

.

Of course there is but people are very quick to say there “well fformed” conscience allows them to ignore a whole list of core Catholic teachings. And as we all know its usually the same 4 or 5 different issues that their well “formed conscience” tells them its ok to dissent on.