Dissenters

[Ahimsa]

“I personally prefer to reserve the term dissent for public statements of disagreement with church teaching. The status of one’s internal assent is a matter of individual conscience. When one “dissents” from a teaching, one is making one’s disagreement public. Current ecclesiastical documents tend to give more leeway to the possibility of privately withholding assent than they do to the legitimacy of public dissent.
Many church officials believe that public dissent is always inappropriate. Others contend that the legitimacy of public dissent depends in large part on underlying motive. If the dissent is motivated by a desire to discredit the teaching office of the Church, then such actions would not be in keeping with authentic church membership. If, however, such public dissent is engaged in with proper respect for church tradition and the Church’s teaching office, it is conceivable that such public action might become an instrument of the Spirit in effecting necessary reform and renewal in the Church.”

Gaillardetz, R. R. (2003). By What Authority? A Primer on Scripture, the Magisterium, and the Sense of the Faithful. Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press. Page 133.

 

[divinefaith]

arent dissenters known as heretics? Im talking about those who purposely dissent, as another poster mentioned wilful dissent.

 

[rightofcenter77]

I think as illustrated above, there are levels of dissent. I think it’s probably ok to dissent on matter of discipline (can priests get married, can we allow female altar servers, etc), but even in this situation, we as Catholics MUST abide. Much as one might disagree with his boss, we must likewise still follow the rules, and work slowly toward change if it’s needed.

In matters of Faith and Morals spoke from by the Magesterium, the Church is infallible, and we CANNOT dissent. Can we have trouble and struggle? Absolutely - as Christians we struggle daily. But no matter how smart I might think I am, and am not competent enough to decide on these issues.

God wants us to be intellectual, but we should be careful of thinking ourselves out of our faith. The desire for knowledge led Adam and Eve astray, and we likewise run into that danger. The biggest struggle is to TRUST in God and His Church, and to put our own intellectualism aside.

 

[dingodile]

I have LOTS of trouble with some teachings too. Some I just don’t get, some that have answers that sound just plain silly and made-up, and some that frankly go against my conscience. Thankfully the teachings that are contrary the most, don’t affect me personally that much - except for the fact that I don’t agree with or understand them. But they still bother me. So in my case, I really don’t have to do anything: If I don’t believe it, I don’t believe it…it’s not something that can be forced. Or faked. How can one “fake” faith, and for whose benefit would this “faking” be? And again, the things I don’t believe don’t affect me personally. It’s much much more difficult when it does affect people, and I can empathize with that.

You’ve expressed the sort of thing I mean, especially the case of teachings that go against your conscience. I’m not talking about dissenting from the very idea of the Catholic Church, but rather finding that there are some teachings that you simply cannot accept.

To people who have difficulty believing and/or accepting Church teachings, I’d say the first thing to do is try to understand the teaching by actually getting your questions answered, preferably by reading about it in Canon and CCC documents, or talking to a priest. Ignore the nasty people and don’t let their abrasive and uncharitable words lead you away from the Church. If one still can’t come to accept a particular teaching, I’d say to concentrate on what you do believe in, and concetrate on GOD, and don’t let the other things eat you up. You may come to learn them later. Faith is a lifelong process. But unless you truly find a home someplace else, I wouldn’t leave the Church. I would just continue concentrating on God. I’m not saying “oh just don’t worry about those things”. But don’t let them eat you up and destroy what you do love about the Church. You have time to figure it all out…and even then, you may never believe somethings. But you believe in God. Concentrate on Him. And I know some people might find this contrary, but it’s something you might understand: Sometimes, what does religion have anything to do with God?

Thanks very much for this answer, and for seeing into the question. It’s really about whether someone in this situation should feel not at home in the Church anymore, and you’ve expressed why this needn’t be the case. I do think it’s different for those considering entering the Church.

 

[Bookcat]

Sorry, bad question, bad answer.
Listen:

1. 
   *]I dissent on the color of the vestments during Lent.
   *]I dissent on the days of oblidation
   *]I dissent on the Trinity.
   
   They are not the same.

1. 
   A dislike for the colors of vestments is not typically called “dissent” nor is a desire to do different Holy days of Obligation.
   
   But yes the point is important that there is a difference between various matters of doctrine and morals…
   
   and that of discipline or other things as noted above (not the Trinity…)
   
   One can dislike the color of the vestments or desire a new Holy Day or prefer this or that without being a “dissenter” in way the term is typically used. Indeed one can even suggest respectfully such changes…(while accepting what is decided…)

 

[Bookcat]

Such as I just noted is referred to as well in Canon Law:

Can. 212 §1. Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church.

§2. The Christian faithful are free to make known to the pastors of the Church their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires.

§3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.

 

[Bookcat]

In the Catholic Faith, it is possible to engage in what is called “faithful dissent”. It depends on exactly what sort of teaching is in question, and the manner by which the person dissents. For an article giving a good overview on the concept of assent and dissent (both faithful and unfaithful), please visit:

Sacred Assent, Ordinary Assent, and Faithful Dissent

Such is certainly not a site I would recommend getting theological information from. Stick with Catholic Answers and other great sources.

 

[Bookcat]

This link contains some of the important documents from the Church on the matter.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8469181&postcount=6

 

[divinefaith]

I’m in this position, in a few respects.

There’s something perverse about it.

To compare and contrast my mother with myself:

Mother: never read the Bible, never gives a thought about religion outside of mass, and so is able to swallow whatever Rome feeds her, and is assured of eternal salvation.

Myself: inquisitive, Bible-reader, religion and ethics are my primary concern. I’ve been told by religious ed instructors that I “think too much.” As a consequence of examining the Church’s teachings, I’m in a greater position to doubt some of them. Therefore, in danger of eternal hellfire according to Catholic teaching.

I sometimes wonder why God gave us brains if the only ones who are supposed to use them are the people in Rome. Why not make the rest of us mindless drones that can follow and obey without question? Why does God hate (some of) us?

I am like you, except that I stay away from dissent so I dont risk hell.

But let me explain when I was dissenting, not only was I dissenting on those matters but I also realised some things were more confusing if I was to rely on conscience alone. It was then I realzsed that I need the teachings of the Church because my conscience was no good. I was actually stricter on myself than the Church was.

 

[Ahimsa]

I think most people here at CAF would say that people outside the Catholic Church who dissent from its teachings should stay outside until such time as they can reconcile their conscience to those teachings.

I note that “reconcile” means many things, to many people.

 

[dingodile]

I note that “reconcile” means many things, to many people.

Would it be clearer if I said “align their conscience with the teachings”?

 

[Ahimsa]

Would it be clearer if I said “align their conscience with the teachings”?

True, and aligning oneself with the teachings, would also meaning aligning oneself with the teachings regarding following one’s conscience. After familiarizing and informing oneself with the teachings, one must “always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself” (CCC 1790); “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience” (CCC 1800).

This doesn’t mean that one’s conscience will always point one in the right direction (which is why informing oneself of the teachings of the Church is important), but to go against the “certain judgment” of one’s conscience is not encouraged.

 

[divinefaith]

True, and aligning oneself with the teachings, would also meaning aligning oneself with the teachings regarding following one’s conscience. After familiarizing and informing oneself with the teachings, one must “always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself” (CCC 1790); “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience” (CCC 1800).

This doesn’t mean that one’s conscience will always point one in the right direction (which is why informing oneself of the teachings of the Church is important), but to go against the “certain judgment” of one’s conscience is not encouraged.

You have a good point but obeying one own’s conscience can cause sinful behaviour in certain circumstances. E.g. One believes in conscience that they must have an abortion to spare their child from sufferring disability. The Church teaches that’s intrinsically sinful and following your conscience (which opposes this teaching) would objectively be a sin.
I believe that the Catholic Church regards even those who obeying their conscience in what is termed sinful as dissenters.

 

[dingodile]

This doesn’t mean that one’s conscience will always point one in the right direction (which is why informing oneself of the teachings of the Church is important), but to go against the “certain judgment” of one’s conscience is not encouraged.

This is how conscience can and does keep many people out of the Church. But it seems to me a bit trickier for people already in the Church.

To give a specific example, a good friend of mine is a Catholic priest. When he was ordained, he didn’t have any particular disagreements with Church teachings, but admits that there were many things he simply hadn’t thought through. As time passed, he found that he simply could not accept certain teachings, such as the teaching on the sinfulness of contraception. His disagreement was not based on any misunderstanding. He understands the teaching perfectly, and in fact teaches it, presents the arguments, and so forth. But in his own mind he finds those arguments utterly unconvincing. This isn’t the only teaching that he cannot in good conscience accept, but it’s good enough for an illustration.

This situation causes him a certain amount of pain. He has confided in me as a friend, but would never express this view in any public or “official” capacity as a priest. He’s not seeking advice from me, but I can’t help thinking about his situation. As a non-Catholic, it’s difficult for me to understand what keeps people in the Church, particularly in a situation such as this. I suppose that for many, if they are able to accept enough of the teachings of the Church, it gives them fortitude to submit, at least publicly, to those teachings that they cannot inwardly accept.

 

[Ahimsa]

I believe that the Catholic Church regards even those who obeying their conscience in what is termed sinful as dissenters.

I thought the Church regarded those people as “sinners”?

 

[Bookcat]

Sacred Scripture uses indeed the term the “obedience of Faith”.

(Now of course that does not cover all things for not all things require that sort of assent but other kinds of assent…but there indeed remains a relation even in those matters )

 

[Ahimsa]

This is how conscience can and does keep many people out of the Church. But it seems to me a bit trickier for people already in the Church.

To give a specific example, a good friend of mine is a Catholic priest. When he was ordained, he didn’t have any particular disagreements with Church teachings, but admits that there were many things he simply hadn’t thought through. As time passed, he found that he simply could not accept certain teachings, such as the teaching on the sinfulness of contraception. His disagreement was not based on any misunderstanding. He understands the teaching perfectly, and in fact teaches it, presents the arguments, and so forth. But in his own mind he finds those arguments utterly unconvincing. This isn’t the only teaching that he cannot in good conscience accept, but it’s good enough for an illustration.

This situation causes him a certain amount of pain. He has confided in me as a friend, but would never express this view in any public or “official” capacity as a priest. He’s not seeking advice from me, but I can’t help thinking about his situation. As a non-Catholic, it’s difficult for me to understand what keeps people in the Church, particularly in a situation such as this. I suppose that for many, if they are able to accept enough of the teachings of the Church, it gives them fortitude to submit, at least publicly, to those teachings that they cannot inwardly accept.

It seems that cradle Catholics, though dissenting with much in the Church, have “interiorized” something throughout their childhood years of attending Mass. This “interiorized” something becomes part of who they are, part of their very identity. So, for these cradle, dissenting, Catholics, the particular teachings and doctrines with which they dissent from, are not seen as part of their interior identity as Catholics. For instance, when a cradle Catholic is baptized as an infant, that infant made no intellectual assent to any doctrine. The baptism operated on a much deeper level. Likewise, many cradle, dissenting, Catholics view the teachings they disagree with, as not being the essence of what it means to be Catholic. This essence is beyond words, beyond intellect, beyond mental assent. So, to leave the Church would be to miss the point of Church altogether.

 

[Bookcat]

The nature of the Church…the reality of authority of the Church from Christ is* part *of the Catholic Christian’s very conscience.

In the case of one who “dissents” saying “this is contrary to my conscience”…it is not “conscience in conflict with the Church” but rather the conflict is within the person’s own conscience. He has *split *his conscience. He is dissenting from his own conscience.

 

[Ahimsa]

Dissent in the Church: Readings in Moral Theology No. 6., edited by Charles Curran and Richard McCormick. Paulist Press, 1987.

 

[Bookcat]

Dissent in the Church: Readings in Moral Theology No. 6., edited by Charles Curran and Richard McCormick. Paulist Press, 1987.

The source that here was found is alas not a good one.

Charles Curran? He was a dissenter! Thus not a recommended source for Church Teaching and orthodox Theology.

He was removed by the Church from his teaching position for his “dissent”…for teaching contrary to the Teachings of the Church…by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.