licit dissent

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ron_Conte
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Ron_Conte

Guest
It is not licit to dissent from an infallible teaching, such as the teaching that the Church does not have the authority to ordain women to the priesthood, or the teaching that direct abortion is always gravely immoral.

Infallible teachings have no possibility of error, and require the full assent of faith (theological assent).

However, non-infallible teachings allow for some limited possibility of error, and only call for the religious submission of will and intellect, not the full assent of faith. Some licit dissent from non-infallible teachings is possible, but the extent of dissent that is possible is similarly limited.

Judgments of the prudential order by the temporal authority of the Church (as opposed to teachings) also allow for some legitimate dissent, and this can occur to a greater extent than licit dissent from a non-infallible teaching because the extent of error possible is greater when the Church is not teaching, but only judging temporal circumstances.

Within the Church, there is a certain degree and type of moral freedom of thought as well as general norms of licit dissent. There are limits to this freedom and to licit dissent, but some dissent is possible while remaining a faithful Catholic Christian.
 
Ron_Conte said:
It is not licit to dissent from an infallible teaching, such as the teaching that the Church does not have the authority to ordain women to the priesthood, or the teaching that direct abortion is always gravely immoral.

Infallible teachings have no possibility of error, and require the full assent of faith (theological assent).

However, non-infallible teachings allow for some limited possibility of error, and only call for the religious submission of will and intellect, not the full assent of faith. Some licit dissent from non-infallible teachings is possible, but the extent of dissent that is possible is similarly limited.

Judgments of the prudential order by the temporal authority of the Church (as opposed to teachings) also allow for some legitimate dissent, and this can occur to a greater extent than licit dissent from a non-infallible teaching because the extent of error possible is greater when the Church is not teaching, but only judging temporal circumstances.

Within the Church, there is a certain degree and type of moral freedom of thought as well as general norms of licit dissent. There are limits to this freedom and to licit dissent, but some dissent is possible while remaining a faithful Catholic Christian.
Click to expand...
:clapping::clapping:

It has always amazed me, that some don’t understand this. It also amazes me that some take non-infallible teachings and attempt to contort them as being infallible teachings, in order to promote their “moral” views.
 
Human Life in Our Day
A Statement Issued by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops
November 15, 1968

Norms of Licit Theological Dissent
  1. There exist in the Church a lawful freedom of inquiry and of thought and also general norms of licit dissent. This is particularly true in the area of legitimate theological speculation and research. When conclusions reached by such professional theological work prompt a scholar to dissent from non-infallible received teaching, the norms of licit dissent come into play. They require of him careful respect for the consciences of those who lack his special competence or opportunity for judicious investigation. These norms also require setting forth his dissent with propriety and with regard for the gravity of the matter and the deference due the authority which has pronounced on it.
  2. The reverence due all sacred matters, particularly questions which touch on salvation, will not necessarily require the responsible scholar to relinquish his opinion but certainly to propose it with prudence born of intellectual grace and a Christian confidence that the truth is great and will prevail.
  3. When there is question of theological dissent from non-infallible doctrine, we must recall that there is always a presumption in favor of the magisterium. Even non-infallible authentic doctrine, though it may admit of development or call for clarification or revision, remains binding and carries with it a moral certitude, especially when it is addressed to the Universal Church, without ambiguity, in response to urgent questions bound up with faith and crucial to morals. The expression of theological dissent from the magisterium is in order only if the reasons are serious and well-founded, if the manner of the dissent does not question or impugn the teaching authority of the Church and is such as not to give scandal.
 
I heard this phrase used on another website and thought that it was being used by a particulat person to justify positions on Catholic teaching that is just flat out wrong. For example, she claims one can be pro-choice and still be Catholic because of the Church teaching of licit dissent.

It appears that the OP has distinguished fallible from infallible teaching. What exactly is infallible Catholic teaching? I thought we were to agree with all doctrine.
 
baylee said:
I thought we were to agree with all doctrine.
Click to expand...
And you’re right.

The items that his posts refer to are not doctrinal or dogmatic because, you rightly say we agree with all of those.

Disciplines and pious legends are areas that would allow some measure of dissent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top