No Room For Dissent? (EJ Dionne; Wash Post)

[stumbler]

May 31, 2005

On the Sunday after Pope Benedict XVI was elected, I attended Mass at a parish whose pastor I like and respect, even if we have rather different political views. Since it was not my regular parish, I hadn’t seen him for a while. So we greeted each other warmly and, in light of our new pope’s strongly conservative views, closer to my friend’s than mine, I asked him: “Please pray for us liberals.” He laughed and assured me that I had nothing to worry about. Pope Benedict was now head of the entire church, he said, and knew he had a task different from his old one as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the guardian of church orthodoxy.

I appreciated my friend’s openness. After all, he could have said it was time for my kind of Catholic to join the Episcopal Church across the street. But I suggested that because Joseph Ratzinger, now Benedict, is a person of integrity, I did not expect him to shelve his old self quite so easily.

Not long after, word came that the Rev. Tom Reese had been forced to resign as the editor of America magazine, the Jesuit weekly, at the end of a process begun under then-Cardinal Ratzinger. It seems that Reese was too willing to invite Catholics to his pages who did not agree with the totality of the Vatican’s views. Not, mind you, that he didn’t give top billing to the official view. Cardinal Ratzinger himself once wrote for Reese’s magazine. But Father Tom, a moderate by temperament, was a bit too willing to broaden the community of discourse.

Liberal Catholics – and many moderates, too – were aghast. “For those who had hoped that the pastoral challenges of his new office might broaden Benedict’s sympathies, this is a time of indignation, disappointment and increased apprehension,” the editors of Commonweal, a lay Catholic magazine (with which I’ve had a long association), wrote…

---

Full article

 

[felra]

stumbler:

May 31, 2005
Liberal Catholics – and many moderates, too – were aghast. “For those who had hoped that the pastoral challenges of his new office might broaden Benedict’s sympathies, this is a time of indignation, disappointment and increased apprehension,” the editors of Commonweal, a lay Catholic magazine (with which I’ve had a long association), wrote.

---

Full article

As if I needed another reason to love this new Pope!

 

[fix]

Pope Benedict was now head of the entire church, he said, and knew he had a task different from his old one as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the guardian of church orthodoxy.

Perhaps I am wrong, but when I see this type of logic it bothers me. It seems too many are minimizing the role of CDF and saying with a wink and a nod that is one job, but so vastly different from being pope we should minimize it now that he is Pope. Why? Is orthodoxy no longer crucial? Does becoming Pope mean he no longer stands by all he wrote and acted on before?

It just seems disingenuous to me.

 

[estesbob]

Diones problem is he views the Church through the same prism he views politics. He gives it away when he refers to himself a “Liberal Catholic”. I refer to myself as a Roman Catholic. My views in realation to the Church are neither conservative of liberal-they are the “truth” as taught by my Church. I heard Mario Cumo make similar remarks-he claimed the Church needed to chage some of their “archaic rules” I was stunned-two thousand years of teaching refered to a “rules”

I have said this many times but in both cases the problem is someone who allows their politics to shape their faith rather than (correctly) let their faith shape their politics.

 

[Richardols]

estesbob:

He gives it away when he refers to himself a “Liberal Catholic”.

The term is too often misunderstood. It sounds as though one wants anything-goes in the Church. I find it better now to refer to myself, not as a liberal Catholic, but as a Catholic liberal, which does a better job of separating my faith from my politics.

I refer to myself as a Roman Catholic.

Maybe, just Catholic might be better. But, okay.

My views in relation to the Church are neither conservative of liberal-they are the “truth” as taught by my Church.

Good. Only orthodoxy, rather than liberalism or conservatism, has meaning relative to the teachings of the Church.

he claimed the Church needed to chage some of their “archaic rules” I was stunned-two thousand years of teaching refered to a “rules”

There are teachings, and there are rules. They are separate.

I have said this many times but in both cases the problem is someone who allows their politics to shape their faith rather than (correctly) let their faith shape their politics.

I agree. I see a lot of this on this Forum where conservatives seem IMO to be saying “Country and God,” not “God and Country,” in effect confusing the Republican Party with the City of God.

 

[fix]

Richardols:

I agree. I see a lot of this on this Forum where conservatives seem IMO to be saying “Country and God,” not “God and Country,” in effect confusing the Republican Party with the City of God.

Yes, I see that as well, particularly among those who are left wing democrats. They tend to think secular social programs equal Church teaching.

 

[felra]

Richardols:

I agree. I see a lot of this on this Forum where conservatives seem IMO to be saying “Country and God,” not “God and Country,” in effect confusing the Republican Party with the City of God.

IMO, your observation can be clarified through the conservative lense that in effect the Republican party is more mutually inclusive than exclusive on core aspects of Catholic moral teaching than the Democratic party.

 

[Brad]

fix:

Perhaps I am wrong, but when I see this type of logic it bothers me. It seems too many are minimizing the role of CDF and saying with a wink and a nod that is one job, but so vastly different from being pope we should minimize it now that he is Pope. Why? Is orthodoxy no longer crucial? Does becoming Pope mean he no longer stands by all he wrote and acted on before?

It just seems disingenuous to me.

I agree. I read this comment and cringed also. I don’t like it. A better comment would be

“You should indeed feel uncomfortable - not because of Pope Benedict XVI but because God is giving us yet another wake up call, a call to question the temperature and direction of our soul; only such a charitable and loving God would give us so many opportunities to argue against His Church and still maintain the possiblity for salvation. Let’s pray together before the King of Kings, shall we?”

 

[fix]

Brad:

I agree. I read this comment and cringed also. I don’t like it. A better comment would be

“You should indeed feel uncomfortable - not because of Pope Benedict XVI but because God is giving us yet another wake up call, a call to question the temperature and direction of our soul; only such a charitable and loving God would give us so many opportunities to argue against His Church and still maintain the possiblity for salvation. Let’s pray together before the King of Kings, shall we?”

Brad,

I can only hope and pray for such a strong stand. It would require a huge change would only come from the H.S.

 

[Richardols]

fix:

Yes, I see that as well, particularly among those who are left wing democrats. They tend to think secular social programs equal Church teaching.

There are such, indeed. But, given the right wing tone of this Forum, there are far more of the “Country and God” people here than the “Church as Social Service Agency” types.

 

[fix]

Richardols:

There are such, indeed. But, given the right wing tone of this Forum, there are far more of the “Country and God” people here than the “Church as Social Service Agency” types.

Well, I do agree. I do see too many blindly supporting Bush or republicans even to the point of loyalty to those groups over fidelity to the Church. The minority on this board that are politically liberal seem just as biased in favor of secular humanism, presented under the guise of Catholic social teaching, are just as vocal.

 

[barnestormer]

fix:

Well, I do agree. I do see too many blindly supporting Bush or republicans even to the point of loyalty to those groups over fidelity to the Church.

I don’t know where you get that conclusion.

Perhaps Catholics support Republican candidates because the Republican party’s agenda is based on an understanding of the human person and the law that is more closely in tune with the Catholic Church’s understanding than is the Democratic party’s.

While there are many Democrats of sound character and virtue who do their best to live faithful to Church teaching, the overall policy implications of the Democratic platform translate into moral and cultural relatavism, as well as the notion of “vox populi, vox dei.” Catholic teaching is very clear on those matters, just as it is opposed to the idea that government intervention is the panacea for society’s ills.

 

[Whalljim]

Urgh. Politics.

Both of our parties are lousy on several key issues. IMHO, the Reps are marginally less lousy because they will do things like at least propose a judge who would overturn Roe on the bench, whereas the (national) Democrats never would.

Abortion, with its 3-4k murders per day, outweighs the other issues like SSI or the war. The matter is made more clear if we move the issue out of the womb; if we had a party that said it was the parents choice to shoot their 1st grader on demand and 3-4k were getting shot per day, it wouldn’t last long. Even if that party said everything else right about social justice. For the Democrats I like their compassion on a chunk of social issues. I cannot get around their stance on abortion.

That said, E.J. Dionne’s other issue is about whether he has a voice to dissent. And the answer is yes, on certain issues. But on issues that the ordinary teaching magisterium has spoken, he has to be very clear. ‘I don’t agree with (gay marriage, womens ordination, etc.), but I realize that as a Catholic the Church has a right to my obedience, and I have a responsibility to conform my actions and conscience to her teachings’’. And if he is a member of the Church heirarchy, his ability to dissent on settled issues publicly is even more limited.

Complaining about ‘oppression’ or ‘censorship’ when those who have Church standing (like a Jesuit priest) are prevented from openly eviscerating Church teaching is disingenuous. It is done so that the Church is made to look like a repressive government silencing dissidents.

The Church stops such activities so that those seeking knowledge from that person who has that standing will not be led astray on what Church teaching really is, and thereby led into sin. There are many many outlets for the point of view of the World. The Church should be in lock step giving out the point of view of Truth. If its not, a Catholic seeking knowledge gets a raft of viewpoints on what is Truth, and Truth gets occluded by clouds of opinion. I have seen this on the college campus and in high schools. ‘Father So&so says that birth control really isn’t a big deal’. Why on earth should the Church allow one of its shepherds to lead a sheep astray and into mortal sin through direct teaching or moral obfuscation? The Church isn’t a public debating society.

So E.J. Dionne should rest easy. There are many, many non-Catholic sources that think and say that the Church is absolutely crazy on birth control, gay marriage, priestly celebacy, ordination of women, etc. If his viewpoints match any of those, they are well represented in the U.S. today. But it is decidedly not the Church’s job to represent them.

 

[fix]

barnestormer:

I don’t know where you get that conclusion.

Perhaps Catholics support Republican candidates because the Republican party’s agenda is based on an understanding of the human person and the law that is more closely in tune with the Catholic Church’s understanding than is the Democratic party’s.

While there are many Democrats of sound character and virtue who do their best to live faithful to Church teaching, the overall policy implications of the Democratic platform translate into moral and cultural relatavism, as well as the notion of “vox populi, vox dei.” Catholic teaching is very clear on those matters, just as it is opposed to the idea that government intervention is the panacea for society’s ills.

I was responding to a post that was claiming many who post here are too closely tied to the republican party at the expense of their faith. I simply agreed that that is often accurate. I, then, stated that the minority of folks here who proudly claim to be democrats are just as wrong when they support left wing nonsense and claim it is Church teaching.

 

[felra]

Whalljim:

Both of our parties are lousy on several key issues. IMHO, the Reps are marginally less lousy because they will do things like at least propose a judge who would overturn Roe on the bench, whereas the (national) Democrats never would.

Abortion, with its 3-4k murders per day, outweighs the other issues like SSI or the war. For the Democrats …I cannot get around their stance on abortion.

IMHO, I believe that you are understating the case here, and I am speaking for the 3,000 to 4,000 innocent babies executed in the womb each day. The Dems are heinously more lousy and shameful in their politicking for abortion on demand. I agree, all other issues wane, fade, are eclipsed, trumped by the Democrats stance on abortion.

 

[estesbob]

Richardols:

There are teachings, and there are rules. They are separate.

QUOTE]

Yes there are -Ceilibacy can be defined as a “rule” However this was not what Cumo was refering to-he was refering, very condescendingly, to the “archaic” rules on abortion, homosexuality and contraception. In short in Mario Cumo’s world the doctrines of the Churxh should be defined not by the Cathecism but by the Platform of the Democrat party.

I simple will NOT vote for a pro-abortion canidate regardless of their party affiliation. For this reason Ii will not vote in the next Senatorial election in Texas as i will not cast a vote for Kay Bailey Huthchison

I was a yellow dog Democrat (eved voted for McGovern) unitl they lost their way and started embracing abortiion as a fundamental human right. IMO to vote for one who supports abortion leaves me with blood on my hands.

BTW-I also put my money where my mouth is-i will not(I am a CPA) take Drs who perform abrotions as clients nor prepare tax returns for people who work for planned Parenthood or any other abortion mill. Because of this I have turned away quite a bit of business in the last 25 years.