Talking with dissenting Catholics?

[St_Francis]

I read a comment elsewhere from a dissenting Catholic to an orthodox Catholic that the latter should not be so dismissive of the former’s views in discussion as that dismissiveness was not conducive to conversation.

Since I have had this same sort of thing said to me, I thought I would ask how one is to speak more respectfully to dissenters, esp when the dissenters don’t listen to the orthodox anyway?

I can generally avoid these types of conversation, but I am related to some, and with them it can be harder to avoid these types of conversation, and sometimes I am unable to exit gracefully.

Is it even possible?

Thanks

 

[johnnyc176]

I read a comment elsewhere from a dissenting Catholic to an orthodox Catholic that the latter should not be so dismissive of the former’s views in discussion as that dismissiveness was not conducive to conversation.

Since I have had this same sort of thing said to me, I thought I would ask how one is to speak more respectfully to dissenters, esp when the dissenters don’t listen to the orthodox anyway?

I can generally avoid these types of conversation, but I am related to some, and with them it can be harder to avoid these types of conversation, and sometimes I am unable to exit gracefully.

Is it even possible?

Thanks

I’ve wondered about that myself. I’m not sure how you can proclaim the truth charitably. The truth itself is polarizing.

 

[LongingSoul]

I’m not a great debater with dissent myself, but I know what impresses me about others who engage dissenters. With a maturity that can discern which dissent comes from immature faith and dissent that has more sinister origins … I believe it is possible, (whilst being mindful that we are all brothers and sisters in Christ), to take a more loving and patiently parental approach to what is an immaturity of faith that you might liken to the teenage years in other areas of human development. Taking dissent personally can only really end in tears I think.

 

[aidanbradypop]

I read a comment elsewhere from a dissenting Catholic to an orthodox Catholic that the latter should not be so dismissive of the former’s views in discussion as that dismissiveness was not conducive to conversation.

Since I have had this same sort of thing said to me, I thought I would ask how one is to speak more respectfully to dissenters, esp when the dissenters don’t listen to the orthodox anyway?

I can generally avoid these types of conversation, but I am related to some, and with them it can be harder to avoid these types of conversation, and sometimes I am unable to exit gracefully.

Is it even possible?

Thanks

Many dissenters or former Catholic left the Church due to a disagreement with some sort of social issue, priest, Church teaching or parish life. Many say nasty things about the Church and often give advice to non Catholics, which tend to make the Church look bad. I have come across a few in my days. I have noticed the pain they deal with. Many are hurting over a certain issue and that pain turns to anger.

I have found that they want you to argue about the Church. They want to engage in a “battle” of wits so as to “prove” you wrong.

I have found that it is best to simply show they love and silently pray for them. Showing them love will actually undermine what they are trying to accomplish.

 

[commenter]

Obviously, your credibility depends on how much the dissenter can see God’s love in you. That being said, I find dissenters in 2 very different groups. There is a specific generation, now mostly over 65 or deeply identifying with that group, that did learn Catholic doctrine when they were younger. But they chose to reject their Catholic doctrinal foundation after the 1960’s, because they were caught up in the secular society, especially from the Media. I have known sisters who were brutally overworked and unappreciated in their early years, now suspicious of everything coming from Catholic authorities, but totally accepting of every other political and media authority. I have no idea how to talk with them, just pray for them.
Younger dissenters never learned much Catholic doctrine, even if they attended Catholic schools. They may take a position they learned from the Media; but if they hear a brief explanation from you of the Catholic position, they may change, sometimes gradually. Unlike the older generation, they don’t automatically suspect anyone in agreement with the Magisterium, and don’t automatically trust every website that opposes the Magisterium. If I am talking with younger relatives, I don’t tell them what to believe, I point out some facts that help me to reach my beliefs. I also point out some media source that appears to reflect a secularist bias. Young people are constantly bombarded with the secularist media analyzing the Catholic Church, and never encouraged to analyze the pro secularist media.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Obviously, your credibility depends on how much the dissenter can see God’s love in you. That being said, I find dissenters in 2 very different groups. There is a specific generation, now mostly over 65 or deeply identifying with that group, that did learn Catholic doctrine when they were younger. But they chose to reject their Catholic doctrinal foundation after the 1960’s, because they were caught up in the secular society, especially from the Media. I have known sisters who were brutally overworked and unappreciated in their early years, now suspicious of everything coming from Catholic authorities, but totally accepting of every other political and media authority. I have no idea how to talk with them, just pray for them.
Younger dissenters never learned much Catholic doctrine, even if they attended Catholic schools. They may take a position they learned from the Media; but if they hear a brief explanation from you of the Catholic position, they may change, sometimes gradually. Unlike the older generation, they don’t automatically suspect anyone in agreement with the Magisterium, and don’t automatically trust every website that opposes the Magisterium. If I am talking with younger relatives, I don’t tell them what to believe, I point out some facts that help me to reach my beliefs. I also point out some media source that appears to reflect a secularist bias. Young people are constantly bombarded with the secularist media analyzing the Catholic Church, and never encouraged to analyze the pro secularist media.

That’s all ya had to say right there If we judge or condemn them, we justify their actions.

 

[commenter]

Many dissenters or former Catholic left the Church due to a disagreement with some sort of social issue, priest, Church teaching or parish life. Many say nasty things about the Church and often give advice to non Catholics, which tend to make the Church look bad. I have come across a few in my days. I have noticed the pain they deal with. Many are hurting over a certain issue and that pain turns to anger.

I have found that they want you to argue about the Church. They want to engage in a “battle” of wits so as to “prove” you wrong.

I have found that it is best to simply show they love and silently pray for them. Showing them love will actually undermine what they are trying to accomplish.

For many decades people were aware that smoking was harmful, both to the smoker and others, but nobody wanted to bring it up to their smoker relatives and friends. Lots of people kept smoking, and suffered, and caused suffering, because everybody else wanted to be “friendly”, so they never urged the smoker to quit. Dissent is like smoking. It seemed harmless. But dissent is “addictive”, it has deadly consequences for the individual, other individuals, and society. So we should show love for the dissenter in all ways, not just talking about religion. But yes, we SHOULD point out what is true, and where dissent is wrong, never judging the dissenter, but definitely judging the dissent. Failing to respond to dissent results in weak opposition to abortion, young people not learning the truth about Christ, and many other evils. We show love for dissenters (or smokers) sometimes by respectful argument, even though it’s tempting to change the subject to sports, etc. We show no love for dissenters by avoiding the tough questions, even though we must never act “tough” towards them, personally.

 

[johnnyc176]

That’s all ya had to say right there If we judge or condemn them, we justify their actions.

But that is the problem the OP is talking about. Just by proclaiming the truth you will be accused of judging and/or condemning.

 

[aidanbradypop]

But that is the problem the OP is talking about. Just by proclaiming the truth you will be accused of judging and/or condemning.

You have to come at from an angle that is not deemed as judging. Instead of saying “you are wrong because______________” you can state that “this is what I believe and the Church teaches.” By doing it that way, you are letting them know your stance on the matter while not “pointing the finger at them.”

 

[Michael_Allen]

Hi St Francis

I suppose, as ever, it’s best to talk to people remembering that either or both of you might be wrong sometimes. I doubt two people, who each can’t imagine being wrong, would have a particularly good conversation. People, in good conscience, believe different things, and it’s possible that we are all fallible in judging what is infallible.

I remember listening to a talk by the brilliant N.T.Wright. He said at the beginning “It’s quite likely that 20% of what I say today will be wrong; the problem is I don’t know which 20%”.

 

[johnnyc176]

Hi St Francis

I suppose, as ever, it’s best to talk to people remembering that either or both of you might be wrong sometimes. I doubt two people, who each can’t imagine being wrong, would have a particularly good conversation. People, in good conscience, believe different things, and it’s possible that we are all fallible in judging what is infallible.

Unless, of course, you are discussing what the Church teaches right? I think that is what the OP is referring to.

 

[johnnyc176]

You have to come at from an angle that is not deemed as judging. Instead of saying “you are wrong because______________” you can state that “this is what I believe and the Church teaches.” By doing it that way, you are letting them know your stance on the matter while not “pointing the finger at them.”

Can’t agree with you on your suggestion. That sounds like you are giving weight to whatever falsehood they are believing in. The truth is the truth.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Can’t agree with you on your suggestion. That sounds like you are giving weight to whatever falsehood they are believing in. The truth is the truth.

I see what you are saying but how are you giving weight to their falsehood when you are expressing your beliefs? You are stating what you believe in and standing firm in your belief. The truth is the truth, but is there a need to debate after debate with no end?

 

[Michael_Allen]

Unless, of course, you are discussing what the Church teaches right? I think that is what the OP is referring to.

Personally I admit to some uncertainties even about what the Church teaches. For many years I lived with doubts that went far beyond specific doctrines; I am happy now to have faith in God and in Jesus. Surity in specific doctrines waxes and wanes, so I could never say with honesty that I never doubt Church teaching. But that’s just me, and I know some people never struggle with any doubt.

The thing is though if you have a Catholic who has no doubt he is right, and a non-Catholic who has equal confidence that he is right, you are probably not going to get a particularly edifying conversation as neither allows room to learn much from the other. The risk is that it will be all speaking and no listening, from both sides. They might be best walking away from each other as soon as they recognize the impasse.

Perhaps what is most important is simple honesty. Someone with no doubts should not feel they need to feign uncertainty, and people with uncertainty should not feel they have to feign certainty. That honesty, of course, starts with ourselves in quiet prayer, and then we try to avoid putting on a mask as we step out into the world.

Anyway, that’s just me thinking aloud. Interesting thread - I love to read the different perspectives on this.

God bless +

 

[johnnyc176]

I see what you are saying but how are you giving weight to their falsehood when you are expressing your beliefs? You are stating what you believe in and standing firm in your belief. The truth is the truth, but is there a need to debate after debate with no end?

I agree with your last sentence…I am talking about how you express your beliefs. Let’s say the issue is abortion…your example…

I believe abortion is wrong and that is what the Church teaches.

Just seems like your saying this is what I believe but you may think differently. Doesn’t that seem to open it up for debate?

I just lean to a more direct approach…abortion is wrong and it’s a sin (remember we are talking to a Catholic). The simple truth. There is no debate.

I still contend that either way we will be accused of being judgmental, arrogant, etc. No matter how you say it there is a reason they are called dissenters.

.

 

[St_Francis]

Shew, I keep trying to write a reply and getting interrupted (by little things like work ) And everyone has great thought-provoking answers!

Anyway–I guess there are types of dissenting Catholics: there are those who don’t know any better, bit who are sincere and who are willing to learn if they find out their 5th grade CCD teacher was wrong about Teaching X; these would correspond to those of “immature faith” or the younger generation, as others put it.

Then there are those who simply seem not to *want *to believe the truth, those who, as another poster put it, take pointing out the truth for judgementalness and condemnation. And here is something I am learning: those who don’t want to accept the full weight of their crosses and want people to “accept them as they are.” Or who just act so superior to the orthodox believer because they have “seen through” the Catholic Church.

So, I have found I can talk with the first type, those who are willing to engage in discussion, but the second types… Well, the first two sets disengage easily. Both realize there is no sense in discussing our differences and both of us are willing to politely stop talking–we both know what’s up.

But the third group–well, sometimes one has to be rude to them! And then all the “showing them God’s love” is out the window And that, I guess, is what I have the most trouble with.

 

[aidanbradypop]

I still contend that either way we will be accused of being judgmental, arrogant, etc. No matter how you say it there is a reason they are called dissenters.

Very much so. Have you ever noticed that once they dissent, they tend to be looking to pick a fight so to speak?

Here is a wonderful example of where I am coming from. I am sure there are many different way this could have played out, but I decided to pray that the Holy Spirit guide me this certain encounter. I am friends with a guy who was raised Catholic. He now leans more toward the Eastern beliefs. He knows I am Catholic and he often comes at me with “why does the Church believe this” kind of questions. Many of his questions do not hold water to Church teachings, but in his mind, due to the lack of religious education, he already has an answer but simply trying to bait me into a debate or wits. I am the only Catholic in my entire family, so I am used to those kind of exchanges.

I try to correct him softly and lovingly, while standing firm on my faith and Church teachings. We had dinner last night and he spoke out against the authority of the Church. “That new Pope seems like a nice guy and one for the poor. Maybe he can take money out of the Vatican bank and pay some people who really need it instead of living like a king.” Kind of a slander there, BUT I can take the higher ground and state the Catholic Church is the largest charitable org in the entire world and offers more free education to children than any other. I stated that I hope Pope Francis inspires us all to give more freely and live within our means.

That conversation could have gotten out of had, yet I told him my stance and he really had no where else to go with it.

Of course some people and situations are much different. It really all depends on the person with whom you are speaking with. Agree?

 

[TheJazzuit]

What is a dissenting catholic? And please don’t say abortion. We all get the abortion thing.

 

[johnnyc176]

Of course some people and situations are much different. It really all depends on the person with whom you are speaking with. Agree?

Not really…the truth is the truth no matter who you are talking to.

 

[Michael_Allen]

Not really…the truth is the truth no matter who you are talking to.

Yet we can also interact with people in different ways, as Paul teaches us…

1 Corinthians 9:19-23 (ESV): For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.