The Perils of Dissent

[tru_dvotion]

Canon 750 (AD TUENDAM FIDEM)

**
Pope John Paul II **

**

"1. Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal Magisterium, which in fact is manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. All are therefore bound to avoid any contrary doctrines. 1989**

**
**

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Javelin,

When is it OK to disobey a Church directive? When is it perilous?

Here are some quotes that sums up my thoughts on the matter:

St. Catherine of Sienna on obedience…

“He is insane who rises or acts contrary to this Vicar who holds the keys of the blood of Christ crucified. Even if he was a demon incarnate, I should not raise my head against him, but always grovel and ask for the blood out of mercy. And don’t pay attention to what the demon proposes to you and you propose under the color of virtue, that is to say to want to do justice against evil pastors regarding their fault. Don’t trust the demon: don’t try to do justice about what does not concern you. God wants neither you nor anyone else to set themselves up as a righter of the wrongs of His ministers. He reserves judgment to Himself, and He reserves it to His Vicar; and if the Vicar does not do justice, we should wait for the punishment and correction on the part of the sovereign judge, God Eternal.” (Letters, Vol. I. Letter No. 28).

Pope Pius XII:

"The holiness of any life and the effectiveness of any apostolate has constant and faithful obedience to the hierarchy as its solid foundation, basis and support."

[from Pope Pius XII, Exhortation In auspicando, AAS 40 (1948) 375., as quoted by Pope John XXIII, *Sacerdotii Nostri Primordia

]
Pope St. Gregory the Great:

“obedience is rightly preferred to sacrifices, because by sacrifices another’s body is slain whereas by obedience we slay our own will.” (Moral. xxxv)

“evil should never be done out of obedience: yet sometimes for the sake of obedience we should lay aside the good we are doing, … obedience should be practiced, not out of servile fear, but from a sense of charity, not through fear of punishment, but through love of justice.” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theological, IIa, 104, 3)

According to Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman:

I say with Cardinal Bellarmine whether the Pope be infallible or not in any pronouncement, anyhow he is to be obeyed. No good can come from disobedience. His facts and his warnings may be all wrong; his deliberations may have been biassed. He may have been misled. Imperiousness and craft, tyranny and cruelty, may be patent in the conduct of his advisers and instruments. But when he speaks formally and authoritatively he speaks as our Lord would have him speak, and all those imperfections and sins of individuals are overruled for that result which our Lord intends (just as the action of the wicked and of enemies to the Church are overruled) and therefore the Pope’s word stands, and a blessing goes with obedience to it, and no blessing with disobedience.
[John Henry Newman, “'The Oratory, Novr. 10, 1867”, The Genius of Newman(1914), by Wilfrid Ward, Vol II, Ch. 26, http://www.newmanreader.org/biography/ward/volume2/chapter26.html”]http://www.newmanreader.org/biography/ward/volume2/chapter26.html

]
According to St. Thomas Aquinas, in regard to obedience to the law, he states, “it is not competent for everyone to expound what is useful and what is not useful.” (ibid, II, 96, 6). Instead, he asserts “those alone can do this who are in authority, and who, on account of such like cases, have the power to dispense from the laws.” Dispensation is certainly appropriate in times where it would be perilous to obey the law: “If, however, the peril be so sudden as not to allow of the delay involved by referring the matter to authority, the mere necessity brings with it a dispensation, since necessity knows no law.” Nevertheless, “if it be a matter of doubt, he must either act according to the letter of the law, or consult those in power.”

 

[tru_dvotion]

As someone else just said, dissent is not questioning, dissent is not following. Dissent is: “I will not serve”, “I will not serve that way”, “I will only serve my way”.

This below is a very interesting site. It contains a wealth of material pertaining to those organizations and persons who purport to hold the Catholic Faith but actually dissent from the Truth and instead embrace error, all while proclaiming themselves as Catholic.

Dissenting Catechetical / Evangelization Programs:

www.ourladyswarriors.org/dissent/

 

[itsjustdave1988]

The 15th century monk Thomas Kempis in his book Imitation of Christ wrote of obedience and subjection as follows:

It is a very great thing to live in obedience, to be under a superior, and not to be free to do as we please.

It is much safer to obey than to govern.

Many live under obedience more from necessity than from love, and such are discontented and easily complain. They cannot attain freedom of mind unless they willingly and heartily put themselves under obedience for the love of God.

Go wherever you will, but you will still find no rest except in humble subjection under the government of a superior.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

St. Catherine of Sienna on obedience...:

“God wants neither you nor anyone else to set themselves up as a righter of the wrongs of His ministers. He reserves judgment to Himself, and He reserves it to His Vicar; and if the Vicar does not do justice, we should wait for the punishment and correction on the part of the sovereign judge, God Eternal.”

This is pretty radical faith, more than I have. If we all had this much faith in His ministers there would not have been a child-molesting scandal in the Church.

Alan

 

[tru_dvotion]

AlanFromWichita:

This is pretty radical faith, more than I have. If we all had this much faith in His ministers there would not have been a child-molesting scandal in the Church.

**I doubt it very much St. Catherine of Sienna meant obeying pedophile priests or overlooking their sin when she wrote about obedience. Catholics were never required to be obedient to the Church in violation of the moral law. The moral law always precedes all other laws.

**

 

[tru_dvotion]

Can the Pope, a bishop or a priest make a mistake? Yes! But if you obey them, you are not sinning; but if you disobey them, you are, even if they made a mistake. (Excluding moral sin of course) There were Old Testament martyrs who refused to eat pork. They obeyed the law of their day and because of their obedience, they became saints. So the point is not what they ate, the point is obedience. Why is obedience so important? Because all sin is the result of disobedience. Lucifer’s and our first parents’ sin was disobedience. Jesus redeemed us with the direct opposite of disobedience, which is none other than obedience.

 

[javelin]

When is it OK to disobey a Church directive? When is it perilous?

Thanks for your posts itsjustdave1988 and tru-dvotion. I wasn’t really asking that question as much as I was posing it as the question that is up for debate. You both appear to be asserting, with relevant citations, that is is never licit to dissent.

I would agree, although there are those few exceptions:

St. Thomas Aquinas:

Dispensation is certainly appropriate in times where it would be perilous to obey the law: “If, however, the peril be so sudden as not to allow of the delay involved by referring the matter to authority, the mere necessity brings with it a dispensation, since necessity knows no law.”

No arguments there.

There is dignity and tremendous merit in obedience, and I believe God desires it even when the leaders are imperfect, if for no other reason than unity. I like it that the Church has the wisdom to submit its own authority to the highest moral law, being as servant to the Gospel while also admitting its members’ penchant for error.

Peace,
javelin

 

[tru_dvotion]

But javelin, would this then exclude the possibility for martyrdom?

I fully understand what peril and sudden peril is.** **I grew up under one of the toughest of communist regimes. If there is such a thing as a dispensation, (… besides what St Augustine said) that is fine… but it excludes the possibility for martyrdom. If there is “time” to seek guidance from church authority, there is a way out without grave compromise. But my understanding of sudden peril allows no time to consult with church authority. In fact, in perilous times, church authority is simply not available… no, most church authority is doing what everyone else is doing hiding behind closed doors and shaking in their boots with a few out and about dialoguing with the oppressive regime.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

If we all had this much faith in His ministers there would not have been a child-molesting scandal in the Church.

If we all had this much faith, there would not have been any child-molesting priests to cause such a scandal.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

If there is such a thing as a dispensation, (… besides what St Augustine said) that is fine… but it excludes the possibility for martyrdom.

I believe you are misunderstanding my point from St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa. The sudden peril I understood to be in regard to one’s soul, one’s state of grace. If one were to obey a superior contrary to the norms of higher authority, or contrary to the intent of the lawgiver, for example. Laws are (theoretically) for the good of a community in general. However, they are not intended to be understood as though the laws were good for all situations at all times. That’s why the Church can dispense from ecclesiastical laws (but not Divine Law), as in the case of married priests in the Latin Rite.

It appears that St. Thomas was making reference to laws in general, however. But I think it would apply in the following manner as well…

For example, let’s say my priest direct me to help him purify the vessels after celebrating a Mass. Yet, when I get there, he directs me to dump the precious blood into the sink, assuring me that it is fully in accordance with canon law to do so. I have my doubts, however. What do I do? There’s certainly no time to appeal to higher authority for dispensation from obedience to my priest. Necessity brings with it, dispensation. I am not bound to obey a doubtful directive. If the peril (to my soul) is not sudden, I am bound to either obey him or to seek advice from higher authorities. However, in such instances when seeking advice from higher authorities is not practical, necessity provides the dispsensation from his directive.

 

[tru_dvotion]

Ah, yes, I did misunderstand this itsjustdave1988 and thank you for clearing it up.

But actually, purifying the vessels by extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist goes against the Canon and specific papal directive. Unfortunately, in this case I had ample time to think it over and to research it. I am still taking the Blessed Sacrament to shut-ins, but I took a leave from serving at the mass for this very reason. I am bound to obey my pastor but it has been eating away at me for so long… I needed a break from my Sunday turmoil.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

tru_dvotion:

I doubt it very much St. Catherine of Sienna meant obeying pedophile priests or overlooking their sin when she wrote about obedience. Catholics were never required to be obedient to the Church in violation of the moral law. The moral law always precedes all other laws.

She didn’t? I was thinking more of overlooking and not obeying, but now that you mention it what she said probably applies to both. Let’s take another look at what she said, as quoted above by Dave:

“He is insane who rises or acts contrary to this Vicar who holds the keys of the blood of Christ crucified. Even if he was a demon incarnate, I should not raise my head against him, but always grovel and ask for the blood out of mercy. And don’t pay attention to what the demon proposes to you and you propose under the color of virtue, that is to say to want to do justice against evil pastors regarding their fault. Don’t trust the demon: don’t try to do justice about what does not concern you. God wants neither you nor anyone else to set themselves up as a righter of the wrongs of His ministers. He reserves judgment to Himself, and He reserves it to His Vicar; and if the Vicar does not do justice, we should wait for the punishment and correction on the part of the sovereign judge, God Eternal.” (Letters, Vol. I. Letter No. 28).

I had meant that if we all had faith like her, the pedophile problem would never have been exposed. Nobody would have dared “do something about it,” in favor of letting the authorities take care of it, or if they didn’t then God would.

Actually, if I were to take all the teachings I’ve seen on this forum about infallibility and obedience to their logical conclusion, it would result in a position like hers. We either do have the right to second guess what a priest tells us to do, or we don’t. Catherine says she would not, even if he were a demon incarnate. I don’t see how you can interpret this in a way that says Catherine would have raised her “head against him, but always grovel and ask for the blood out of mercy,” even when “him” is a priest committing morally illicit activity.

Does that mean that Catherine is telling us to do something bad? Not necessarily. After all, the actions of these poor priests may have hurt some children, but the scandal itself hurt the Church, and affected thousands of Catholics in an adverse way for every child that got hurt. As long as the bishops were able to hide the scandal, the Church herself did not suffer hurt. Once it became known, and it could have only become known through the actions of non-obedient Catholics or non-Catholics, for each child hurt there were thousands of Catholics whose faith was shaken, hundreds who left the Church entirely, entire dioceses were on the verge of bankruptcy due to lawsuits, and the entire world was shaken.

Like I said, there would have been no scandal if we all had the faith of Catherine. Now, is it good or bad to have that much faith? If we know of Church authorities who teach or do wrong things, do we cause damage or healing by dissenting, disobeying, reporting, etc. Through the VIRTUS program, the U.S. Bishops are now teaching Catholics to report such things, so we are now being taught by Church authorities to second-guess Church authorities. Why doesn’t our obedience to our Church leaders apply to certain types of behavior that we lay people are authorized to judge as immoral, but on everything else we are to obey and take comfort in the knowledge that the Holy Spirit has everything but that one item under control?

Like I said, I don’t have that much faith. Then again, some think I am “insane” so Catherine must know me.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

itsjustdave1988:

If we all had this much faith, there would not have been any child-molesting priests to cause such a scandal.

Dear Dave,

I agree. At the time I wrote the comment, by “we” I meant we who are supposed to faithfully obey the religious authorities. Whatever I meant by “we,” sooner or later you would still be right.

Alan

 

[tru_dvotion]

Does that mean that Catherine is telling us to do something bad? Not necessarily. After all, the actions of these poor priests may have hurt some children, but the scandal itself hurt the Church, and affected thousands of Catholics in an adverse way for every child that got hurt. As long as the bishops were able to hide the scandal, the Church herself did not suffer hurt. Once it became known, and it could have only become known through the actions of non-obedient Catholics or non-Catholics, for each child hurt there were thousands of Catholics whose faith was shaken, hundreds who left the Church entirely, entire dioceses were on the verge of bankruptcy due to lawsuits, and the entire world was shaken.

But Alan, I would not be so quick to blame the actions of the non-obedient Catholics or non-Catholics. Unless you had one of YOUR children molested by a pedophile priest, you have no right to pass judgment on those parents who went looking for justice. The church did not help them, so they had every right to go outside the Church for help. The blame first and foremost should go to the bishops who knowingly reassigned pedophile priests, and not once, but many times. They should have been disrobed or assigned to posts where they no longer had access to young children. The Church could have dealt with it, but in its arrogance chose not to. Ultimately, all sin will have to be answered for, even those of omission. Forgive me for saying this, but it is a small consolation to a parent or to a child, who was sodomized, that God will eventually punish those responsible for ruining their lives. Two wrongs never make it right. No I don’t buy it, not the way you are presenting it.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

tru_dvotion:

But Alan, I would not be so quick to blame the actions of the non-obedient Catholics or non-Catholics. Unless you had one of YOUR children molested by a pedophile priest, you have no right to pass judgment on those parents who went looking for justice. The church did not help them, so they had every right to go outside the Church for help. The blame first and foremost should go to the bishops who knowingly reassigned pedophile priests, and not once, but many times. They should have been disrobed or assigned to posts where they no longer had access to young children. The Church could have dealt with it, but in its arrogance chose not to. Ultimately, all sin will have to be answered for, even those of omission. Forgive me for saying this, but it is a small consolation to a parent or to a child, who was sodomized, that God will eventually punish those responsible for ruining their lives. Two wrongs never make it right. No I don’t buy it, not the way you are presenting it.

Dear tru_dvotion,

I wholeheartedly agree, and you have said it well.

I really, really do try to see all sides of an issue, and I have tried very hard to see the side that has been presented to me that I should not second-guess the Church or her authorities but obey her and believe her teachings because she is divinely protected against error, and all the rest. For saying that I not only may but must use my own conscience when deciding whether to obey or believe any given thing, I have been called a dissenter, a heretic, childish, juvenile, a non-Catholic, a non-believer, Protestant, troll, faithless (well I can’t completely disagree with that ), a person who denies Peter’s authority, a person who if I doubt the Church then I doubt Christ Himself, and I forgot what all else. Oh, yes, if I include St. Catherine herself and anybody who agrees with her, I would be “insane.”

St. Catherine’s story was such an incredible encapsulation of what I’ve come to see as the “proper” attitude others on this forum have tried to instill in me, that I simply couldn’t resist the obvious example of complete submission and obedience. Abraham would have sacrificed his son for God. I don’t believe I have that much faith even if I was asked by a burning bush or a voice in the cloud, much less by the Church who, although I believe is holy in many ways, is imperfect, fallible, and operated by individuals who would protect her treasure, ego and reputation at the expense of my son.

Would those who believe we may “question” but not “dissent” agree that I should be willing to sacrifice my own son or his virginity for the betterment of the Church? There are four possible answers I can think of right offhand (I feel my first poll question coming on): a) you would obey the Church with the faith of Abraham and sacrifice your own child for her, b) you would not sacrifice your own child, but admit that it’s due to your own weakness because you do not have the faith of Abraham of Catherine and would obey the Church on anything that doesn’t involve molesting your children by Church authorities, c) same as B but there may become other narrow, specific areas you have to watch out for, such as the molestation of children you don’t know and perhaps certain non-sexual sins like the scenario Dave brought up of being asked to pour the Precious Blood into the sink, or d) you agree with me that we must have our own consciences and be responsible for our own sins because although the Church guides us, she is fallible, has sinned, and has led others to sin, and that to deny such responsibility would be to deny the Vatican II teaching that holiness is for everyone, which I interpret to mean that we each possess the Holy Spirit, not just people who wear religious clothing.

Whew! Maybe I’d better make some coffee and calm down!

Alan

 

[trogiah]

This thread seems to have remarkable staying power. It seems like it still has the potential for positive growth.

I would like to present the following words of Jesus from Matthew 5:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.
Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.
Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
I tell you, unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”

Jesus seems to be directly addressing the ‘perils of dissent’. What are those perils? That a person will not be great in the kingdom of heaven.

I think it is worth noting that dissenters are not banned from the kingdom of heaven. I think it also worth noting that a common characteristic of virtually all Saints (those who are great in the kingdom of heaven) is a very high regard for the virtue of obedience.

If we would be known as a Saint, obedience would definitely be a priority. If we are satisfied with a lesser place in God’s kingdom, obedience to human authorities would seem to be less of a priority.

On the other hand, how is it that the scribes and Pharisees seem clearly in danger of losing God’s kingdom entirely through their lack of righteousness?

Repeatedly in the gospels, the scribes and Pharisees are presented as those placing judgements and unnecessary burdens on the faithful. Many times it is stated, condemnation comes from a lack of forgiveness on one’s own part, and not from dissent, disobedience, or any other particular sin.

Regarding the proper “forums” (in this case that is literal and figurative) for dissent and the discussion of dissent, A forum entitled “the perils of dissent” would seem like an appropriate place for such discussion. One might say that those who find such discussion patently offensive should probably avoid this particular thread. For the record, it seems like everyone posting here has at least some ability to listen to others opinions on the topic

Regarding dissent in general, I think it is important to recognize that public controversy and dissent in the church can be a real, and often unnecessary, stumbling block to many faithful. I believe it is a true act of Christian charity to avoid public dissent where the harm done would most likely be greater than any potential good.

Again I will say that I think this forum is the right place for such discussion.

I think the question is worth considering; What is the peril of public dissent in terms of how it affects others who are listening to the debate. Is it sometimes necessary (as the sex abuse scandal would seem to be) or is it sometimes causing more harm than growth. Perhaps that is another thread.

peace
-Jim

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Dear Jim,

I loved your post.

trogiah:

Jesus seems to be directly addressing the ‘perils of dissent’. What are those perils? That a person will not be great in the kingdom of heaven.

I think it is worth noting that dissenters are not banned from the kingdom of heaven. I think it also worth noting that a common characteristic of virtually all Saints (those who are great in the kingdom of heaven) is a very high regard for the virtue of obedience.

If we would be known as a Saint, obedience would definitely be a priority. If we are satisfied with a lesser place in God’s kingdom, obedience to human authorities would seem to be less of a priority.

On the other hand, how is it that the scribes and Pharisees seem clearly in danger of losing God’s kingdom entirely through their lack of righteousness?

Repeatedly in the gospels, the scribes and Pharisees are presented as those placing judgements and unnecessary burdens on the faithful. Many times it is stated, condemnation comes from a lack of forgiveness on one’s own part, and not from dissent, disobedience, or any other particular sin.

This is an excellent point.

Of course, you probably knew I’d have to throw in my :twocents:.

How about the story about who wants what place at the table? How about the last shall be first?
How about the one who is the least will be called the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?
How about the fact that Jesus humbled himself as a servant to wash Peter’s feet?
How about he who wishes to save his life will lose it?
How about our ways are not God’s ways?

None of this is making complete sense but I’m feeling quite a sense of peace for the first time in three years.

Oh, that’s enough. Maybe somebody else can pick up where I left off, and likely be much more succinct.

Alan

 

[itsjustdave1988]

tru_dvotion,

actually, purifying the vessels by extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist goes against the Canon and specific papal directive.

Not necessarily. Depends upon the reason, and again, if dispensation was granted in your particular diocese for a particular circumstance. That’s why it’s important to first seek to understand before presuming liturgical abuse. Ecclesiastical laws and their intent apply generally, not always in each particular case. Thus, dispensation of ecclesiastical laws (not Divine Law) can authentically be given by the Church. In such cases, it is not legitimately to be considered “abuse” or “illicit.”

See here: catholic.com/library/liturgy/estevez_1.asp

In any case, if you have a doubt of law, and the peril is sudden, necessity brings dispensation. If you have a doubt of law, but the peril is not sudden, you must obey it or seek clarification (send a dubium to higher authority), then obediently respond in accordance with the judgement of higher authority (in accord with the responsum ad dubium; see link above for an example).

According to Canon Law: “Laws … do not obligate when there’s a doubt of law” (canon 14). Of course, “doubt of law” has a legal meaning, not just “I don’t agree with the law, therefore I ‘doubt’ it has authentic binding force.” Doubt of law does not equate to dissent from law.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

trogiah,

Jesus seems to be directly addressing the ‘perils of dissent’. What are those perils? That a person will not be great in the kingdom of heaven.

I think it is worth noting that dissenters are not banned from the kingdom of heaven. …

I disagree with such a dangerous notion. Surely not all disobedience is mortal sin, but in many instances it is mortal sin, depending upon the gravity of the offense, and the consent of the will and intellect. In such instances, just one mortal sin and you are surely cut off from Christ. You lose justification and YOU ARE in a state of UNrighteousness, and if you remain unrepentent in that one mortal sin, you will not inherit eternal life, no matter how much assent or dissent you cling to in other areas.

St. John contrasts faith with disobedience in his Gospel. In John 1:12, what does it mean to “recieve” and “believe”? In Jn 3:36, St. John asserts that *disobey *is the opposit of believe. Those who do not believe, that is, the disobedient, will not inherit eternal life. Those who are “lukewarm” will be spit out of Christ’s mouth. If you look in that verse of Revelation when St. John speaks of lukewarmness, it seems he is referring to our actions, or works.

Rev 3:15-16:

"I know your works; you are neither cold nor hot. I wish that you were either cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I am about to spit you out of my mouth.

I don’t imagine the figure “spit you out of my mouth” refers to remaining in Christ, in the glory of God, but in a lesser place in heaven.

Our Catholic Creed includes belief in the Holy Catholic Church. The contrast to belief, is disobedience. What the Church binds on earth is bound in heaven, and the Church binds Catholics to obedience to Divine Law, Ecclesiastical law, and Civil Law. We are dispensed from Civil Law, however, in those instances when Civil Law violates the laws of higher authority (e.g., Divine and Ecclesiastical law). Note, too, that the Church has condemned the proposition that canon law can be opposed to Divine Law, in general.

So, in general, Ecclesiastical Law is just as binding as Divine law unless one receives dispensation for the application of canon law in a particular case, or if there’s no time to seek dispensation and there’s a doubt of law regarding its intent in a particular circumstance, necessity brings dispenation (cf. canon 14). For example, we are bound to attend Mass on Sunday. Does that law apply when one is terribly ill? It certainly applies in general, and to violate such a law, in general, is a grave offense. But in this instance, there’s certainly sufficient doubt as to it’s intended application. Such a doubt dispenses from the obligation of the law in that instance.

Dissent from law is not the same as doubt of law. The perils of dissent most certainly includes loss of eternal life.