The Perils of Dissent

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

Alan,

Abraham was ready to bodily sacrifice his son to God, and not to a pedophilia. Those who molest generally have been molested as children themselves. One of the steps in the process of healing is taking away the power of the abuser, so any sort of let us sweep it under the rug for the greater good would negate a crucial step toward healing for the victim. So there is far more at stake than offering one’s child’s virginity up for the Church. Not only that, but I would question if a parent even had the moral right to do that? Besides, I could be wrong, but it was my understanding, that nothing supersedes the moral law. And as Jim just reminded us, Jesus did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. Abraham lived at an age when human sacrifice was in fact part of the culture. So, although, it was a terrible sacrifice for him to obey God’s request, it would not have been as unusual then as it would be in this day and age. Besides, God never intended Abraham to sacrifice Isaac’s life.

Thanks Dave, I think I will do a follow up as you suggested regarding the law for purification of the sacred vessels.

I am glad this topic exists, because obedience is of paramount importance to me. I follow the True Devotion and being obedient is not as cut and dry as one may believe. It would be easier in a cloistered order, but not on the outside. I am pressed for time now, but I would be very interested in any opinion on the subject, as I am always looking for clarification on obedience.
 
Alan,
I had meant that if we all had faith like her, the pedophile problem would never have been exposed.
Click to expand...
I think one would have to keep into perspective that we are not obliged to obey directives from lower authority that contradict higher authority. That’s part of what I meant by including the *Summa *commentary by St. Thomas Aquinas. A doubtful directive does not bind. If my priest were to ask me to play slap and tickle with him, I’d say that’d be cause for doubt. 😉

Furthermore, one should realize that voicing contrary opinion and questioning the orthodoxy of teachings made by your superiors is not the same as disobedience. I’m in the military, and certainly understand that lawful orders must be obeyed. However, I’m expected to speak my mind when I think we are headed in the wrong direction, but to do so respectfully. I am often afforded a “But, Sir …” or two before my disagreement crosses the line into disobedience. I’m quite aware that when the Colonel says, “Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut, but this is my decision …” that it’s time to salute smartly and accept his decision as it it were my own. In such an instance, I can be assured that my superior has at least considered my opinion. He is by no means bound to agree with me. The shepherds authority is not derived from the agreement of the sheep. If the boss doesn’t agree, after I’ve given my best argument, I am not permitted to then continue to dissent with his decision, especially in front of my peers and to my subordinates. I ought to give no indication to them that my I don’t agree with my superior’s decision, but instead should do my best to champion it as if it were my own, otherwise I am certain to sow disunity within the unit. Very difficult to do, especially when your boss is an idiot 🙂 (not that mine is) … but it is what I would expect of my subordinates, and I think the golden rule applies.
 
I don’t remember where it says in the Bible that if one breaks one of the 10 Commandments, one has broken all 10.

Can this principle be applied to cafeteria Catholics? In name you’re catholic, but in reality you’re not. Or is this type of thinking incorrect? Can someone sort this out for me?

Theodora
 
Alan,

According to the Constitution of the Church, Lumen Gentium:
By reason of the knowledge, competence, or pre-eminence which they have, the laity are empowered—indeed sometimes obliged—to manifest their opinion on those things which pertain to the good of the Church. If the occasion should arise, this should be done through the institutions established by the Church for that purpose, and always with truth, courage, and prudence, and with reverence and charity toward those who, by reason of their office, represent the person of Christ.

–Vatican Council II, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, no. 37

We are in fact being obedient to the Church when voicing our opinion. Notice “how” to do so, however. Fr. Charles Curran, in the 1960s staged a public protest of the Church’s encyclical *Humanae Vitae prior to it’s release. *I believe this was dissent, not merely manifesting one’s opinion with reverence and charity through the institutions established by the Church.

Imagine if you will a military officer such as myself, staging a public protest against the war prior to the decision to go to war. That would be a violation of the UCMJ, just as surely as Fr. Curran violated the Constitution of the Catholic Church in his protest.

Distinction between heretic and heterodox:

Furthermore, a heretic is one who doubts or rejects a *de fide *dogma of Catholicism. One is merely heterodox (disobediently so) for doubting or rejecting, either expressly or tacitly, any doctrine of faith or morals formally proclaimed by the magisterium. Either may be due to mortal sin, however. But heretic is not normally a term used unless you doubt or reject infallible (de fide) teachings of the Church.

Many dissenters thing they are OK because they assent to the de fide teachings but dissent from other doctirnes. They are not OK, but they are not heretics strictly speaking. They are still in violation of canon law, which can certainly be a mortal sin depending upon the gravity of the violation and the consent of the will and intellect.

Code of Canon Law states:

Canon 752 "While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith or morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ’s faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine.
The canon uses the technical expression *religiosum obsequium intellectu et voluntatis," *… An exact translation of obsequium is difficult, but “submission” is not the best one because it exaggerates the force of the Latin. Such English terms as “respect,” “deference,” “concurrence,” “adherence,” “compliance,” or “allegiance” would be better translations of obsequium.
Click to expand...
(*New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, *J.P. Beal, et al, ed., New York: Paulist Pres, 2000)
Click to expand...
 
Alan,

continued …

The above commentary goes on to describe religious assent as “respectful religious deference of intellect and will” as in contrast to complete “absolute or unconditional obedience” of intellect and will.

Professor of theology, William May explains:
catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Dossier/2000-5-6/article2.html
It is interesting to note that the term “dissent” did not appear in theological literature prior to the end of Vatican Council II. … the obsequium religiosum required for teaching authoritatively but not infallibly proposed … recognized that a theologian (or other well-informed Catholic) might not in conscience be able to give internal assent to some teachings. They thus spoke of “withholding assent” and raising questions, but this is a far cry from “dissent.”

… **The **Instruction on the ecclesial vocation of theologian issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has addressed this matter. It recognized that theologians (and others) might question not only the form but even the substantive content of some authoritatively proposed magisterial teachings. It held that it is permissible in such instances to withhold assent, to raise questions (and present them to the magisterium), to discuss the issues with other theologians (and be humble enough to accept criticism of one’s own views by them). Theologians (and others) can propose their views as hypotheses to be considered and tested by other theologians and ultimately to be judged by those who have, within the Church, the solemn obligation of settling disputes and speaking the mind of Christ. But it taught one is not giving a true obsequium religiosum if one dissents from magisterial teaching and proposes one’s own position as a position that the faithful are at liberty to follow, substituting it for the teaching of the magisterium.
Click to expand...
We are permitted to say “But Father …” as Catholics. However, questioning, seeking further understanding, proposing views as hypothesis, etc., is far different than dissent.
 
40.png
Theodora:
I don’t remember where it says in the Bible that if one breaks one of the 10 Commandments, one has broken all 10.

Can this principle be applied to cafeteria Catholics? In name you’re catholic, but in reality you’re not. Or is this type of thinking incorrect? Can someone sort this out for me?

Theodora
Click to expand...
Perhaps you are referring to the 2nd letter of James where is says that those who do not love their neighbor as themself are just as guilty of breaking the law as those who committ adultery or break other commandments. I think James was stressing the importance of just treatment for the poor as well as the rich.

I think it is worth noting that throughout the old testament, the punishment for those who broke the commandments was not to be forbidden to call themselves God’s people. Rather God continued to call them back, through the prophets and through natural events. until they would again seek God with all their heart.

If we would be like Christ, I think we would be slow to say someone or other is “no longer part of the church” and be ever hopeful that those who stray from the true teachings of Jesus would soon return.

Does this help sort anything out?

-Jim
 
40.png
trogiah:
Perhaps you are referring to the 2nd letter of James where is says that those who do not love their neighbor as themself are just as guilty of breaking the law as those who committ adultery or break other commandments. I think James was stressing the importance of just treatment for the poor as well as the rich.

I think it is worth noting that throughout the old testament, the punishment for those who broke the commandments was not to be forbidden to call themselves God’s people. Rather God continued to call them back, through the prophets and through natural events. until they would again seek God with all their heart.

If we would be like Christ, I think we would be slow to say someone or other is “no longer part of the church” and be ever hopeful that those who stray from the true teachings of Jesus would soon return.

Does this help sort anything out?

-Jim
Click to expand...
Yes. From what you explained cafeteria-style catholics are still Catholic.

Can you answer the following two questions. I would appreciate it.
  1. When the cafeteria-style catholic acts contrary to Christ’s teaching, like actually getting a divorce and “marry” again, or being directly involved in procuring an abortion, this catholic has excommunicated him/herself and so cease to be Catholic? Right?
  2. What about a so-called catholic politician or judge who promotes abortion by the way of voting or rulings in court in favor of abortion? At this point do they cease to be Catholic? I think I will answer my own question on this last one: Yes. - Correct?
Theodora
 
You can twist this in several ways depending on your viewpoint. I was not asked, but my understanding is, these people would be still be Catholic, but with mortal sins on their souls. And they would remain so, unless they confessed these sins and made the honest resolve not to repeat them. They would have to be formally and officially excommunicated, not to be Catholic any longer. If that was not the case, every time we committed a deadly sin, we would cease to be Catholic. It would mean, I would suspect, half the Sunday congregation not being Catholic.😉
 
40.png
tru_dvotion:
You can twist this in several ways depending on your viewpoint. I was not asked, but my understanding is, these people would be still be Catholic, but with mortal sins on their souls. And they would remain so, unless they confessed these sins and made the honest resolve not to repeat them. They would have to be formally and officially excommunicated, not to be Catholic any longer. If that was not the case, every time we committed a deadly sin, we would cease to be Catholic. It would mean, I would suspect, half the Sunday congregation not being Catholic.😉
Click to expand...
:bigyikes:

Thank you.

Theodora
 
40.png
Theodora:
Yes. From what you explained cafeteria-style catholics are still Catholic.

Can you answer the following two questions. I would appreciate it.
  1. When the cafeteria-style catholic acts contrary to Christ’s teaching, like actually getting a divorce and “marry” again, or being directly involved in procuring an abortion, this catholic has excommunicated him/herself and so cease to be Catholic? Right?
  2. What about a so-called catholic politician or judge who promotes abortion by the way of voting or rulings in court in favor of abortion? At this point do they cease to be Catholic? I think I will answer my own question on this last one: Yes. - Correct?
Theodora
Click to expand...
I am mostly certain that you have answered these questions correctly. The question of who is a Catholic and who is not is ultimately defined by the Catholic Church and those questions have been answered fairly clearly by the Catholic Church.

I am left with the question of how Jesus would treat such people. We have one clear indication of how he would treat someone who commits adultery. There is not a specific reference in the Godpels to a person having or procuring an abortion and then Jesus being confronted with how to deal with the situation so we can only guess based on the other stories of Jesus we have.

There is a lot I could go on about but that would take us very far off topic for this thread.

-Jim
 
This has been a great thread, with many insightful comments.Thank you all.

My question relates to the issue of who is properly called Catholic. Or, to phrase things differently, what is the difference between (among):
  1. A cafeteria Catholic
  2. Someone who is formerly Roman Catholic, but has been ‘received’ into the Episcopal Church
  3. A cradle Episcopalian.
Assume each of the three attends Mass at least weekly. Also, keep in mind all recite the Nicene Creed and agree on the most basic Theological matters. Each of these three considers himself/herself to be a part of "one holy, catholic and apostolic’ church.

Is there really any difference among the three?
 
40.png
maisua:
This has been a great thread, with many insightful comments.Thank you all.

My question relates to the issue of who is properly called Catholic. Or, to phrase things differently, what is the difference between (among):
  1. A cafeteria Catholic
  2. Someone who is formerly Roman Catholic, but has been ‘received’ into the Episcopal Church
  3. A cradle Episcopalian.
Assume each of the three attends Mass at least weekly. Also, keep in mind all recite the Nicene Creed and agree on the most basic Theological matters. Each of these three considers himself/herself to be a part of "one holy, catholic and apostolic’ church.

Is there really any difference among the three?
Click to expand...
The difference is that Episcopalians don’t go to cafeterias.😃
 
Petra, you make some good points, and don’t feel like you have to box yourself into any big pronouncements. Those of us on this board are “junkies,” we ENJOY the most minute traditions of the church and can get philosophical at the drop of a pin. Remember that Scripture is “merely” the written version of Tradition; they are not completely separate things, so we don’t have to prioritize one over the other when they are dimensions of the same thing. One of the biggest philosophical challenges we could debate is how technology is meant to interact with magisterial teaching–how much “should” come from Rome just because computers make it easy? Many of us on these boards love the fact that almost everything from the Vatican can be called up on the computer in seconds, but that certainly does not preclude a philosophical debate about whether this is good for the Church or not. Keep posting, it is great to hear your ideas!
 
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
We are in fact being obedient to the Church when voicing our opinion. Notice “how” to do so, however. Fr. Charles Curran, in the 1960s staged a public protest of the Church’s encyclical Humanae Vitae prior to it’s release. I believe this was dissent, not merely manifesting one’s opinion with reverence and charity through the institutions established by the Church.

Imagine if you will a military officer such as myself, staging a public protest against the war prior to the decision to go to war. That would be a violation of the UCMJ, just as surely as Fr. Curran violated the Constitution of the Catholic Church in his protest.
Click to expand...
Dear itsjustdave1988,

I appreciate your taking the time to research and report on this for me. It is comforting to know that the rules themselves seem to contain “out clauses” to allow for respectful dissent. Of course, if your only purpose in a discussion is to defend the status quo when someone brings up a contrary opinion, then it is tempting to keep that weapon out of sight and just use those that either defend the Church’s original position or condemn the questioner for being wrong.

Alan
 
40.png
trogiah:
I am left with the question of how Jesus would treat such people. We have one clear indication of how he would treat someone who commits adultery. There is not a specific reference in the Godpels to a person having or procuring an abortion and then Jesus being confronted with how to deal with the situation so we can only guess based on the other stories of Jesus we have.
Click to expand...
Thank you.

When the Church decides to hold a sinner bound, is it doing Christ’s work to argue on the sinner’s behalf? What about Moses who got God to change his mind about punishing people? What about the example Jim alluded to where Jesus interfered with the people of the Church carrying out its own orders?

When the Church excommunicates people, refuses them Communion, or otherwise condemns them, I can either stay out of it because it’s not my business (but it is if we are all one body), defend the Church, or I can come to the aid of the sinner. On judgment day I’ll have to answer for it, but I personally think my chances are better if I showed empathy for the condemned, visited the prisoner, etc. than if I were on the team that refused to grant mercy – either individually or systematically. We are not talking about preserving order here, or protecting the sacrament of the Eucharist. The Eucharist doesn’t need protection.

What about Jesus’ teaching that the one who owes the most will be most grateful for debt cancellation? Are not the greatest sinners the ones most in need of mercy? When we cast out a sinner who is not doing anything against the Church except to have sinned against herself and against God, like every one of us do, isn’t that a bit like spiritual abortion? Those who condemned Jesus were convinced he had spoken blashpemy, so they were “just following orders” by crucifying him. Kicking some poor ignorant woman out of the Church because she sinned, to me, is not a whole lot different than pounding the nails into Jesus’ wrists. You have the force of the Church behind you, and you are just following orders.

Alan
 
itsjustdave1988 said:
Theologians (and others) can propose their views as hypotheses to be considered and tested by other theologians and ultimately to be judged by those who have, within the Church, the solemn obligation of settling disputes and speaking the mind of Christ. But it taught one is not giving a true obsequium religiosum if one dissents from magisterial teaching and proposes one’s own position as a position that the faithful are at liberty to follow, substituting it for the teaching of the magisterium.
Click to expand...

Hot button issues like ABC, female priestesses, IVF, etc have been settled by the Church. They have been fully addressed in many ways. Does this quote imply that no matter the issue one may withhold assent? I can see academic theologians discussing arcane issues, but can one argue that a Catholic can withhold assent from the central teachings on things that have always been taught as intrinsically evil like ABC and abortion?
 
Alan,
40.png
AlanFromWichita:
I appreciate your taking the time to research and report on this for me. It is comforting to know that the rules themselves seem to contain “out clauses” to allow for respectful dissent. Of course, if your only purpose in a discussion is to defend the status quo when someone brings up a contrary opinion, then it is tempting to keep that weapon out of sight and just use those that either defend the Church’s original position or condemn the questioner for being wrong.
Click to expand...
I agree with William May that **obsequium religiosum **is incompatible with ***dissent, ***so I don’t see any “out clause” here.

I understand there’s a subtle nuance in the terms “dissent” and offering an opinion as hypothesis but not as a substitute for magisterial teaching, but I accept that nuance.

Nor do I see it as a “weapon,” as such characterization betrays an attitude of dissent as opposed to obsequium religiosum. Nor do I see such teachings as out of sight. It’s in Lumen Gentium, the Constitution on the Church. It is the right of every Catholic to manifest their opinion, but to do so with obsequium religiosum for the teachings of the magisterium. Many dissenter simply place their obsequium , religious or otherwise in their own theological perspective. That’s rather tragic.

The Church’s original position is aways to be defended. Yet, questioners that are wrong need to be taught, not condemned. Censures are for those fully knowing what the Church teaches, yet are manifestly defiant to her authority.
 
Hot button issues like ABC, female priestesses, IVF, etc have been settled by the Church.
Click to expand...
I agree. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon11.gif
Does this quote imply that no matter the issue one may withhold assent?
Click to expand...
No. The magisterial teachings are in no way ambiguous on these matters. The Taught Church is clear. Some within the Taught Church simply disagree and substitute their personal theological perspective as truth contrary to the teachings of the magisterium.

That quote pertained to those doctrines that require our **obsequium religiosum. *** De fide *dogmas require the assent of faith. There’s a lesser assent, that of religious deference required on matters that are less than de fide doctrines of Catholicism. *De fide *dogmas are absolutely true, whereas other dogmas have moral certainty that are less than absolute, but in no way considered among the field of free opinion for Catholics. BTW, the line between *de fide *dogmas and less-than *de fide *dogmas is really a matter for dogmatic theologians to discern, with final authority vested in the magisterium.

Assent of intellect and will is required of all teachings of the magisterium. So, whether something is *de fide *or not is of no practical consequence to non-theologians. For *de fide *dogmas the assent is absolute and complete. For others, there’s room from respectful theological dialogue, hypothesis, questioning, etc., according to one’s competence, at all times respecting the judgment of one’s superiors over own’s own judgment.

My opinion is that those that dissent do not admit of a superior on this earth greater than their own personal judgment. For these, Heb 13:17 has very little meaning.
 
maisua,
Is there really any difference among the three?
Click to expand...
While I think your question is a little off topic, I’ll attempt to briefly address it …

Yes, there really is a difference. All baptized Christians are Catholic. However, some of those Catholics are faithful, some disobedient. Others are apostates, some heretics, some schismatics. Disobedience, apostasy, heresy, and schism are damnable sins, whether one attends Mass weekly or not.

I suggest you consider what belief in the ‘one holy catholic and apostolic church’ meant from the viewpoint of those professing the Creed in the early Church. The Church was visible community then, just as it is now, having a clear hierarchy whose ordination comes through apostolic succession.

Those that reject Heb 13:17 by simply ejecting their ordained ministers for those of their own making are committing the sin of Korah’s rebellion (cf. Num 16, Jude 11), in my opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top