The Perils of Dissent

[BayCityRickL]

There’s a lot of heartful thoughts in this thread. I thought this thread was going to speak more generally about the widespread dissent in the Church among Bishops and Priests, particularly in the U.S.

The ‘captivity epistles’ of Paul in particular focus on the need for unity in the Church. Even Jesus Himself stressed unity as very important.

My personal dilemma with dissent is that I internalized a lot of what I thought the Church was and taught, chiefly throughout 12 years of elementary and secondary education. Then, I find in recent years, a lot of priests and bishops are pulling the rug from under those church doctrines and traditions and substituting ones of their own devices. So, I have trouble internalizing those things which conflict with the things I have already internalized.

The essence of dissent is a bit different from what I have found expressed here. I look at dissent not as an aspect of accepting what the Church has taught, but all the aspects of the teachings and practices that go on in our parishes which overturn those genuine teachings. (Well, it’s not “my” thread, anyway. ) What goes on here as dissent may be better understood as growing in the faith and the practice of the Church. Why would we want to belong to a Church did not have a pathway for growth to sustain us all of our lives?

A few have mentioned that there are a lot of “rules” in the Church. That may be, but in my simple mind I am still challenged by Jesus’ command to “seek first the Kingdom of God.” What would that look like?

 

[petra]

javelin:

I would actually say that it appears in many cases that the Bible teaches that true belief and faith are inseparable from *behavior *and *action *(works). Thus, one’s belief is truly not objectionable unless that belief carries through into action. An example would be someone who doubts a particular Church teaching. Doubt is not in and of itself morally evil. But if that person acted against the True teaching, or convinced others to act wrongly, the person would be culpable for that sin.

Javelin, I really agree with this: actions and faith are inseparable. Actions are also a visible outworking of faith. This is the reason I have difficulty minimizing Peter’s action in Galatians as simply errors of discipline with no relevance to his office of Vicar of Christ. His actions reflected a shift in his own personal faith – a shift that was not in line with the gospel. His actions also had the impact of misleading others. This was an error in the category of faith and morals. I can’t see how it could reasonably be otherwise.

 

[jordan]

javelin:

I didn’t know that a male priesthood was dogma. Are you certain?

I’m certain that a celibate priesthood is not doctrine or dogma, but a Church-imposed discipline.

javeline:

The infallible pronouncement of JPII (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis) is here:

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2ORDIN.HTM

petra:

Actually, Jordan, after hearing everyone’s testimony, including Peter’s, it was James who issued the final binding judgment – not Peter. See Acts 15:19.

Petra:

It is after “much debate had taken place” that Peter makes his pronouncement, and “the whole assembly fell silent;” then they listened to the signs and wonders God had worked through Paul and Barnabas among the Gentiles.The discussion and debate was over. You have to realize that James was the leader (first Bishop) of the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem. These were the folks who had the problem with Gentiles not adopting the dietary laws. This is why this Council needed to be held, debated, and resolved in Jerusalem. James would have been speaking to the hard core Jews of Jerusalem who wanted to hold all Christian converts accountable to the Law. His “judgment” was an “amen” to Peter’s pronouncement.

God bless!

jordan

 

[jordan]

For those of you who don’t have the time to read all of “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis,” here’s the bottom line:

Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.

javeline: You are right, priestly celibacy is a discipline, not a doctrine; however, a very well-founded discipline it is.

Yours in Christ,
jordan

 

[trogiah]

BayCityRickL:

The ‘captivity epistles’ of Paul in particular focus on the need for unity in the Church. Even Jesus Himself stressed unity as very important.

My personal dilemma with dissent is that I internalized a lot of what I thought the Church was and taught, chiefly throughout 12 years of elementary and secondary education. Then, I find in recent years, a lot of priests and bishops are pulling the rug from under those church doctrines and traditions and substituting ones of their own devices. So, I have trouble internalizing those things which conflict with the things I have already internalized.

A few have mentioned that there are a lot of “rules” in the Church. That may be, but in my simple mind I am still challenged by Jesus’ command to “seek first the Kingdom of God.” What would that look like?

Your last paragraph is what really caught my eye. The question “what does seeking the Kingdom of God look like?” is certainly an important one to consider.

All of a sudden I am reminded of the “rich young man” who came running up to ask Jesus what he should do to have eternal life. Jesus first responds by pointing to “the rules” in this case part of the Ten Commandments.

When the rich young man asks for more Jesus invites him on a journey beyond the “rules”

To me all this means is that the rules are a critical part of our path to God’s kingdom, but not the sole or even the primary focus we must have to reach the fullness of that kingdom.

In the end the living example of Jesus becomes the “rule” we are to follow. The better we can internalize that example, the closer we will be to the true kingdom of God.

 The other rules  -from the Ten Commandments to the most detailed bit of how to stand, kneel or sit in church  - take second place.  Following the rule of the example of Jesus will never make us defiant dissenters of Church authority, allthough perhaps we would sometimes be called to set aside some deeply held traditions (as he did by healing on the Sabbath).  But following the example of Jesus in no way requires that we condemn those who do break the rules.  However severe the judgment is on others, we can leave it to God.

Unity is a very important priority. I believe the greatest peril of dissent is that it can lead to a breakdown of unity.

May Jesus’s example become as internalized as the most deeply held of all our rules, dogmas, disciplines, and traditions.

-Jim

 

[javelin]

jordan:

javeline: You are right, priestly celibacy is a discipline, not a doctrine; however, a very well-founded discipline it is.

Yours in Christ,
jordan

jordan,

Thanks for the link to the Papal letter – I hadn’t seen it before, and it is very clearly stated. No problem there.

By the way, my “name” here is javelin, not javeline. You’ve addressed me the wrong way several times, now. No offense taken.

Peace,
javelin

 

[patg]

BayCityRickL:

I thought this thread was going to speak more generally about the widespread dissent in the Church among Bishops and Priests, particularly in the U.S.

The essence of dissent is a bit different from what I have found expressed here. I look at dissent not as an aspect of accepting what the Church has taught, but all the aspects of the teachings and practices that go on in our parishes which overturn those genuine teachings.

Some look at what you describe as dissent and some look at it as the Spirit moving the Church in a slightly different direction. I have never heard it expressed that the Spirit only moves from the top down. God is certainly capable of flowing the Spirit in any chosen direction and when enough of the “dissenting” bishops and priests who become bishops (who, together with the pope, make up the magisterium) accept the change, the Church will change if that is the will of the Spirit.

It is quite a contradiction for those here who say they blindly follow the magistrium in all things but only if the bishops don’t change anything they don’t want them to change.

Eventually many of these “dissenting” priests will become part of the magistrium and we will get a pope who wan’t raised in a country still in the middle ages. Then the “dissenters” will move the Church in the Spirit’s direction.

Pat

 

[javelin]

trogiah:

Following the rule of the example of Jesus will never make us defiant dissenters of Church authority, allthough perhaps we would sometimes be called to set aside some deeply held traditions (as he did by healing on the Sabbath).

As a norm, I would certainly agree that “following the example of Jesus” will not put us at odds with Church authority, but there is a distinct danger in your statement. You imply that “since Jesus defied authority at times, it is OK for us to do so at times”. That is simply not true. While we are definitely called to follow Jesus, we do not possess the ultimate moral authority that He did in defying Jewish leadership. He even admonished His apostles to heed Jewish authority, since their authority came from the “chair of Moses”.

Looking at ourselves first at “following Jesus” and secondly as “obeying to the Church” brings in the distinct possibility that at some time “following Jesus” will contradict “obeying the Church”, and since “following Jesus” takes precedence, it is OK to defy the Church and “follow Jesus” instead. Sound like protestantism anyone? This is exactly what Luther did.

Rather, I think we are to see “following Jesus” and “obeying the Church” as one in the same thing. Back to the quote which opened this thread: " Whoever listens to you listens to Me. Whoever rejects you rejects Me. And whoever rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me." --Luke 10:16.

trogiah:

All of a sudden I am reminded of the “rich young man” who came running up to ask Jesus what he should do to have eternal life. Jesus first responds by pointing to “the rules” in this case part of the Ten Commandments.

When the rich young man asks for more Jesus invites him on a journey beyond the “rules”

I agree with this completely, in that God calls us to more than a minimalist observance of His legal commandments. He calls us to life in Him, and it is only through life in Him that we are saved (not through simply following the commandments). Yet that deeper level of life is founded on the first tier (keeping the commandments) and cannot be sustained without it. Think of it as an instruction booklet for building something where Jesus writes the instructions:

First, follow my commandments.
Then truly give up your life and turn it over to me.

When following instructions, the item might not turn out to be stable or viable if you start in the middle! I think Jesus is giving us the way: “reform your life to live in accordance with My will, and through that come into a deeper relationship with Me so you are empowered to do My Will.” I don’t believe that someone who does not choose to follow Jesus’ commands can enter into that deeper relationship with Him; the sinfulness will get in the way.

Peace,
javelin

 

[fix]

It is quite a contradiction for those here who say they blindly follow the magistrium in all things but only if the bishops don’t change anything they don’t want them to change.

Blindly? Being obedient to Christ is not blind. You and other posters have not shown where the Church has changed, or may change, anything in the deposit of faith. Most of these posts can be answered by reading the CCC.

Eventually many of these “dissenting” priests will become part of the magistrium and we will get a pope who wan’t raised in a country still in the middle ages. Then the “dissenters” will move the Church in the Spirit’s direction.

What you are saying is that there are traitors within the Church, like Judas, always trying to tear it down. Though they try, they never succeed.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

patg:

Some look at what you describe as dissent and some look at it as the Spirit moving the Church in a slightly different direction. I have never heard it expressed that the Spirit only moves from the top down. God is certainly capable of flowing the Spirit in any chosen direction and when enough of the “dissenting” bishops and priests who become bishops (who, together with the pope, make up the magisterium) accept the change, the Church will change if that is the will of the Spirit.

It is quite a contradiction for those here who say they blindly follow the magistrium in all things but only if the bishops don’t change anything they don’t want them to change.

Eventually many of these “dissenting” priests will become part of the magistrium and we will get a pope who wan’t raised in a country still in the middle ages. Then the “dissenters” will move the Church in the Spirit’s direction.

Pat

Dear Pat,

I agree with you. The spirit moves in many ways, although conventional wisdom is that everything should be top down, which is why it was so bizarre that the Christ was born in modest circumstances.

May I add the hypothesis that the Spirit may also move within the laity? I’ve noticed that many seem to be of the attitude that without a title, you may not speak with authority. The higher the title, the more authority. This is certainly true in an organizational sense, but I cannot believe that God restricts Himself to working within a fixed heirarchy. Am I blaspheming by suggesting the Spirit speaks to all who can listen, and that a person with a robe or a funny hat may or may not be the only ones through which He speaks? When Christ spoke with authority they were amazed, and I don’t think he had any particular status in the Church. If I follow what is in my heart and speak my own mind I often am told that I am being disobedient or disrespectful. There are many truths to be learned from the Church and her leaders, and as I get older I learn better how to hear the truths and filter out the divisive attitudes.

Alan

 

[fix]

People often talk about “faithful” or “orthodox” or “true” or “genuine” or “obedient” Catholics - this is dangerous, because self-awarded labels like this seem to imply that right believing is better than right behaving;

Self awarded? The Church defines what we are to believe and how we ought to act. We can determine this because Christ left a living authority. To be orthodox is not self awarded, but can be objectively determined.

You seem to present a false dichotomy between believing and behaving? We need to do both.

 

[fix]

May I add the hypothesis that the Spirit may also move within the laity?

Of course it does. That is not the point. Christ left a living authority to teach faith and morals and settle disputes. Without that we are moral relativists. We would do as we please, not as Christ wills.

I’ve noticed that many seem to be of the attitude that without a title, you may not speak with authority.

Funny, I notice the exact opposite. I hear many so called adults acting as adolescents who want their place in the lime light. They want their desires to be sanctified, even when the Church says it is intrinsically evil.

If I follow what is in my heart and speak my own mind I often am told that I am being disobedient or disrespectful.

Well, if those items conflict with the Truth, then they are wrong.

There are many truths to be learned from the Church and her leaders, and as I get older I learn better how to hear the truths and filter out the divisive attitudes.

The older I get I see many who want the easy path and are more influnced by culture than our Church.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

fix:

Funny, I notice the exact opposite. I hear many so called adults acting as adolescents who want their place in the lime light. They want their desires to be sanctified, even when the Church says it is intrinsically evil.

Dear fix,

Yes, I have noticed that, too. I agree with you; it’s also a problem. Luckily I don’t see too much of that locally.

Alan

 

[patg]

fix:

Blindly? Being obedient to Christ is not blind. You and other posters have not shown where the Church has changed, or may change, anything in the deposit of faith. Most of these posts can be answered by reading the CCC…

I used the “blind obedience” phrase because that term is used in these forums countless times to describe what a good Catholic should have. It is probably one of the most common answers given when people ask questions. Don’t question me about, question all the ultra-orthodox posters who use it incessantly!

I am saying that change is inevitable and that the Spirit is in charge of that change regardless.

fix:

What you are saying is that there are traitors within the Church, like Judas, always trying to tear it down. Though they try, they never succeed.

As I said, the Spirit of God blows where it will and some have a really hard time accepting that. The Spirit will direct the church to grow in understanding and make appropriate changes. I don’t know why that evokes such dire doom and gloom statements such as “trying to tear it down”.

Pat

 

[The_Augustinian]

The reasons I started this thread was to explore the logical implications of denying Church teaching. What I wanted to show was that dissenters were inherently engaged in a performative contradiction: staying within a Church whose authority they do not accept. The whole Depositum Fidei is protected by the Church, who is guided by the Holy Spirit to make sound judgments in faith and morals. To dissent on even a single, seemingly insignificant matter (like, for example, the recent case in Trenton) would have seriously large implications.

Now, this does not deny the role of the Holy Sprit in each believer. This role is extremely important, because the Holy Spirit is what guides us to Heaven. Moreover, the Sprit can also grant us gifts and even allow us to see visions, like Fatima or Lourdes. However, this does not detract from the work of the Holy Sprit in the teaching authority of the Church. Otherwise, the Holy Spirit would contradict Himself, and this would of course be impossible.

God has given the Catholic Church a unique responsibility, a charism: to be the teacher of the Faith. We should not think of her as a cruel and malevolent Mother, but one who protects us with the Truth. Although the Sprit moves as He wills, He does not leave us; nor does He leave our bishops. Otherwise, we would be without shepherds, torn to pieces by the wolves among us, and shifted like wheat by Satan.

Catholics! Without priests, who will give us the sacraments? Without bishops, who will confirm us in the Holy Spirit and help protect our Holy Faith? And without the Bishop of Rome, who will be our center, the Rock upon which Our Lord built His Church? We will be scattered, just as His disciples were scattered during the Passion.

No, the clergy is not perfect, and neither are we. All the more reason to pray for them, and for ourselves, and to hold them to the standards which they protect, just as Paul admonished Peter. But, whatever we must do, we must do in charity.

In Christ,

The Augustinian

 

[javelin]

Alan,

I hear your cry, deeply empathize with you, and *mostly *agree with you. The Spirit does move within the laity, and often very powerfully. But that same Spirit moves within the Church organization that was given authority to guide us. And, most importantly, that Spirit is the Spirit of Truth. Thus, the same Spirit cannot be speaking from both the Church and the laity if the things spoken intrinsically contradict one another.

Thus, in speaking out against Church teaching, someone is claiming that they are “more in tune” with the Spirit than the Church because opposite beliefs cannot both be “Spirit-led”.

While this sonds harsh, please consider it and see the reality.

Now, in fairness, this only applies to doctrine that is infallibly defined. All other items may be disagreed with (although not ignored in action), without problem or prejudice. It is very true that all of the leadership of the Church does not act that way, treating some matters which may be disagreed with as though they were dogma, and thereby intimidating the faithful who question them. That is clearly wrong.

I believe that this is where the heart of the debate really lies: people should not be regarded as heretics for questioning that which is *not *infallibly defined, while at the same time people cannot deny Truths which have been infallibly defined without danger of consequence. Also, simply inquiring about a dogmatic Truth in order to understand it better should never be regarded as dissent, since we all know that discussion is always aided and deepened by someone in the “devil’s advocate” role. If no one questions, no one will seek answers. And finally, while questioning that which is not infallibly defined, we must always remember that Christ ultimately calls us to act in obedience to the earthly leadership He has placed over us.

Peace,
javelin

 

[fix]

Don’t question me about, question all the ultra-orthodox posters who use it incessantly!

Ultra orthodox? Hmm, like Mother theresa? She stood with the magisterium. Would she be ultra orthodox?

I am saying that change is inevitable and that the Spirit is in charge of that change regardless.

A lot depends on the definition of change. God does not change. He is eternal. The Holy Spirit speaks to us all, but only the magisterium speaks infallibly. You do not and I do not. Much of our current problems come from those filled with the spirit of error.

As I said, the Spirit of God blows where it will and some have a really hard time accepting that.

That depends on which spirit one is talking about. For example, if that spirit is telling some that birth control is moral or that women need to be priestesses, then that is not the Holy Spirit. It is either the human spirit, or the evil spirit.

The Spirit will direct the church to grow in understanding and make appropriate changes. I don’t know why that evokes such dire doom and gloom statements such as “trying to tear it down”.

Yep, can’t imagine why so many are concerned about the direction of the Church? Let us see…homosexual abuse scandals, open schism, heresy, errors being taught as truth, etc. Change can be used as a word to defend all sorts of things, some good and some evil.

 

[javelin]

patg:

As I said, the Spirit of God blows where it will and some have a really hard time accepting that. The Spirit will direct the church to grow in understanding and make appropriate changes. I don’t know why that evokes such dire doom and gloom statements such as “trying to tear it down”.

The “doom and gloom” is because of this:

1. If the Spirit moves the Church against that which the Church eralier claimed was an infallible Truth…
2. Then the Church cannot claim teachings to be infallible, therefore
3. The Church does not necessarily have the authority it has claimed, and
4. If the Church is objectly wrong on this key and major issue, we cannot truly trust the Church at all, and
5. The Catholic Church is really just a human construct and utter nonsense.

It would rock the Church to its very core, to the point that it would come crashing down, if what you claimed was true. We Catholics say that if Sola Scriptura was disproven, protestantism would fall. The same is true of the doctrine of Christ-established Church authority through apostolic succession. If that falls, so does Catholicism.

Peace,
javelin

 

[javelin]

By the way, my previous post hits directly at the point of this debate, as The Augustinian reiterated in his last (very good) post. The implications of certain dissent can be dire.

Peace,
javelin

 

[patg]

1) If the Spirit moves the Church against that which the Church eralier claimed was an infallible Truth…
2) Then the Church cannot claim teachings to be infallible, therefore
3) The Church does not necessarily have the authority it has claimed, and
4) If the Church is objectly wrong on this key and major issue, we cannot truly trust the Church at all, and
5) The Catholic Church is really just a human construct and utter nonsense.

javelin

Sorry if I wasn’t clear but I am not speaking of the changing the “core” issues related to infallibility at all. The dissent mentioned at the beginning had nothing to do with that. I am speaking of non-infallible issues that and teachings that need to change because our world view has changed and because the Spirit is moving many in the church to change.

The church was wrong for centuries on the physical makeup of the universe. Hundreds of years from now, catholics will probably look back in a very similar manner at the attitudes towards women in the church, married clergy, treating the bible as history, homosexuals, etc. that exist in our time. If these current attitudes persist, then I agree that the church as we know it will fall.

As you inferred, this is not a human institution and so, as I stated, the Spirit is out of our control and may only be followed.

Pat