The Perils of Dissent

[javelin]

AlanFromWichita:

…He must not have meant unconditional obedience to the letter of the law, or he would not have healed on the sabbath, nor would his apostles have defied the chief priest, even to the point of enduring flogging and rejoicing for it, in Acts 5 where they uttered the famous line, “we must obey God rather than man.”

A couple things here. I think He did intend for obedience to the law.

On your first example of healing on the Sabbath, are you certian that the law actaully stated that healing was considered work and not permitted on the Sabbath? I had thought that it wasn’t expressly forbidden, and that those in the Sanhedrin who opposed Jesus (not all of them) were simply trying to “catch” Jesus by interpreting the law to mean that. Jesus simply correctly rebutted their claim that He was acting against the law.

As for the Apostles defying Jewish leadership, this they definitely did, but it was after Chirst’s death, resurrection, and the replacement of the Mosaic covenant with the new covenant. Under the new covenant, authority was passed from the “Seat of Moses” to the apostles, lead by Peter. When Jesus exhorted the apostles to obey the Sanhedrin, it was because they were still living under the Mosaic covenant, but once that covenant was replaced, the authority the Sanhedrin previously enjoyed was taken from them. Finally, they are correct that they “must obey God rather then man”, but I believe we are called to obey them. Consider it like it was the Pope saying that statement to the President. He would be completely correct, but that doesn’t mean that we aren’t to obey the Pope’s leadership.

What do you think?

Peace,
javelin

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Re: “but take whatever side I think is not getting a fair hearing.”

Sorry Alan, but that is moral relativism.

It always comes down to an issue of authority and pride on our parts. Either we trust Christ and obey Him through His Church, or we each make ourselves a god.

I’m talking about an intellectual discussion. What I often see is one person asks questions, either sincerely or cynically, and then they are beaten down with a barrage of responses that sometimes bear no resemblance to the real issue the person asking the question has. These result is, those who are “convinced” they are right become conversational bullies, and their self-righteous attitude and powerful manipulative wording does nothing to answer the question and often pushed them further away.:crying:

Perhaps I worded it a bit too simplistically. This may sound strange to you, but I only take sides on the surface. Deep down I root for both sides, because I like the truth, I love the people on both sides even when I disagree with them, and I like to see a good discussion. One of the main reasons I ostensibly take sides at all, is either to try to force the person who is either acting as aggressor to treat the conversationally oppressed with respect, or to help reframe what one says so the other side can understand better.

Moral relativism? I’ll give you moral relativism. If I were a eucharistic minister in certain dioceses, I would be required to refuse Communion to certain people. In other dioceses, I wouldn’t. So whether it is immoral for me to give Holy Communion to a particular sinner depends on where I live and who the bishop is that year. Here’s another example: if you really believed that the primary purpose of marriage and sex is to procreate and interfering with that is immoral, then the only moral use for NFP would be to maximize chances of having a baby, and it would be immoral to use it to reduce chances of having a baby.

Sorry, but moral relativism is all over the place, and the Church practices it all the time. If you really want to find moral absolutism, then perhaps you should join me in questioning the Church in search for it. Personally, I have nothing against relativism, as long as I know the philosophy and ground rules we are trying to meet. What drives me nuts is relativism that is sold as absolutism. It’s like, “this teaching is absolute, but with certain exceptions – but not the exception YOU’RE asking about, you awful heretic you. Shame on you for even questioning us.”

Here’s a classic example: celibate priests. I and others took lots of heat for suggesting that maybe the Church should amend her practices in this regard. It was like,
cacophony:

“oh, what blasphemers. Don’t you realize the Church has authority in this regard? Are you trying to be a relativist? There are lots of good reasons the Church has decided that priests cannot be married. It what Paul wanted. It keeps them from being distracted. Do you think we do not realize that we are decreasing the pool of available candidates? We want them married to the Church, not to some woman thus their time and fidelity will be divided. Quit trying to make up your own rules, and pay some respect, for Rome has spoken, and the matter is closed. We have decided that celibate priests are bad, and you should accept that and quit causing dissent.”:tsktsk:

OK, then the Church turns around and ordains married converts. Aaaaaagh! Like I said, why do we sell relativism as if it were absolute?

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

javelin:

Consider it like it was the Pope saying that statement to the President. He would be completely correct, but that doesn’t mean that we aren’t to obey the Pope’s leadership.

What do you think?

Dear javelin,

Touche!

This helps answer a question about authority I’ve had for some time. There are several NT passages about obeying earthly authority, even those who are corrupt, and then there is Acts 5.

While that issue is still open, it is clear that I cannot apply Acts 5 about disobeying authority in the specific case of questioning the Church.

Actually, I nearly told fix to go argue with Peter, not with me, if he didn’t like my statement about obeying God rather than man, until it dawned on me that I might have a logical problem with it. Your explanation has convinced me that I did.:tiphat:

Oh, and thank you for seeing through whatever face I must be showing, and sticking up for me on the “taking sides” thing. You said in about one sentence what took me about ten.

Alan

 

[DianJo]

Originally posted by Petra:
The Church places higher emphasis on Tradition than Scripture. I am now seeing Scripture as a much more reliable venue of God’s communication to us. God has given us the Holy Spirit as a tutor to understand His Word. And while we are weak and may not always hear Him correctly, I still see more reliability here than by placing Tradition above Scripture. I will never be a sola scriptura person again. I recognize Tradition as a means of guiding the Church, but based on what I have learned, it seems to be vulnerable to human error, as well. Scripture seems much more reliable. I now place Tradition secondary to Scripture.

___________________
By your statement about the Church placing more emphasis on Tradition than on Scripture - I think some may be overlooking something about this issue.

It was not the bible that gave us Tradition - it was Tradition that gave us the bible. The bible was formed out of that Tradition. Tradition was all there was after Jesus died and when the Church put the canon together, she put in those books that did not contradict Tradition. Many people - of all faiths - think that the bible was first and therefore the first and last word but it was/is not.
The Church does not put more emphasis on Tradition. It is in light of Tradition that we interpret the Scripture (bible). You cannot have one without the other.

Great thread!!

 

[fix]

javelin:

I know Alan can stick up for himself, but…

Fix, Alan was clearly referring to taking a side on discussions, not that he gives his consent of faith or will to the side least represented. How you would even come to interpreting what he said that awful way is beyond me.

---

I see what you mean, Alan!

Peace,
javelin

Perhaps I misinterpreted, but I doubt it. I have read many of Alan’s posts. I and many others have posted many, many times that questioning is not the problem. It is characterizing dissent as a questioning that is the problem.

My reponse was sound. Perhaps we all are too co-opted by pop culture that every single phrase must be a softball so no one is “offended”?

 

[fix]

AlanFromWichita:

Re: “but take whatever side I think is not getting a fair hearing.”
I’m talking about an intellectual discussion. What I often see is one person asks questions, either sincerely or cynically, and then they are beaten down with a barrage of responses that sometimes bear no resemblance to the real issue the person asking the question has. These result is, those who are “convinced” they are right become conversational bullies, and their self-righteous attitude and powerful manipulative wording does nothing to answer the question and often pushed them further away.:crying:

It depends. If someone is sincere. They are usually treated sincerely. If someone has an agenda that is intentionally not in line with Catholic teaching, they get the truth and at times complain like little children, rather than accept the truth as an adult.

Perhaps I worded it a bit too simplistically. This may sound strange to you, but I only take sides on the surface. Deep down I root for both sides, because I like the truth, I love the people on both sides even when I disagree with them, and I like to see a good discussion. One of the main reasons I ostensibly take sides at all, is either to try to force the person who is either acting as aggressor to treat the conversationally oppressed with respect, or to help reframe what one says so the other side can understand better.

Are you saying you do not accept the truth? Or are you you saying you want to argue for the sake of arguing?

Moral relativism? I’ll give you moral relativism. If I were a eucharistic minister in certain dioceses, I would be required to refuse Communion to certain people. In other dioceses, I wouldn’t. So whether it is immoral for me to give Holy Communion to a particular sinner depends on where I live and who the bishop is that year. Here’s another example: if you really believed that the primary purpose of marriage and sex is to procreate and interfering with that is immoral, then the only moral use for NFP would be to maximize chances of having a baby, and it would be immoral to use it to reduce chances of having a baby.

What is the issue? You are to obey legit authority, unless it is an unjust command. On NFP, you should read about, rather than trying to obfuscate it under the guise of a question.

Sorry, but moral relativism is all over the place, and the Church practices it all the time.

I see my initial remarks were on target.

If you really want to find moral absolutism, then perhaps you should join me in questioning the Church in search for it. Personally, I have nothing against relativism, as long as I know the philosophy and ground rules we are trying to meet. What drives me nuts is relativism that is sold as absolutism. It’s like, “this teaching is absolute, but with certain exceptions – but not the exception YOU’RE asking about, you awful heretic you. Shame on you for even questioning us.”

You need to learn the Catholic faith. If you did, then you would see the absurdity of your stance. You have been beating the same drum. The Church has given you answers, you just do not like the answers and will not listen.

a classic example: celibate priests. I and others took lots of heat for suggesting that maybe the Church should amend her practices in this regard. It was like, OK, then the Church turns around and ordains married converts. Aaaaaagh! Like I said, why do we sell relativism as if it were absolute?

Alan

Again, learn the faith. Celibacy is a discipline, but you knew that. You want to stir the pot. That is it.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Dear fix,

fix:

It depends. If someone is sincere. They are usually treated sincerely. If someone has an agenda that is intentionally not in line with Catholic teaching, they get the truth and at times complain like little children, rather than accept the truth as an adult.

Do you have anyone in particular in mind who is insincere? I used to think a lot of people on this forum were not sincere but were just parroting their interpretation of Church teachings out of fear and ignorance – kind of like little children but more judgmental and therefore dangerous – but most have proven otherwise. Many of them actually have good reason behind what they have said and that has come out in our conversations. Others have convinced me of truths I had previously doubted and others have conceded on points. I have to say I have a better understanding for the Church and greater respect for apologists due to my experience on this forum.

Are you saying you do not accept the truth? Or are you you saying you want to argue for the sake of arguing?

Neither. I am a facilitator who tries to change a one-sided bashing into a productive, two way discussion. When I am personally involved in it, I am usually trying to get the other person to quit bashing me and making unwarranted assumptions and address the actual question I have.

What is the issue? You are to obey legit authority, unless it is an unjust command. On NFP, you should read about, rather than trying to obfuscate it under the guise of a question.

If you don’t know the issues, perhaps it is because you are so busy looking for a way to condemn me and others that you haven’t actually comprehended what I and others are saying, like most other posters at least try to do.

I see my initial remarks were on target.

You need to learn the Catholic faith. If you did, then you would see the absurdity of your stance. You have been beating the same drum. The Church has given you answers, you just do not like the answers and will not listen.

Again, learn the faith. Celibacy is a discipline, but you knew that. You want to stir the pot. That is it.

In trying to understand you better and learning how to answer you on this, I just read several of your posts to other people. It seems I am not the only one that you want to categorize and continue to dismiss, and your own posts have a very low signal-to-noise ratio. That’s OK, though. Not all of us can be players; it’s OK to be a cheerleader.

That said, I would prefer that you do not disrupt intelligent conversations I’m having with others for your presumptuous, judgmental statements. If you have a problem with me personally, you may send me a PM. If you want to discuss the issues, then learn how to discuss with civility. As it is, you are very disruptive and I can see that it wouldn’t matter if I ignore you because you jump in right in the middle of something and “stir the pot” yourself. One thing I have learned about people who make assumptions about others’ motives, is that usually those assumptions tell you a lot about the thinking of the person doing the assuming.

Next time you want to lash out against me with a personal attack and tell me what my motives are and characterize my opinions as absurd without a single word of explanation, remember John 18:23:

Jesus answered him, "If I have spoken wrongly, testify to the wrong; but if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike me?"

If you honestly don’t understand what I’m talking about, and can’t see what you are doing, and still believe I am causing problems on this forum, then I would be happy to ask for an opinion from the moderators. If I am in fact wrong, I would much rather be corrected than to remain wrong. Your accusations tell me nothing of value.
Alan

 

[fix]

Dear fix,
Do you have anyone in particular in mind who is insincere?

By reading these posts, one can tell who is and who is not in many cases.

used to think a lot of people on this forum were not sincere but were just parroting their interpretation of Church teachings out of fear and ignorance – kind of like little children but more judgmental and therefore dangerous

There is plenty of material out there that can be used to verify what posters assert. The CCC is a good resource.

I am a facilitator who tries to change a one-sided bashing into a productive, two way discussion.

Self appointed? One’s bash is another’s admonishment.

When I am personally involved in it, I am usually trying to get the other person to quit bashing me and making unwarranted assumptions and address the actual question I have.

If one uses a plain tone one may be called a basher.

If you don’t know the issues, perhaps it is because you are so busy looking for a way to condemn me and others that you haven’t actually comprehended what I and others are saying, like most other posters at least try to do.

Where have a condemed you? I have pointed out you desire to stir the pot, which you admit. Your intentions cannot always be known. I call 'em as I see 'em.

I haven’t seen that your own posts have a very low signal-to-noise ratio, but that’s OK. Not all of us can be players; it’s OK to be a cheerleader.

Do you “feel” marginalized?

That said, I would prefer that you do not disrupt intelligent conversations I’m having with others for your presumptuous, judgmental statements.

I would be happy not to post directly to you in the future. I will not address your silly assertion. You judge me for judging others? Funny.

If you have a problem with me personally, you may send me a PM. If you want to discuss the issues, then learn how to discuss with civility.

I have been civil. If I have offended you, I am sorry.

As it is, you are very disruptive and I can see that it wouldn’t matter if I ignore you because you jump in right in the middle of something and “stir the pot” yourself.

Look, stop being childish. I called you on it and now you want to retaliate.

One thing I have learned about people who make assumptions about others’ motives, is that usually those assumptions tell you a lot about the thinking of the person doing the assuming.

Yes, they can in some cases.

Next time you want to lash out against me with a personal attack and tell me what my motives are and characterize my opinions as absurd without a single word of explanation

Please stop the histrionics. I did not attack you.

If you honestly don’t understand what I’m talking about, and can’t see what you are doing, and still believe I am causing problems on this forum, then I would be happy to ask for an opinion from the moderators.

If you desire, please do.

If I am in fact wrong, I would much rather be corrected than to remain wrong. Your accusations tell me nothing of value.

Look, I have read your posts and have posted posted to you many times. Nothing I posted to you warrants your bellicose response. Trying to turn the tables is an old trick. Nice try, but no sale.

Many folks who post here have encountered the culture of dissent that seems to be prevalent today. We can have quick triggers. I supppose what is most striking to me is that for someone to claim they are a Catholic, yet seemingly “question” Catholic teaching raises the doubt index. We are all suppose to be on the same page. If you were a non Catholic, then that would be a different isssue, but to be told again and again what the Church teaches and then to claim the Church is morally relative is to invite a plain reponse.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

fix:

I would be happy not to post directly to you in the future. I will not address your silly assertion. You judge me for judging others? Funny.

Dear fix,

You know what? I changed my mind. I like you, and hope you keep posting. Please do not let me dissuade you from posting directly to me – or send PM if you prefer.

I have been civil. If I have offended you, I am sorry.

Look, stop being childish. I called you on it and now you want to retaliate.

No offense taken. I consider it a compliment to be called “childish.” See Matt 11:25, Matt 18:3, Matt 18:4, Matt 19:14, Luke 10:21.

If you desire, please do.

As I said, I’ve had a change of heart. I like you, and welcome your posts. If the moderators are looking at our posts, let it be known that fix is not bothering me. After this post, I will allow fix to have the last word on the Alan v. fix issue so we can get back to the thread subject.

Look, I have read your posts and have posted posted to you many times. Nothing I posted to you warrants your bellicose response. Trying to turn the tables is an old trick. Nice try, but no sale.

Thank you for saying I tried nicely.

Many folks who post here have encountered the culture of dissent that seems to be prevalent today. We can have quick triggers. I supppose what is most striking to me is that for someone to claim they are a Catholic, yet seemingly “question” Catholic teaching raises the doubt index. We are all suppose to be on the same page. If you were a non Catholic, then that would be a different isssue, but to be told again and again what the Church teaches and then to claim the Church is morally relative is to invite a plain reponse.

Now we are on topic.

Have you ever worked as a teacher? When students question the teachers, teachers and the other students learn as well. Those that nod their head and say “yes teacher” may or may not do well on tests. Those who question everything, in my experience, are the ones who are serious about learning something. I am very aware that there are many more people who are much more knowledgeable than myself on Catholic teachings, and I am delighted to have a place where I can ask my questions and get authoritative replies.

Just like with teachers and students, if the students continue to ask the same questions over and over, a good teacher will realize that simply repeating the same explanation isn’t sinking in, and try a different approach. If I’m asking for the reason behind something and a person doesn’t know, that is a perfectly valid answer. If they change my question into “what” instead of a “why” then they have not answered my original question, and no matter how many times they repeat themselves I will still have the question and will ask it again in different ways, taking into account what the person who answered me said the last time, until it is answered or until I realize that no answer is forthcoming.

Moreover, some of my questions come directly from Catholic bashers. If the questions aren’t answered to my satisfaction, then I cannot be an effective witness for the Church.

Certainly you don’t have a problem with that? If not, please try to consider that point of view when you hear people dissenting. Personally I think the person who lets me go on saying things that don’t make sense is not my friend. When the Church says things that don’t make sense to me and to millions of other people, I don’t think I am doing her any favors by nodding and saying, “if you say so.” Dissent and questioning, whatever you call it, is vital. Without it, the Church would never have gotten out of the dark ages.

Alan

 

[fix]

Alan,

I am not looking for the last word. I do not desire to bash anyone. I do have a desire to defend the Church. My words can be seen, by some, as harsh. In all sincerity, they are not intended that way. I use sarcasm. I use blunt words. Some may take offense, usually, none is intended. My belief is that we are too fragile today. We do need debate. Authentic debate, not PC flimsy so-called charity, but real charity. Truth, spoken with love. Not syrupy love, but the love for and of Christ.

I have taught and do teach, at times. I am used to competition, straight talk and aggressive personalities. This thread is about the perils of dissent. It is perrilous to dissent, that is what ignites strong arguments against those who want to water down the faith. As I said before, many have a quick trigger.

Now, I will take you at your word that you are only questioning to grow deeper, or to play the devil’s advocate. Fine. My qualm is that these forums are ready by many who do not know authentic Church teaching. So, some are quick to correct any error. They have a zeal for the truth. They want all to know the truth. For many years some in the Church have hidden the truth for fear of offending folks. That is what leads to error. We should never be afraid to speak out in favor of Church teachings. Many misunderstand and many reject. I am not including you in either category. I am only offering a reason that so many may seem to jump down others throats so readily.

 

[Strider]

AlanFromWichita:

Dear Strider,
Thank you for putting all that work together. I have found this whole thing rather fascinating.
Since you mentioned priestly celibacy, I’ll use that as an
human nature differs among rites, or risk being stripped of their “absolutist” title.
Alan

Moral relativism? I’ll give you moral relativism. If I were a eucharistic minister in certain dioceses, I would be required to refuse Communion to certain people. In other dioceses, I wouldn’t. So whether it is immoral for me to give Holy Communion to a particular sinner depends on where I live and who the bishop is that year
csr

Our experience after the Second Vatican Council, characterized by imploding Church participation, drop-off of conversions,
wholesale destruction of religious communities, plummeting belief and faith, widespread banality and irreverence: this experience surely demonstrates that toying with disciplines is destructive.

Alan,
One can always question disciplines. Priestly celibacy, as far as I’m concerned, is a fine topic for discussion.
What can’t be argued are doctrine/dogma (refer to CCC # 88 in my previous post.)
Also, it is my understanding that married men who are ordained in the Latin rite, usually Episcopalians, and their wives are required to live continently.
As to csr’s post, after every Church council in history, there has been a period of unrest, confusion and abuse in the Church. Vatican II is no different. The abuses drove my wife and me away from the Sacraments for 25 years, though we always considered ourselves Catholic.
The priest scandal, as I see it, is a scandal of the bishops, first. Yes, there was, and probably still is, a homosexual problem in the seminaries. Where are the bishops? No wonder respect for Church authority is at a low. There is no conflict with being an absolutist and demanding that the bishops do their job. We have the right to expet that from them. And, yes, they should be consistent on the discipline of who may receive the Blessed Sacrament.
What bothers me is when people question doctrine & dogma: The Incarnation, the True Presence, the Virgin Birth, the Perpetual virginity of Mary, the absolute evil of abortion (“I can vote for Karey - Anybody but Bush!”), etc.
I think I’m out of room.
God bless

 

[tru_dvotion]

It is rather difficult for the ordinary Catholic to remain true and obedient, when everywhere one looks, one observes disobedience among fellow Catholics, disobedience among the clergy, heck, disobedience goes up to the highest circles inside the Vatican. It takes a constant watch and discernment to separate truth from fiction. Lay groups are going around quoting the Holy Father on things he never said, instructing fellow members on heresies, the newly formed Catholic, right out of RCIA and in many cases with a definite Protestant background instructing heresies… the list goes on. Dissent is not as simple as practicing birth control. No, dissent is far more complicated, and I blame it on the involvement of laity in areas that was traditionally reserved for the priest.

 

[tru_dvotion]

Right on fix!

For all the pretence being “nice” and loving, all some folks want to do is to rip you in shreds for hurting their agenda… no brain to discuss a topic… all dialogue ends in personal attacks. When one looses one’s cool coming up against craftiness or stupidity these people win the debate. How does one remain “loving” by their standards and deliver the bad news to them?

Even Christ beat some out of the temple.

 

[javelin]

tru_dvotion:

How does one remain “loving” by their standards and deliver the bad news to them?

That’s simple. Address the topic, not the person, and don’t assume something about the nature of someone’s heart.

Real discussion requires the use of reason, and reason requires logic. If you want to be relevant to the discussion, provide logical**, reasoned responses** to points up for discussion. That is all Alan and others have been seeking. As has been stated, if you disagree with something said, provide a logical and reasoned refutation to the point raised (not the person), don’t just lash out with broad characterizations or innuendo. If possible, provide evidence to help support your claim.

Simply implying something is true “because I told you so”, or even “because the Church says so” does not answer the question, nor is it adequate evidence to prove a point.

So be careful that you are on the wrong side of your own valid critique:
tru-dvotion:
all some folks want to do is to rip you in shreds for hurting their agenda… no brain to discuss a topic… all dialogue ends in personal attacks.
One can fit the above bill even when they are speaking Truth.

Peace,
javelin

 

[javelin]

Back on topic.

OK, it seems most agree with the following characterization:

Dissent - Bad and sinful, potentially mortally so
**Questioning **- Not bad or sinful, may be sinful not to

So where is the line drawn between the two? Obviously, a person can be both, and the questioning is simply masking a heart of dissent.

I would argue that the chief distinction between the two is in action. One who dissents not only questions Church authority, but takes it the step further or actively disobeying. This is different from those who disobey without knowing they are disobeying. I believe true dissent requires knowledge that one is acting against authority.

I believe questioning may be morally required of us. How else would we know to resist the “renegade” priest who tells us something in error? What else provides the impetus to deepen our understanding of the nature of God? We are morally responsible for our actions, even if we are led in error, and so we must hold a light to all teaching authority in order to see whether it is grounded in Truth or fiction.

Your thoughts?

javelin

 

[AlanFromWichita]

fix:

I am not looking for the last word.

Then you shouldn’t have a problem when I take back my promise to give it to you.

I even intend this to be partly on the thread topic!:dancing:

I do not desire to bash anyone. I do have a desire to defend the Church. My words can be seen, by some, as harsh. In all sincerity, they are not intended that way. I use sarcasm. I use blunt words. Some may take offense, usually, none is intended.

FWIW, I believe you. I saw nothing negative in this entire post, including the parts I didn’t quote.

My belief is that we are too fragile today. We do need debate. Authentic debate, not PC flimsy so-called charity, but real charity. Truth, spoken with love. Not syrupy love, but the love for and of Christ.

I have taught and do teach, at times. I am used to competition, straight talk and aggressive personalities.

I have also taught and do teach, at times. I am used to intense discussion, but I am very weak in aggressive personalities. I used to know nothing other than straight talk, but I got beat up so badly by aggressive personalities that so confused me when often I knew beyond life-death certainty that I was right, that I went psycho. I’m still recovering from that, and this forum has greatly helped me hone my style and gain confidence.

I don’t try, at least ostensibly, to control anyone, but I refuse to believe something because somebody else thinks I should, whether that person is a nice person or a bully. I’ve heard so many lies and witnessed such subtle deception both intentional and out of ignorance, and been hurt by it that I may obey or even concede a point when I really don’t agree. Even then I still cannot be coerced into believing something that makes no sense.:nope:

This thread is about the perils of dissent. It is perrilous to dissent, that is what ignites strong arguments against those who want to water down the faith. As I said before, many have a quick trigger.

Perhaps, but that isn’t always bad. It can be perilous as in skydiving, or perilous as in gestation. These quick triggers can kill spirits, but it just might be the spirit of pride sometimes. You never know what effect it will have on someone. Dissent can bring discouragement or enlightenment. Dissent brings testing which can purify or destroy. The Bible is full of dissent, and the leading dissenter was Jesus the Christ. At the risk of making other posters queasy, I admit that I ***-umed some things about you that I now regret. I am very proud to think I do not make unwarranted assumption, so this realization has given me growth potential like stink on a rose garden. I am often better at tweaking others’ words than at being original, so I’ll end with a prayer that I tweaked for the occasion, from me to you or anyone else who cares.

I confess to almighty God, and to you my brothers and sisters, that I have sinned through my own fault, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have posted and in what I have decided not to post, and I ask Blessed Mary ever virgin, all the angels and saints, and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God.

Alan
:blessyou:

 

[AlanFromWichita]

javelin:

OK, it seems most agree with the following characterization:

Dissent - Bad and sinful, potentially mortally so
**Questioning **- Not bad or sinful, may be sinful not to

Most, perhaps, but so far I’m not agreeing with it. Please refer to my last post of 11:13am that “crossed in the mail” with yours. I think dissent may be either destructive or life-giving in temporal effect, and either sinful or faithful in nature.

I would argue that the chief distinction between the two is in action. One who dissents not only questions Church authority, but takes it the step further or actively disobeying. This is different from those who disobey without knowing they are disobeying. I believe true dissent requires knowledge that one is acting against authority.

I can buy into your definition, but does that make it bad? What if you were told by authority to light the fire under a heretic, and defiantly refused? Dumb move, perhaps, because you will probably die and the heretic will still burn. But are you a martyr or a non-Catholic for your dissent? Did David not know he was being actively disobedient when he ate the consecrated bread?

I believe questioning may be morally required of us. How else would we know to resist the “renegade” priest who tells us something in error? What else provides the impetus to deepen our understanding of the nature of God? We are morally responsible for our actions, even if we are led in error, and so we must hold a light to all teaching authority in order to see whether it is grounded in Truth or fiction.

Your thoughts?

Hear Hear, well said, and Amen.:clapping:

Alan

 

[tru_dvotion]

javelin,

this is good advice.
and perhaps ignoring the personal attacks or to remind someone that such as such was just that - would also serve one well in a debate. thanks.

 

[fix]

These quick triggers can kill spirits, but it just might be the spirit of pride sometimes. You never know what effect it will have on someone. Dissent can bring discouragement or enlightenment. Dissent brings testing which can purify or destroy. The Bible is full of dissent, and the leading dissenter was Jesus the Christ

I think we need to define our terms. Dissent as Catholics intend refers to those who reject a Catholic teaching. Not someone who is questioning to grow deeper, but someone who rejects it. It is a serious thing and one that plagues the Church right now.

I do not know of any circumstance were Christ rejected a truth. For a Catholic to reject a teaching would be to reject the faith. Because if we only accept certain teachings, then we are accepting those things on our own authority, not the authority of the Church.

 

[javelin]

AlanFromWichita:

I can buy into your definition, but does that make it bad? What if you were told by authority to light the fire under a heretic, and defiantly refused? Dumb move, perhaps, because you will probably die and the heretic will still burn. But are you a martyr or a non-Catholic for your dissent?

Good question. Please allow me to clarify the main question then:

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

I will define dissent, then, as “disobeying a Church directive”, and will leave questioning out of the discussion from now on since it is agreed that it is fine.

Can we pursue the discussion from that starting point? Would you state the question or define “dissent” some other way?

Peace,
javelin