What do I do if I dissent?

[neophyte]

julie,

I don’t want to get sidetracked, but to briefly address two specific issues you raised:

• There’s an ontological difference between men and women, which is important to understand when considering the issue of the male pristhood. I suggest that you study JPII’s Theology of the Body - the original work is quite dense but there are a number of more accessible studies of it. One of my favorites is by Fr. John Riccardo (frjohnriccardo.libsyn.com/category/Theology%20of%20the%20Body), and another good one is by Christopher West.
• A huge popular mythology has developed around the Galileo affair. His trouble didn’t arise from his scientific findings, in fact heliocentrism was known since the time of the Greeks and Galileo was initially received with great favor in Rome (as had been Copernicus in the previous century). Galileo got in trouble when he began loudly proclaiming that his findings proved Sacred Scripture to be in error, and he compounded his troubles by mocking and insulting people in positions of power (like the Pope). To be sure, the response he got was not Christlike, but he certainly had a strong hand in causing his own troubles.

Hope this helps.

 

[3DOCTORS]

Julie, I hope what some of the other posters have stated will help. You seem like a very thoughtful and intelligent person - and we need more like you in the Catholic Church.

I would also recommend Pope John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor - The Splendor of Truth, as it deals in depth with the issues of objective truths. Maybe read it first and then read Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.

And prepare to possibly be uncomfortable at first with quite a bit of what you read, but then you may find it a blessing in the end. Your mind is questioning but open, and you certainly have the intellectual curiosity and ability to read this material. I mean that as a compliment.

You might also find kindred spirits in reading conversion stories - like Patrick Madrid’s Surprised by Truth books, each chapter containing a convert’s story. They are interesting and they detail the mental and spiritual processes these folks went through to come to the Catholic Faith. Scott Hahn’s materials might also interest you. Originally his focus was on Scripture and Sacraments but if I’m not mistaken he has written and spoken on quite a range of Catholic topics.

Hope this helps!

 

[pablope]

Thank you so much, everyone, for your replies. I really appreciate the spirit in which they are given! And yes, it would be helpful if I were more specific about what it is I disagree with. But I am a little afraid of a potential storm when I articulate it. Specifically – and to the root of my dissent with other dogma, doctrine, and teachings – I do not believe the Pope and the Magisterium are infallible. (Again, with deepest and true respect.) I don’t understand why the Church cannot allow its teachings to evolve.

The dogma of infallibility seems to have created a system in which current theologians need to find justification for teachings handed down in the clouded and riddled-with-ignorance Middle Ages – …ause Jesus did not have any female apostles. Others have argued that Jesus didn’t choose women apostles because the culture of the time didn’t readily accept female leadership. That fact doesn’t necessarily exclude them now. And if the question is one of sacraments (holy orders) as Christ-instituted during his lifetime, I suppose that opens up a whole other can of worms worthy of its own thread, and yet also an example pertinent to this discussion. Additionally, people point to Pauline writings on women in church as a basis for exclusion of women priests. There is much scholarship on this subject that should at least give one pause as to the historical context and today’s application of Paul’s writings.

I write this, I know what I would say to me were I convinced of the veracity of infallibility: You’re right; they are apples and oranges, and the Church claims only to be infallible on matters of faith and morals. Point well taken.

I guess my bottom line is that the argument for infallibility seems circular to me: The Church is right on “x” issue because it is right. And I don’t know what to do with that. My reason (please do not read rationalization), which I hold as a God-given virtue, does not allow me to accept that. Am I alone in this? Can’t the Church be the holy bride of Christ, the people of God, and the guardian of truth while still being able to say occasionally, “You know what, I think we got that one wrong,” and even, “We all need to agree to disagree on this one”?

Whew!

Hi, Julie…I think it it good that you are openly discussing whatever issues are confronting you.

One thing to keep in mind though, is that the Church has been consistent in its teachings since it inception. I will not expound further as other posts have somehow touched on this.

On the papal issue, you may want to get the books of this convert to Catholicism, Steve Ray, who wrote books on the Papacy. His conversion story is in the archives of EWTN, on the show “My Journey Home”.

Here is link to help you: bringyou.to/apologetics/audio.htm#EWTN

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

The Magisterium teaches infallibly (no possibility of error) in three ways:

1. solemn definitions of the pope (papal infallibility)
2. solemn definitions of ecumenical councils
3. the ordinary and universal Magisterium

All other teachings of the Magisterium, by Popes, Councils, and individual Bishops, are non-infallible and subject to a limited possibility of error.

Pope John Paul II: “This magisterium is not above the divine word but serves it with a specific carisma veritatis certum, which includes the charism of infallibility, present not only in the solemn definitions of the Roman Pontiff and of Ecumenical Councils, but also in the universal ordinary magisterium, which can truly be considered as the usual expression of the Church’s infallibility.” (Address John Paul II to the bishops from the United States on their ad limina visit, 15 October 1988)

Infallible teachings require the full assent of faith.
Obstinate doubt or obstinate denial of any infallible teaching is the sin of heresy.

Non-infallible teachings require the religious submission of will and intellect.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2H.HTM

Some faithful dissent is possible from non-infallible teachings, since there is some possibility of error, but the extent of possible faithful dissent is like the extent of possible error: substantially limited. One might dissent from a point within a non-infallible teaching, without sin, if the dissent is based on Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium – but not if the dissent is merely based on one’s own reasoning. Faith is greater than reason.

Obstinate doubt or obstinate denial of the ability of the Magisterium to teach infallibly is a heresy.

These are all standard truths on the subject to which I completely assent.
Have I said something in my posts above to Julie that prompted this rehashing of the obvious to me?

 

[Ignatius]

I am a former Protestant who grew up in Catholic schools, was a theology major at a Protestant college, and spent a lifetime in leadership roles in my faith communities. My husband and I are currently in RCIA and dearly love our new parish and pastor. My decision to convert was not made lightly. My question is one of dissent. What happens if I disagree with some fundamental things about the Catholic Church, but I still love the Church and want desperately to be part of it? I found this article which gave me hope uscatholic.org/church/2008/07/catholic-dissent-when-wrong-turns-out-be-right, but I get the impression from some fundamentalist Catholics that if one dissents, one is outside. What are reform-minded Catholics (including those of us who are just coming into the Church formally) to do? This is my first post on Catholic Answers, and I write it with the utmost respect and genuine search for answers.

Julie

Hi Julie, and welcome.
The best way to deal with this type of issue is one at a time. The Catholic Answers Apologetics phone line is the very best resource I know of. You will get solid, authentic Catholic teachings and the sound reasoning behind them.

 

[twoangels]

Your areas of dessent are quite common and it sounds like what you covered doesn’t include them all. My advise is to not simply say “I dessent” but to seek further clarification about what the Church means by infallibility and the different levels of teaching authority and our duty as Christians. There are sections of the Catechism that address this, but that can be a tough read.

Then in the specific teachings you have trouble accepting, ask “Why does the Church teach this? What does the Church mean by this?” Seek more and more understanding and be very patient with yourself.

Ultimately the biggest thing to do right now is to figure out what the Catholic Church claims to be and whether or not you believe that? Its like this. Imagine that you grew up not knowing who your parents were and without having any parents. Then one day, a man and a woman show up in your life claiming to be your parents and inviting you to come into the family you ought to be a part of. Now, you like family in many ways, but your mother has stories of things that happened during your infancy that just don’t seem to add up to you. This could mean that its evidence that this man and this woman lying to you and are not your parents. It could mean that there is some other motive causing them to lie to you. Moreover, how you behave and treat them and how obligated you feel to do certain things depends on your confidence over whether or not they’re you’re parents. The thing is, its important to know if they are. Its important to investigate these things and not to just join the family because they’re nice people and to believe the stories you want to believe while ignoring the ones that don’t add up.

I do not think though it would be fair to you or to them that if you truly deep down did not believe yourself to be their daughter, but simply wanted to be in their family on your terms.

I guess the key to remember is that the Catholic Church is not a denomination. It is the one true Church established by Christ. That is the Church’s claim. She’s saying, she is your mother and that because of this she has a special authority. You need to find out if she is indeed your mother. If you can’t believe that, than I wouldn’t try to impose yourself in the family. Because then what happens is that when a true parent expresses authority, the children who deep down believe the couple is their parent and thus doesn’t have authority start trying to get the entire family to rebell and in many ways try to convince the other children as well that they may not indeed be this couple’s true children. This causes much division in the family and usually only results in break-away groups and disunited brothers and sisters.

So determine for yourself. Is the Church your mother or isn’t she?

 

[bnapgh]

The others above have shed an enormous amount of light on the issues you raised, Julie.

I would like to add my own little prism that helped the ‘‘logic’’ in my head adapt to the ‘‘logic’’ of the Church.

I am no scholar, but a pilgrim like you.

First, as has been pointed out, if you have Faith in the Bible, then you must have Faith in the Church’s Magisterium because it was the Magisterium that defined the Bible. Unless you have as much Faith in the Gospels of Peter, Thomas, and others, you by definition are already committed to the doctrine of the Church, because it was on this doctrine that the books were included or excluded.

Second, Jesus repeatedly amplifies the importance of His disciples doing what the priests and Pharisees say even though they should not always emulate what they do. Obedience to authority seems very important to Jesus. When he was on trial by the Sanhedrin, they could prove no case against him. But when the high priest ordered Jesus to answer if He were the Son of God, Jesus — ever obedient — complied with their authority. It is important for all those with greater blessings of insight not to confuse (scandalize in the true sense) those with fewer such blessings. A corollary to this might be that when your own interpretation differs from that of the Church, pray and delve deeper, but comply with the Church while you do.

Third, from my reading of the Bible it seems that Christ was as disappointed with the sin of those who coveted as with those who stole. In the parable of the workers sent to the vineyard, the ‘’equal’’ pay was, by human standards, not equitable — some worked all day, others a few hours. But if we truly love others as we love ourselves, then we should rejoice that the owner of the vineyard blessed the late-comers with a bonus, and not selfishly covet their easier road to that payoff. This is the hardest part of Christianity: loving those who are given more than equitable treatment than we got, ourselves. This is something that helped me accept the men-only priesthood and other logically inequitable interpretations. It is wrong for me to covet those powers for women; I should rejoice that God gave them at all!

Fourth, and final, please see the four scripture citations on my signature line. The Holy Spirit guides the Church in truth. This world’s wisdom is not the same as God’s logic. The unguided get twisted in their interpretations of the bible to their own destruction. And for God all things are possible. When Jesus returns He will ask us only one thing: did you help the least of mine when they were hungry (cold, imprisoned, etc.). He won’t ask if limiting our families to two children helped us to pay for a Harvard education for each. Have you ever been made truly ‘’happy’’ by any material thing? Ever? If not, then don’t worry about them!

 

[bnapgh]

He won’t ask if limiting our families to two children helped us to pay for a Harvard education for each. Have you ever been made truly ‘’happy’’ by any material thing? Ever? If not, then don’t worry about them!

IMHO neither will Jesus ask if we supported birth control so that there would be more food per capita when we, ourselves ate twice the caloric intake we need. Nor will He ask if we limited the human population in order to save the environment. He might ask how many miles to the gallon our minivan got. LOL

In a pure pragmatic picture, humans are incrementalists (like Abraham negotiating with God on the threshold number of good people that would justify saving Sodom & Gomorrah {sp??}). If we humans get an inch, we’ll want a mile.

If any of us believes that some forms of artificial birth control might make some logic in some circumstances, remember that the ban thereon had always been a ‘’truth’’ or doctrine for ALL Christian denominations. When some people removed that philosophical stake in the ground, it led to incest abortions, and then to brutal third-trimester partial-birth murders. Pragmatism is a slippery slope.

 

[clmowry]

I guess my bottom line is that the argument for infallibility seems circular to me: The Church is right on “x” issue because it is right. And I don’t know what to do with that.

If this is what infallibility was and the foundation upon which it was based I would object to it as well.

The good news is that this is not the case.

The Church does not claim that it can simply proclaim some novel teaching “X” to be true.
The Church does not claim that it is infallible because it says so.

The Church only claims that it is protected from error when putting forth teaching that leads to a better understanding of faith and morals of what has already been revealed to Humanity by Christ through His apostles.

The Church is infallible in handing on to us what Christ wished to reveal to us only because of Christ, the Head, who chose to confer upon the Church, His body, some small portion of His infallibility.

For me, it is either logically [morally] true that God gave us a sure way to know what He expects of us, or He simply does not care what we do.

The Church must either be infallible in handing on the teachings of Christ and His apostles or quite frankly we have absolutely no way of knowing what the truth that Christ chose to reveal might have been.

Now I guess you can call it a “circular” argument, in that I believe the Church is infallible because I believe in Christ and nearly everything we know of Christ and His Apostles [save a few historical snippets] comes to us through His Church.

Intellectually, the historical record offered to me by the Bible and the Early Church Fathers leads me to believe Jesus Christ is Who He claimed to be

The testimony contained in this book, along with that of the Early Church Fathers tells me that He founded a Church and granted to it some of His authority.

Because of who He is and what He’s Done, I accept that His Church is infallible.

Because I accept that His Church is infallible, I accept it when the Church teaches that the Bible [upon which my intellectual ascent is primarily based] is Inerrant.

I don’t believe, however, this logic is “circular” because I didn’t start with the conclusion.

I have lots of other reasons for accepting the Catholic faith, but I certainly don’t think I’ve followed an irrational path.

Chuck

 

[MarkInOregon]

Thank you so much, everyone, for your replies. I really appreciate the spirit in which they are given! And yes, it would be helpful if I were more specific about what it is I disagree with. But I am a little afraid of a potential storm when I articulate it. Specifically – and to the root of my dissent with other dogma, doctrine, and teachings – I do not believe the Pope and the Magisterium are infallible. (Again, with deepest and true respect.) I don’t understand why the Church cannot allow its teachings to evolve. And I say that with the enormous caveat that I absolutely do NOT believe the essential truths of our faith can change (for example: Jesus is God incarnate who redeemed humanity from original sin through his death and resurrection). I suppose my deviation with the Church is where I draw the line about what is “essential,” which I realize is seen as very Protestant.

It’s funny, as I sit here typing and deleting, and typing and deleting, I am finding myself more and more at a loss to adequately express myself. I’m super aware of the deeply held belief by so many that the Church is infallible, and I have a sincere wish not to offend. But I don’t know how to express myself on this issue without risking offense and provoking people to anger. It is my ardent desire to see unity among Christians. I take very seriously Christ’s prayer that Christians be one as he and the Father are one. So please see my question and comments through that lens. I’m hoping this forum can be a safe place to discuss these kinds of issues.

The dogma of infallibility seems to have created a system in which current theologians need to find justification for teachings handed down in the clouded and riddled-with-ignorance Middle Ages – and even in the last couple of centuries; justifications that sometimes require one to suspend reason and history. My post could go on and on if we start debating rationales of specific infallible teachings, so I won’t start down that road – at least not too far. I suppose we need at least one example to articulate the point. So I’ll use the Church’s teaching on women not being allowed to be priests. (There are others as well, but we need to start somewhere.) It is my understanding that Pope JP2 said women cannot receive the sacrament of Holy Orders because Jesus did not have any female apostles. Others have argued that Jesus didn’t choose women apostles because the culture of the time didn’t readily accept female leadership. That fact doesn’t necessarily exclude them now. And if the question is one of sacraments (holy orders) as Christ-instituted during his lifetime, I suppose that opens up a whole other can of worms worthy of its own thread, and yet also an example pertinent to this discussion. Additionally, people point to Pauline writings on women in church as a basis for exclusion of women priests. There is much scholarship on this subject that should at least give one pause as to the historical context and today’s application of Paul’s writings.

What happens when scholarship advances in favor of women priests? I know this might seem trite to many in this forum, but scholarship advanced to the point of proving Copernicus and Galileo correct. Perhaps many will see the two as apples and oranges because one is interpretive (women priests) and the other empirical (astronomy). Even as I write this, I know what I would say to me were I convinced of the veracity of infallibility: You’re right; they are apples and oranges, and the Church claims only to be infallible on matters of faith and morals. Point well taken.

(Gosh, this is so long already! My apologies! I just really want my spirit settled on this.) So then if we start talking about matters of faith and morals, we have to talk about the bodily (as opposed to soul and divinity only) presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, birth control, definition of sacrament (not as a conduit of grace – I believe that – but narrowly defined as instituted by Christ himself), etc. And that makes me tired. uch: I mean, I’m up for it, but not for a barrage of stuff I’ve already heard from people who are not interested in collegial discussion in good will.

I guess my bottom line is that the argument for infallibility seems circular to me: The Church is right on “x” issue because it is right. And I don’t know what to do with that. My reason (please do not read rationalization), which I hold as a God-given virtue, does not allow me to accept that. Am I alone in this? Can’t the Church be the holy bride of Christ, the people of God, and the guardian of truth while still being able to say occasionally, “You know what, I think we got that one wrong,” and even, “We all need to agree to disagree on this one”?

Whew!

At this point all I would like to add to yours and others comments on women being addmitted to the priesthood is this: Christ was very countercultural and I don’t believe and I don’t think there is any evidence to support the idea that the reason Christ didn’t ordain women was because the time didn’t accept female leadership. I think this is something thrown out there by those who think Christ was wrong–as if God could be wrong. Look at the people Christ called, the people he hung out with. Christ appeared first to women–who were not considered reliable for giving testamony–after he arose from the dead. It seems quite clear–at least to me–that if Christ would have wanted women priests he would have ordained them and the fact that he didn’t means something.

You have been given some good suggestions with regards to reading material and I hope you find the time to do the study–actually I guess it is a life long journey that never stops–so may you start and never stop.

I will pray for you on your journey.

God Bless,
Mark

 

[bnapgh]

I found this article which gave me hope uscatholic.org/church/2008/07/catholic-dissent-when-wrong-turns-out-be-right, but I get the impression from some fundamentalist Catholics that if one dissents, one is outside. What are reform-minded Catholics (including those of us who are just coming into the Church formally) to do? This is my first post on Catholic Answers, and I write it with the utmost respect and genuine search for answers.

WOW! I finally got around to reading your citation! That is some disgruntled guy!

But IMHO it proves the point, because in all of the circumstances cited the doctrinal or dogmatic questions were handled by the Church in exactly the right way (e.g. the Council condemned Arianism altough many bishops reportedly erred by endorsing it), while there seem to be many individuals in the Church cited who messed up their factual or interpretational questions.

Are you in agreement with or of understanding about the differences, Julie?