Ron Conte #29
You are in fact dissenting from the magisterial teaching of the U.S. Bishops in “Human Life in Our Day”, which clearly allows for “licit theological dissent”.
On 1/5/11 in post #1 of *There is no “licit dissent” from the Magisterium *(Moral Theology) in these Forums, I refuted just such an assertion which you made supporting the “licit dissent” of the U.S. Bishops.
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1209
How Dissent Became Institutionalized in the Church in America
by Kenneth D. Whitehead
In the minds of the bishops in 1968, these *Norms of Licit Dissent *were perhaps drawn up and included in their Pastoral Letter in order to try to re-impose some measure of episcopal control and oversight over a situation of dissent that had literally already gotten out of hand. Whatever the original intention, however, the Norms only made a bad situation worse. It was simply unreal to speak about dissent that did not “question or impugn the teaching of the Church” when it was the object of the dissent from *Humanae Vitae *to question and impugn the authority of the Church. Similarly, it was idle to attempt to require that dissent could only be expressed “with propriety,” when the favored method of the dissenters was precisely to challenge the pope’s teaching with maximum publicity, hopefully in or through the mass media.
In short, the Norms were fundamentally misconceived and incoherent; and even if it could be shown that they were in any sense valid, they certainly did not apply to the kind of dissent the Church was facing. Virtually none of the dissent of 1968 and after was carried out in accordance with these Norms or with anything resembling them.
**Yet the fact that such Norms could be found in an official bishops’ document served to create the illusion and the justification that, yes, dissent from Church teaching could somehow be “licit.” **By admitting that dissent could ever be licit, the bishops simply invited dissenters in all cases to assert that their particular dissent was licit. Any bishop even contemplating disciplining or removing a dissenter henceforth had to admit the plea that the dissent of the latter was, after all, at least arguably licit, according to the bishops’ own criteria. In practice, virtually all dissent was thereby enabled to be considered licit.
Tolerated dissent thus fostered widespread disloyalty to the Church. It fostered dishonesty too, since the pretence had to be maintained that those who were disloyal were not to be judged disloyal under the regime of the Norms.
It was in this fashion, then, that theological dissent from magisterial teaching became virtually “institutionalized” in the Church in the United States. That this was hardly the intention of the bishops does not alter the fact that it was the almost inevitable result of their unwise attempt to lay out official “Norms” for what amounted to simple rejection of the Church’s teaching.
[Kenneth D. Whitehead is a former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education. He has authored or coauthored nine books, as well as many articles, and is the translator of some twenty published books. (Ignatius Press - *The Homiletic & Pastoral Review )]
No wonder that Pope John Paul II had to reaffirm that there has never been, and is no, “licit dissent” at his meeting with US Bishops at Our Lady Queen of Angels Minor Seminary, Los Angeles, Sept 16, 1987, before *Donum Veritatis *(CDF) in 1990.
You are also ignoring passages from Donum Veritatis which contradict your interpretation of Church teaching on dissent: n. 30-31.
All talk of “licit dissent” is wrong as the Pope and the CDF have made very clear. No “reason” suffices.
Sections 25-31 covers “not irreformable” teaching even for theologians in the Instruction
On The Ecclesial Vocation Of The Theologian, (
Donum Veritatis) [DV] 1990, for those who “feel” that they cannot give “intellectual assent,” they have “the duty to remain open to a deeper examination of the question.” (31).
There is no right to dissent, and in fact, this is because the teaching of Vatican II in the
Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, 25, is clear as to even non-infallible doctrine on faith or morals:
“This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme Magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.”
For the non-infallible doctrines the Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, 23, affirms: “This kind of response cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary but must be understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith.” And #36: “The freedom of the act of faith cannot justify a right to dissent.”
