The Dumb Ox made some strong points about dissent in his/her first post, which I’d like to consider further.
As the post pointed out, it is all too easy to separate the Church into different “camps”, usually modelled on political leanings – left, moderate and right. The human brain works well with association, and we like to put things (and, too often, people) into nice little boxes.
It was telling, then, when the post identified, by implication at least, “dissent” with “left” – in essence, replacing one term with another, and making a clear connotation.
By this I don’t mean anything against the Ox, but that this demonstrates exactly how easy it is to fall into the trap.
The term “dissent”, however, has a particular history in Church usage, where it refers to a particular level of Church teaching. I would suspect that, at different times, most Catholics fall into the category of “dissenters”, for vastly different reasons.
We may be unable to understand the Magisterium’s teachings on ordination, contraception, celibacy or homosexuality. We may fail to feed the hungry, honour a treaty, pay our taxes, or oppose injustice. We often, in one way or another, give priority to a few specific issues, as Eyewitness pointed out, to the detriment of the broader conversation.
And while it is “dissent” to turn blindly away from these things, we are not called to simply affirm them.
We are called, by the magisterium, to respect these teachings, and the history behind them. We are called to try to understand them in their context, to be “respectful and obedient in will and intellect”. In a sense, we are called to forums like this one, and, more importantly, the forum of our own lives – to question, discuss and grow.
So ultimately, while every Catholic I know could be labelled a “dissenter” in some way, it’s the common baptism that binds us, and our shared efforts to learn and experience more about life in Christ. When we can really recognise that common ground, then maybe we can learn the harder task, and really put aside the labels.
NB. For the Dogmatically Inclined
In the interest of full disclosure, it’s worth noting that theologians / canonists are not in agreement about the placement of some of the issues on the linked chart (levels of Church teaching). I have gone with the classifications used by The Dumb Ox, with which I would agree – that Homosexuality and the Ordination of Women are most appropriately placed under the third level of teaching, in which case “dissent” is the correct term. Some, including Cardinal Ratzinger, have placed these issues at the second level of teaching, which would “up” the negative term to “error”.
An article giving a reasonably balanced taste of the controversy can be found here.
Dear Peter,
I felt compelled to respond to your post.
I respond in a spirit of charity, and if anything appears in this post appears to be curt or rude it is merely because the written word can often come across the lot different to what is actually intended by the writer!
Anyway…
1. Not once in my last post do I rate the level of the Catholic teachings I have mentioned, but they are definitely not “third level” teachings in the eyes of the Church.
The Catholic teaching on homosexuality, birth control and the non-ordination of women are infallible teachings of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, and as such all the faithful must give their assent to them.
In regards to the non-ordination of women; let me quote the late John Paul II from ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS:
“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. Lk 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.”
In regards to homosexuality, let me quote from the Catechism:
“2357:
Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained.
Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity.
Under no circumstances can they be approved.”
In regards to contraception, let me quote Pope Paul VI from Humanae Vitae:
“Consequently, now that We (the Magisterium of the Catholic Church) have sifted carefully the evidence sent to Us and intently studied the whole matter, as well as prayed constantly to God, We, by virtue of the mandate entrusted to Us by Christ, intend to give Our reply to this series of grave questions.”
“For the natural law, too, declares the will of God, and its faithful observance is necessary for men’s eternal salvation.” (3)
“The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.” (12)
2. The website article “Shedding Light on Church Teachings” article you have linked to contains rather concerning and blatant errors regarding Catholic teaching and the use of the English language.
a) The article appears on the website of a group that is dedicated to fighting the Holy Spirit given teaching regarding the ordination of men alone. This group have placed themselves against Christ and His Bride, the Church, on this issue.
b) The article refers to “dissent” and “error” as being two different things; which they certainly are, but not in the way this particular author has imagined them to be.
“Dissent” is the act of standing against, opposing, defying something, etc
An “Error” is a mistake, a falsehood, or something that is incorrect
Example of how it works in Catholic teaching…
A dissenter is someone who actively opposes the Holy Spirit governed teaching Magisterium of the Catholic Church and an error is what they believe or proclaim instead.
As you can see, this website tries to make distinctions and false dichotomies that don’t exist in the Church, or the English language, with the way it wrongly applies its self-invented terminology.
c) The website makes no mention of abortion and euthanasia, yet according to the Church they carry more moral weight than the teachings on war that are mentioned on this site.
d) The website incorrectly labels things such as the “Definition of marriage”, “Artificial birth control”, “[the] term “transubstantiation”, in its imaginary category of teachings that are “Authoritative but non-irreformable”
The implication of such a mistake is that these teachings could all be changed at some time in the future if so desired.
This is completely wrong.
e) The website features an interview with the late Bishop Raymond Lucker.
Let me quote from an article about the life of Bishop Lucker:
“He [Bishop Lucker] created an international sensation when he placed one of his rural parishes under interdict until every member received psychological counseling. The parishioners’ crime: They objected to a nun-catechist trained in New Age spirituality by Matthew Fox catechizing their children, and her decision to replace the crucifix in the church’s sanctuary with a “cosmic pillow.”
I recommend that people read the full article, it can be found here: http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=3961
3. I don’t think it is fair to refer to the second article you posted “Fallibly Infallible? A New Form of Papal Teaching” as being “reasonably balanced” on this issue.
Hermann J. Pottmeyer regularly writes articles questioning and opposing Catholic teachings.
To my way of thinking; if one of my children told me that they were really commited to our family and they loved me, but at the same time they kept a blog site about how they thought I was a bad father I would really have to question their love and commitment to our family.
4. It is not right to suggest that a person who questions Catholic teaching, with a view to seeking understanding, on a particular issue is the same thing as a dissenter.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with enquiring, in fact without it we could never learn more and grow in our faith.
But dissent is a completely different kettle of fish.
Someone who actively dissents against Catholic teaching has placed themselves in opposition to the Holy Spirit governed teaching Magisterium of the Catholic Church.
Now there may be various levels of moral culpability for such an action (depending on the person’s formation, etc), but that person is not in the same boat as someone who questions what and why the Church teaches what she does.
A dissenter opposes the Church, a seeker merely asks questions of the Church.
Thanks for listening.
I recommend that people actually read the Doctrinal Commentary on Ad Tuendam Fidem by Pope Benedict (written when he was Cardinal Ratzinger) and the ordginal document Ad Tuendam Fidem from Pope John Paul II (since they are both mentioned in articles linked to from this post).
The Doctrinal Commentary on Ad Tuendam Fidem can be found here. Ad Tuendam Fidem can be found here.
The Dumb Ox
Hi Ox,
No offence taken, and I’ll borrow your own disclaimer if that’s permissible.
While some of your comments are intriguing, they appear to have missed my point.
I “ranked” those teachings as third level because the word “dissent”, which your article introduced, applies only to that category under canon law, and some theologians, at least, would agree. It seems, then, that you meant to talk about “error”, which is another issue altogether.
On the question of the references I gave, I’ll defer to our most prolific poster to date – the Hoff. The Hoff wrote some good comments on objective truth, and how it is essential to recognise that essential truths exist.
Your comments around my sources do an amazing job of undermining the character of the sources – but do not actually address the articles themselves. Essential truths must transcend the people proclaiming them – which is why even someone badly unbalanced can utter wisdom.
Just because there is error on a website, does not make all of its information untrue. You could disagree with or denounce all of the words I have written on this blog, and it would not affect the veracity of your own posts, would it?
Similarly, the quality of English in the second article was, yes, noticeably poor. Presumably it was the speaker’s second language, or someone was transcribing it too late at night. That said, the description of the theological discussions around papal infallibility was indeed balanced, and quite readable. Again, I would argue that truth can be spoken in any language, including broken English.
To answer your point 4)… I did not suggest that “a person who questions Catholic teaching, with a view to seeking understanding, on a particular issue is the same thing as a dissenter.” I suggested that, while most of us could be labelled “dissenters” at some point, more often the bulk of Catholics will fit in this other questioning and seeking “category”, which is different again from dissent. Sorry if this wasn’t clear.
As a last point, but a very important one. Documents written or signed by the then Cardinal Ratzinger do not suddenly attain the doctrinal weight of the papacy now that he is Pope Benedict XVI. This is a common error, which has propagated many misunderstandings over the years. A doctrinal commentary by Cardinal Ratzinger is NOT a doctrinal commentary by Pope Benedict, and identifying it as such is itself a dangerous misunderstanding.
There is much disagreement among canon lawyers and theologians in good standing with Rome about the issues discussed. I have first-hand experience of these dialogues, and know how emotive they can be for all involved. Thank you for helping to further the discussion.
Hope that clarifies a few points,
Peter
Dear Peter,
Thanks for the reply.
In response to your responses…
You state:
“I “ranked” those teachings as third level because the word “dissent”, which your article introduced, applies only to that category under canon law, and some theologians, at least, would agree. It seems, then, that you meant to talk about “error”, which is another issue altogether.”
Let me give a practical example of what I actually meant, I hope it clarifies how things work…
If Bob studies the Catholic teaching on homosexuality, the non-ordination of women, or contraception and he then decides that he thinks its nonsense, so he adopts an alternative position to that proclaimed by the Church on this issue he is now actively dissenting from Catholic teaching and he has adopted a doctrinal error.
In other words; he dissents by his actions and what he believes on these issues is a doctrinal error because it is counter to what the Church actually teaches.
His beliefs on these issues, no matter how well intentioned, will never be right because they oppose infallible teachings of the Catholic Church.
The site you linked to claims that there is a distinction between error and dissent, but this is simply not correct.
This position is being proffered by those involved in this website because they are seeking to legitimise the theological dissent that they are engaged in, and the doctrinal errors they have embraced.
They know that the Church does not support their errors of doctrine so they are trying to undermine the authority of the Church’s teaching on these issues.
2. You state:
“Your comments around my sources do an amazing job of undermining the character of the sources – but do not actually address the articles themselves. Essential truths must transcend the people proclaiming them – which is why even someone badly unbalanced can utter wisdom.”
You are right that even a badly unbalanced person can utter wisdom, but this website doesn’t contain the truth about Catholic teaching and it is the front for a group dedicated to opposing the teaching Magisterium of the Catholic Church.
I actually did give several examples of errors contained on that website in my last comment post; however we would be here all day if I pointed out every single one of them on that page!
The simple fact is this…
The people who run this site have established that they don’t accept the Holy Spirit governed teaching authority of the Catholic Church – in fact they actively oppose it.
To seek their advice over the Holy Spirit’s; given through the Catholic Church makes absolutely no sense.
Everyone has the freewill to dissent from Catholic teaching, but to do so while claiming to be Catholic completely lacks integrity.
If they really believe that the Church is wrong then why don’t they act with honesty and integrity and leave the Church to join another denomination that suits their doctrinal preferences?
I dare to suggest that they don’t do this because they would no longer be activists and “victims” and all of a sudden they would be just another parishioner in a pew without all the seminars and fame that goes along with being a theological dissenter (that’s just my personal opinion mind you).
The main problem with those articles is that they fail to actually present one rather important point…
The authors of these articles don’t have the Holy Spirit given authority to proclaim when something is true and when something is doctrinal error – the Catholic Church does and that means that when she speaks we have to listen; the authors of those articles however have no such authority.
This relates to the point elsewhere on Being Frank about the true role of a theologian – which is to present the truth of Catholic teaching; not to question it.
These articles don’t actually enrich the faith, they encourage doubt and they promote errors of doctrinal fact that lead to confusion and even disbelief amongst those lay people who are not well formed in their faith.
I seem to remember Jesus talking about how it would be better if a “millstone was tied around the neck” of those who lead the little ones astray.
3. No worries about the dissenting/seeking confusion. It just appeared from your post that you are equating genuine faith seeking answers as being the same thing as theological dissent – which as you have rightly pointed out is not correct.
I agree that a lot of Catholics have questions; but I suggest that James the Least’s last post has some excellent points about our failure to evangelise and Catechise (even within our own Catholic faith).
4. You state:
“Documents written or signed by the then Cardinal Ratzinger do not suddenly attain the doctrinal weight of the papacy now that he is Pope Benedict XVI. This is a common error, which has propagated many misunderstandings over the years. A doctrinal commentary by Cardinal Ratzinger is NOT a doctrinal commentary by Pope Benedict, and identifying it as such is itself a dangerous misunderstanding”
I apologise if there was any confusion on this issue, but if you read my comment carefully I didn’t state that this document was a papal document, in fact I even mentioned that it was written by Pope Benedict when he was the then Cardinal Ratzinger.
However; it was written in his official capacity as head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith and it is a commentary to a papal document issued by the late John Paul II.
5. You state:
“There is much disagreement among canon lawyers and theologians in good standing with Rome about the issues discussed. I have first-hand experience of these dialogues, and know how emotive they can be for all involved.”
I also have firsthand experience of such disagreements; and I agree about emotion; that is why the Holy Spirit gives us the Magisterium.
She protects us from falling into doctrinal errors because of the latest fashions or trends, or because of misdirected and misguided emotions around important issues.
I would also take the time to point out again that cannon lawyers and theologians (no matter their standing with Rome) do not have the Holy Spirit governed authority of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church to make infallible pronouncements on matters of faith and morals.
I will always trust the Holy Spirit over the ideas of those who oppose Him and His Church.
Thanks for dialoging!
The Ox
Just to clarify my point about the freewill to dissent…
You can choose to do so; but you can’t claim to be doing something Catholic by dissenting.
And you can’t claim that your theological errors you have adopted are legitimate.
You must also be aware that theological dissent is usually not in the best eternal interests of those who engage in it.
The Ox
Thanks for the edifying posts. Speaking as one who hasn’t entirely figured out these matters, I think it would be helpful to get to the underlying principles in a couple of ways:
1. Infallibility
I guess the issue comes down to the means and the sphere of infallibility: for the former, the question would be “what are the means through which these are infallibly defined, and the required conditions for each of these means?”, which naturally leads to the latter “which teachings fulfill these conditions and therefore are infallible?” (it seems to me this is the contentious part). May I be so bold as to suggest this as a new blog topic(s) for another day?
As I understand it, the Catholic Church has three infallible authorities which compliment each other: Sacred Scriptures, Sacred Tradition, and the Sacred Magisterium, so explanations of these and the requirements of each would cover the first question. For the second question, it might be good to examine those issues we have talked about earlier – women’s ordination, homosexuality and contraception – in the light of the first part (so, for example, whether or not the Pope’s proclamation in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis fulfills the conditions for Papal Infallibility and therefore Sacred Magisterium).
Related to this are the questions, “what are the philosophical and scriptural basis for this doctrine?” and, “what are the fallible teachings of the Church?”, which may help to understand the issue more.
2. Obedience
An interesting question is, “are there any instances in which the faithful is allowed to disobey their superiors or the magisterium or dissent from the official teachings of the Church (be it infallible or non-infallible)?”. I think an explanation of the theology of obedience would help clarify a lot of things (I know it would for me, at least).
God bless!
TTM
TTM,
I thought this might help in regards to your questions…
The Magisterium or Teaching Authority of the Church
by Fr. William G. Most
By the Magisterium we mean the teaching office of the Church. It consists of the Pope and Bishops. Christ promised to protect the teaching of the Church : “He who hears you, hears me; he who rejects your rejects me, he who rejects me, rejects Him who sent me” (Luke 10. 16). Now of course the promise of Christ cannot fail: hence when the Church presents some doctrine as definitive or final, it comes under this protection, it cannot be in error; in other words, it is infallible. This is true even if the Church does not use the solemn ceremony of definition. The day to day teaching of the Church throughout the world, when the Bishops are in union with each other and with the Pope, and present something as definitive, this is infallible. (Vatican II, Lumen gentium # 25). It was precisely by the use of that authority that Vatican I was able to define that the Pope alone, when speaking as such and making things definitive, is also infallible. Of course this infallibility covers also teaching on what morality requires, for that is needed for salvation.
A “theologian” who would claim he needs to be able to ignore the Magisterium in order to find the truth is strangely perverse: the teaching of the Magisterium is the prime, God-given means of finding the truth. Nor could he claim academic freedom lets him contradict the Church. In any field of knowledge, academic freedom belongs only to a properly qualified professor teaching in his own field. But one is not properly qualified if he does not use the correct method of working in his field, e.g., a science professor who would want to go back to medieval methods would be laughed off campus, not protected. Now in Catholic theology , the correct method is to study the sources of revelation, but then give the final word to the Church. He who does not follow that method is not a qualified Catholic theologian. Vatican II taught (Dei Verbum # 10): “The task of authoritatively interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on [Scripture or Tradition], has been entrusted exclusively to the living Magisterium of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.”
——————————————————————————–
Taken from The Basic Catholic Catechism
PART FIVE: The Apostles’ Creed IX – XII
Ninth Article: “The Holy Catholic Church; the Communion of Saints”
By William G. Most. (c) Copyright 1990 by William G. Most.
TTM,
This might also help.
It comes from the Catholic encyclopedia artice on the Magisterium, it can be found in fullness here:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm
At the head of this episcopal body is the supreme authority of the Roman pontiff, the successor of St. Peter in his primacy as he is his successor in his see. As supreme authority in the teaching body, which is infallible, he himself is infallible. The episcopal body is infallible also, but only in union with its head, from whom moreover it may not separate, since to do so would be to separate from the foundation on which the Church is built. The authority of the pope may be exercised without the co-operation of the bishops, and this even in infallible decisions which both bishops and faithful are bound to receive with the same submission. The authority of the bishops may be exercised in two ways; now each bishop teaches the flock confided to him, again the bishops assemble in council to draw up together and pass doctrinal or disciplinary decrees. When all the bishops of the Catholic world (this totality is to be understood as morally speaking; it suffices for the whole Church to be represented) are thus assembled in council the council is called oecumenical. The doctrinal decrees of an oecumenical council, once they are approved by the pope, are infallible as are the ex cathedra definitions of the sovereign pontiff. Although the bishops, taken individually, are not infallible their teaching participates in the infallibility of the Church according as they teach in concert and in union with the episcopal body, that is according as they express not their personal ideas, but the very thought of the Church.
Beside the sovereign pontiff are the Roman Congregations, many of which are especially concerned with doctrinal questions…
Other congregations, that of the Inquisition [Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith], for example, have a more directly doctrinal authority. This authority is never infallible; it is nevertheless binding and exacts a religious submission, interior as well as exterior.
Hi all,
Great discussion going on here! Loving it!
Since we’re on the whole thing of infallible teaching, and with the Ox having the knowledge and links for the answers, I was wondering if someone could answer a question that I have struggled to answer in the past: if the Magisterium teaches infallibly, what does that mean for the things it has taught in the past which were incorrect? For example, the whole Gallileo, earth-center-of-the-universe malarchy?
I’m sure there’s an explanation – does someone have one?
Dear James the Least,
Great question about Galileo, but it is also a severely misunderstood issue (even for many Catholics).
I won’t take up space here outlaying the issue here, but I will recommend that everyone reads “The Galileo Affair”; an excellent article which covers that issue in detail and explains the real story and why people are wrong to use this as an example of the Church being anti-science, etc.
The Galileo Affair can be found here:
http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Issues/GalileoAffair.html
Another common argument that people make against the Church in regards to changing of teachings is the whole issue of usury (which; so the critics say; “the Church used to condemn but now allows”).
Once again; I won’t take up space here; but I recommend that everyone reads an excellent article called The Red Herring of Usury, it can be found here:
http://www.catholictech.com/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=646
Finally; another common objection people try and raise is to claim that the Church used to allow the death penalty and now she opposes it; but such an argument actually fails to understand that the principal of this teaching has never changed.
The Church teaching, that the death penalty can be a legitimate form of punishment, has never actually changed – see CCC 2267.
What has changed, however, are the societal conditions in which we know live.
Once upon a time (when societies were not as developed in regards to social structures and governmental infrastructure) the use of the death penalty to protect society from a dangerous aggressor was sometimes the only option available to that society.
However; things have changed and we have highly developed justice systems, prisons and prison infrastructures and treatment and rehabilitation centres for dangerous criminals.
Let me quote from the Catechism; because I think it does much better justice to this issue!
CCC 2267:
“Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm – without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself – the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”
So you see, the Church’s teaching hasn’t actually changed on this issue at all.
Does that help?
The Ox
Cheers Ox. I’ll check those links out.
Thanks D’Ox! Very helpful indeed.
Your Ox Files ‘blog is hilarious, by the way.