|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: a grammar of dissent?
|
Michael Meade
Apprentice
# 18101
|
Posted
Hello, the thread on the Catholic 'morality police' and my own current reflections have caused me to come out from the shadows. I know the following has been discussed before as a tangent several times but I thought it might be worth revisiting.
I am reflecting again on faith and commitment to the Catholic Church following a personal crisis. I have doubts about how confidently I can discern and follow the way within the Catholic Church when I disagree with some of its moral and social teaching.
I joined the Catholic Church some years ago after a decade of theological study convinced me that what the Catholic Church teaches about itself rings true with scripture and early church history. At the same time my faith and devotion to the presence of Christ in the sacraments increased and I desired to share in the sacraments of confession and the Eucharist.
There were and are some aspects of Catholic moral and social teaching I disagree with, yet at the time I was confident that it was possible to dissent in an informed way from things taught by the ordinary magisterium and still be able to think with the church and within the framework of Catholic theology.
Though more recently when – what HughWillRidmee calls - the Catholic 'morality police' strike, I wonder if I've made a mistake. And here comes my question for discussion: To what extent is it coherent to believe that the magisterium has authority to teach on social and moral issues but that sometimes it is lagging behind what the sciences are telling us about what it means to be human? Is there a way between rejecting church teaching and docility when the church starts turning theological anthropology into an ideology with which to beat people living messy lives or coming to understand themselves in a way that is outside the norm?
I'm wanting to avoid dead horse issues because what I'm primarily interested in is: Is there still room within the Catholic Church for an informed conscience and informed dissent on moral and social issues? And how much room?
Or did I make a mistake, should I have remained like Simone Weil? Firmly aware of faith in Christ but unable to make the final leap into the Church? Is my option now to go the way of Karen Armstrong and continue on the way as a freelance Christian?
(I've avoided giving too much detail, in part because I want to avoid dead horses and the dead horses themselves are not necessarily at stake. I happen to agree with the Church's thinking on some dead horses and not so much on others.)
Posts: 4 | From: in a strange land | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
Welcome to the Ship Michael Meade.
May I throw in the point that God has a say in how and where we serve. Whether you serve from within or from without any particular denomination, as long as you're listening and following God's guidance, you are being true to the faith.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
To be frank it is largely RC teaching on "morality" that leads me to keep clear. I couldn't, in all conscience, convert when I disagree so profoundly with RC teachings on women, LGBT rights and contraception. Fortunately I was born and raised Anglican, so as an Anglo-Catholic I can accept much of what Rome teaches but still hold to what I believe is true in areas of disagreement.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
StevHep
Shipmate
# 17198
|
Posted
Christianity is a religion of Revelation. The Magisterium is the authoritative interpretation of that Revelation. Which is to say by authority I do not mean that the Church claims to be better at interpreting Jesus than anybody else I mean that when she speaks with authority the Church Is Jesus. Therefore when she proclaims something to be infallibly true whether it is a 'hard saying' or not then the faithful are obliged to accept that it is true.
However, the number of infallible pronouncements are relatively few and each of them are more nuanced than you might suppose. It is always worth reading the original documentation in full before reaching a conclusion regarding them. The Church is usually wise enough to leave more wriggle room than you might suppose.
As regards the demands of conscience I suggest you read The relevant section of the Catechism
--------------------
My Blog Catholic Scot
http://catholicscot.blogspot.co.uk/
@stevhep on Twitter
Posts: 241 | From: Exeter | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
I disagree with the Catholic church on many Dead Horses, but if that were all, I'd probably still join. Rather it's their view on the hierarchy, things like the pope that keep me out. So I'd say it makes perfect sense to join without agreeing with everything, if that feels right to you. Certainly some Catholics would disagree, but others would definitely be very glad you joined even if you disagree with them. In other words, you can't please everybody--I rather doubt even the hierarchy completely agrees on this even if there is an official teaching--so you may as well do what seems right after consideration. (Though sentences like that last one probably make a few Catholics on board very glad I'm not one.)
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
Why anyone would join a Church whose teachings they don't believe in, I'll never know. It's not right. During thr confirmation the bishop asks whether you believe all that the Church teaches. To say yes but in your hear willing dissent is dishonest.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Meade:
To what extent is it coherent to believe that the magisterium has authority to teach on social and moral issues but that sometimes it is lagging behind what the sciences are telling us about what it means to be human?
I'm confident that the sciences can land a man on Mars. I'm much less confident that the sciences can say a lot about social and moral issues. And I'm certain that they can say bugger all about "what it means to be human," unless you consider philosophy (in particular pre-modern and mostly non-academic philosophy) a science.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Meade:
Is there a way between rejecting church teaching and docility when the church starts turning theological anthropology into an ideology with which to beat people living messy lives or coming to understand themselves in a way that is outside the norm?
You could do what many Catholics do, and simply ignore Church teaching without being particularly concerned by that... It seems to me that you need to sort out your ideals here first. Can you be a faithful Catholic by the standards of the official Church, and yet ignore official Church teaching? That's a question that answers itself... So what is the real question that you are asking?
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Meade:
Is there still room within the Catholic Church for an informed conscience and informed dissent on moral and social issues? And how much room?
How much room there is depends on the issue. It would be cool to have someone for once who has burning issues with the Catholic social principle of subsidiarity, and is really interested in the level of dissent allowed on this issue. Somehow that doesn't happen much...
Concerning the usual burning issues related to sex: questions about that have been asked so often and so vocally, that the (semi-)official answers have taken away much of the wiggle room. At some point one has to accept that if someone keeps repeating something, they probably really mean it.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Meade:
Or did I make a mistake, should I have remained like Simone Weil? Firmly aware of faith in Christ but unable to make the final leap into the Church? Is my option now to go the way of Karen Armstrong and continue on the way as a freelance Christian?
If the Church is what she claims she is, then this question is pointless. If she isn't, then your hesitation is pointless.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem
Why anyone would join a Church whose teachings they don't believe in, I'll never know. It's not right. During thr confirmation the bishop asks whether you believe all that the Church teaches. To say yes but in your hear willing dissent is dishonest.
Actually it's not necessarily dishonest. It depends on the status of the doctrines which are being questioned. Someone may feel that the best church to join in their context is, say, the Catholic Church, but he may not agree with everything that that church teaches. But he may feel that on the whole that church is nearest to his concerns than the other churches in his area. So he makes a pragmatic decision.
This is consistent with the complexity of real life, in which we all hold a variety of often subtle and nuanced positions that cannot be rigidly categorised by any particular denominational catechism. God, I believe, is a realist, not an idealist.
As for declaring belief in all that the church teaches, well, what do we mean by 'believe'? I think it is dishonest for someone to say that they believe what the church teaches, while not understanding those doctrines or even being able to explain how they are logically coherent. If a church asked me to declare that I believe in the "doctrine of the square circle", then I could mouth my assent to this idea, but frankly this would be a farce. The concept is useless, because it is incoherent. I could only say that I genuinely believe it, if I understood it. Otherwise, in practical terms, believing and not believing an idea amounts to the same thing. Two people are asked to declare their allegiance to "the doctrine of the square circle". One says he believes it, and the other says he doesn't. Neither, of course, understand how such an idea can conceivably work. The fact is that the one who says he believes in the idea is no nearer to applying it to his life than the one who says he doesn't believe it. An incoherent idea is impotent for both those who believe it and those who do not.
I think God would far rather have people in His Church who are prepared to ask searching and tough questions, than make do with a bunch of pious sycophants, who meekly mouth their assent to prescribed doctrines, but have little clue as to what they really mean and how to (compassionately) apply the ideas to real life.
[ 14. May 2014, 20:15: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michael Meade
Apprentice
# 18101
|
Posted
Thank you for the welcome RaptorEye. That really helps and addresses some of the concern behind my question.
Qwai said:
quote:
I disagree with the Catholic church on many Dead Horses, but if that were all, I'd probably still join. Rather it's their view on the hierarchy, things like the pope that keep me out. So I'd say it makes perfect sense to join without agreeing with everything, if that feels right to you.
Thank you, this reflects something of my position - I get the hierarchy etc though I understand that some others do not.
Ad Orientem:
quote:
Why anyone would join a Church whose teachings they don't believe in, I'll never know. It's not right. During thr confirmation the bishop asks whether you believe all that the Church teaches. To say yes but in your hear willing dissent is dishonest.
As StevHep points out not all of the teachings of the Church are considered infallible. Those that are I assent to. The profession of faith made at reception into the Church is, "I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church teaches, believes and proclaims to be revealed by God."
This invites the question of which teachings are taught as being revealed by God? If Francis Sullivan and others are right there are different levels of teaching with some rather complementing or derived from revealed teaching but not themselves revealed. And Catholic theologians will debate whether a particular teaching is directly part of divine revelation or not. My reservations relate to two dead horses not taught infallibly and whose place in scripture and tradition is unclear and debated.
So I could honestly say that I believe all that the Church teaches to be revealed by God, having talked openly with my sponsors and consulted Catholic theologians. Does one have to go further and believe all that the Church teaches even if the matter is unclear in scripture and tradition, and is debated by theologians?
StevHep, I'm interested in where you draw the idea that when the Church speaks, Christ speaks. I'm quiet clear about the idea that the Church speaks with the authority that Jesus gave to the Apostles and that the Church speaks with the assurance that the Spirit will lead us into truth. Surely the Church confesses Jesus rather than speaks as Jesus, just as Peter confessed Jesus and spoke with the authority of an Apostle.
Posts: 4 | From: in a strange land | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Michael Meade, here's an official welcome to the Ship - or at least to posting on the Ship, since it seems you've been lurking for a while! You'll no doubt know that it's customary for a host to advise new posters to check our 10 Commandments, guidelines and FAQs and invite them to say hello on the Welcome Aboard thread in All Saints.
Eutychus
Purgatory host
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michael Meade
Apprentice
# 18101
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Meade:
To what extent is it coherent to believe that the magisterium has authority to teach on social and moral issues but that sometimes it is lagging behind what the sciences are telling us about what it means to be human?
I'm confident that the sciences can land a man on Mars. I'm much less confident that the sciences can say a lot about social and moral issues. And I'm certain that they can say bugger all about "what it means to be human," unless you consider philosophy (in particular pre-modern and mostly non-academic philosophy) a science.
Yes, I am using science broadly and would include philosophy and psychology. An example of where I think the bishops keep getting it wrong (including in the Cleveland list) and we have a lot to learn from the sciences and from individuals concerned is gender. The bishops are I think rightly concerned to stress that our bodiliness and genderedness are given by God, are part of our createdness and dignity. There are those who wish to escape their bodies or their gender and are only acting out their alienation from themselves. On the other hand the bishops seemingly fail to acknowledge or respond to people who are intersex and who are genuinely seeking to inhabit the bodies with which they are graced with all their messy genetics, physiology and experience.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Meade:
Is there a way between rejecting church teaching and docility when the church starts turning theological anthropology into an ideology with which to beat people living messy lives or coming to understand themselves in a way that is outside the norm?
You could do what many Catholics do, and simply ignore Church teaching without being particularly concerned by that... It seems to me that you need to sort out your ideals here first. Can you be a faithful Catholic by the standards of the official Church, and yet ignore official Church teaching? That's a question that answers itself... So what is the real question that you are asking?
See that's not the question. I don't want to ignore official Church teaching but ask whether one can dissent and still engage with it critically and constructively. See above example. But yes, I would also love to discuss the principle of subsidiarity within the Church and within society. After all I think the principle of subsidiarity is at play here. Within the principle of subsidiarity what is the competency of the lay faithful in navigating the moral and social issues before them which may not be answered satisfactorily by official teaching.
[ 14. May 2014, 21:14: Message edited by: Michael Meade ]
Posts: 4 | From: in a strange land | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I think God would far rather have people in His Church who are prepared to ask searching and tough questions, than make do with a bunch of pious sycophants, who meekly mouth their assent to prescribed doctrines, but have little clue as to what they really mean and how to (compassionately) apply the ideas to real life.
But why stick with the RCC if you want to 'ask questions'? Aren't there more tolerant, open churches that are moving more swiftly in the Dead Horse direction that can serve these needs more effectively?
With the RCC it seems that people want to have their cake and eat it. They join because they want the ancient, traditional, profound, authoritative, unchanging, beautiful, definitive, etc. But then they also want the postmodern, questioning, scientific, doubtful, new, liberal, radical, liberated, etc. They want the One True Church, but they want it to change with the times and the environment, just like everything and everyone else. This strikes me as a very tall order, really.
I think there are some break-away Catholic groups for the more open-minded, but they presumably lack the grandeur and the brand recognition that the RCC has. Protestants don't seem to care so much about that sort of thing, considering their willingness to split off into ever smaller groups.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Meade:
My reservations relate to two dead horses not taught infallibly and whose place in scripture and tradition is unclear and debated.
You'd have to be more clear as to what these two dead horses are, but just because something isn't ex cathedra it doesn't mean it isn't infallible. According to RC, the ordinary magisterium is infallible too.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
With the RCC it seems that people want to have their cake and eat it. They join because they want the ancient, traditional, profound, authoritative, unchanging, beautiful, definitive, etc. But then they also want the postmodern, questioning, scientific, doubtful, new, liberal, radical, liberated, etc. They want the One True Church, but they want it to change with the times and the environment, just like everything and everyone else.
They want the One True Church to tell them what they want to hear.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Desert Daughter
Shipmate
# 13635
|
Posted
Welcome to The Ship, Michael. Your questions are indeed valid and not easy to answer. If you've been lurking around for some time you might be aware of some of the discussions that have gone on here regarding the RCC, the Magisterium, etc, and you might have noticed a variety of voices.
I might have my own views on the Magisterium which do not completely correspond to the views of other RCs on Deck, but that is besides the point in this thread. One thing is sure, nobody is required to leave their brain and conscience behind as they enter the RCC.
What I suggest is that you talk to a priest. If possible, several priests. What I also strongly suggest is that you get in touch with a monastery that welcomes guests. The Benedictines are great. They are quite used to receiving non-RCs for a chat or a short stay, especially of the "Simone Weil" type (she is one of the spiritually most honest writers I know), and their views are usually very balanced, solid, and life-affirming in every sense.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Meade:
I don't want to ignore official Church teaching but ask whether one can dissent and still engage with it critically and constructively. See above example. But yes, I would also love to discuss the principle of subsidiarity within the Church and within society. After all I think the principle of subsidiarity is at play here. Within the principle of subsidiarity what is the competency of the lay faithful in navigating the moral and social issues before them which may not be answered satisfactorily by official teaching.
The Benedictines are experts on the principle of subsidiarity, too. And you have a point in bringing this up. There is indeed a lot to be said concerning this principle. I am not sure you will find many average RC churchgoers who give this much thought, let alone have heard of this principle. I do hope you find someone with whom you can engage in a meaningful and intelligent discussion about this. As I say- I would start that search with the Benedictines.
[ 15. May 2014, 04:35: Message edited by: Desert Daughter ]
--------------------
"Prayer is the rejection of concepts." (Evagrius Ponticus)
Posts: 733 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
Michael Meade asks:
Is there a way between rejecting church teaching and docility when the church starts turning theological anthropology into an ideology with which to beat people living messy lives or coming to understand themselves in a way that is outside the norm?
You might want to check in with the Leadership Conference of Women Religious and see how they are managing. Googling for lcwr and inquisition should bring you up to speed on their travails if you are not already.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
I nearly wrote 'Welcome to the Church, Michael,' when what I meant to write was 'Welcome to the Ship.' You and your voice are welcome in both. Catholic theology has, as you undoubtedly know, a long tradition of informed, faithful, nuanced dissent. Sometimes one wouldn't even call it dissent, but interpretation. I often found it amongst the Jesuits when I was at theological college.
[ 15. May 2014, 05:12: Message edited by: Amos ]
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
StevHep
Shipmate
# 17198
|
Posted
quote:
StevHep, I'm interested in where you draw the idea that when the Church speaks, Christ speaks. I'm quiet clear about the idea that the Church speaks with the authority that Jesus gave to the Apostles and that the Church speaks with the assurance that the Spirit will lead us into truth. Surely the Church confesses Jesus rather than speaks as Jesus, just as Peter confessed Jesus and spoke with the authority of an Apostle.
Only God is infallible. If the Church says that a statement she has made or a doctrine she has defined is infallibly true then she is expounding the content of Revelation which the Church received once and for all at the time of the Incarnation.
It is in any event a question of what the Church fundamentally is In a mystical sense she is the bride of Christ and where two are united they are no longer two but one. Therefore when the bride speaks she does so with the voice of the Bridegroom. She is the body of Christ and her voice is that of her head who is Jesus. The old argument 'you stick to your Church and I will stick to Jesus' is really spurious since the two are inextricably bound. This is why the risen and ascended Jesus could say "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me" to one who was persecuting His Church.
Incidentally, Michael, if all else fails you can always use the Invincible Ignorance defence. This holds that some people even with the best will in the world are simply unable to understand this or that teaching of the Church. Their personal history or character prevents them from doing so and God in His wisdom has not granted them a special grace to overcome this. So long as you do not actively oppose the teachings and live in the hope that God will make these things clear to you at some point either in time or eternity you can live with these problems. They may be the special Cross assigned to you.
--------------------
My Blog Catholic Scot
http://catholicscot.blogspot.co.uk/
@stevhep on Twitter
Posts: 241 | From: Exeter | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Let me add my welcome, Michael Meade. A topic close to my heart, so I'm taking advantage of a temporary internet connection while on holiday in the western isles of Scotland. Off to sea eagles fly on Islay today. A soaring eagle is a sign of renewed strength.
Avoiding specific discussion of Dead Horses can of course be avoided simply by discussing your reasons for dissent on the DH Board. That might be worth your while.
On the more general question, I'm not sure that the RC church teaching on infallibility is compatible with my personal grammar of dissent. Personally, I'm suspicious of any claim of infallibility. I suppose my touchstone is Montaigne's statement.
"After all it is rating one's own conjectures at a very high price to roast a man on the strength of them".
Of course all of us conjecture. It is in our nature to wonder, to speculate, and to accept also as true that for which we do not have absolute proof. The issues which arise when any of us, or any group of us, assert that our truth comes with an authority to impose, are the ones which determine how we handle our own dissent, and the dissent of others.
If we take, for example, our position under the law of the land, any of us are free to disobey the law as a matter of conscience, accepting that we risk punishment for doing so. We accept its authority while we disagree with it. And we can lobby for change, by peaceful means, even by rebellion. Laws get changed as a result of such active dissent. But I do not believe such processes are possible within Catholic dogma, or if they are, they are to a limited extent in accordance with sanctioned limits.
Whether you are able to live within such limits is I guess a matter of the way you resolve the tension between conscience and authority. The argument over Invincible Ignorance is interesting, but you can hardly use it if you are convinced that you are not ignorant!
To take a prosaic example, and skirting a Dead Horse, we practised artificial means of contraception in our 46 years long marriage. I don't see how we could have openly proclaimed that if we were Catholic. And, as a Protestant, I am quite free to proclaim it openly, to discuss the underlying moral issues, to discuss it for example during the marriage prep my wife and I have carried out for others over many years. I know a small minority of Protestants who disagree with me on that subject, but we would not see it as an essential issue in practising our faith. Nor would I ever join a Protestant Church which did so, either way. It is a matter of individual conscience, not church discipline.
The last word can come from Cromwell, who hardly practised what he preached on this topic.
"I beseech ye, in the bowels of Christ, consider that ye may be mistaken".
That's a good bookend to the Montaigne quote. Both of which are from memory, and are not claimed to be infallibly accurate.
[ 15. May 2014, 06:29: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
EloiseA
Shipmate
# 18029
|
Posted
Welcome, Michael.
I began my schooling at a Catholic convent in the 1960s and the Church I first encountered was what would now be described as pre-Vatican II – in later years when I spoke to one of the nuns who had taught me Latin and history, she said how she wished more students would study Aquinas and gave a me a copy of Karl Adam’s 1930s vision for the universal Church that I still read quite frequently. That Church may be attenuated and ‘underground’ but it is for me still very present and formed my understanding of self and society in ways that have made me feel an outsider to much of what has happened both in the Church and in society in the last 50 years.
There is a hard and yet fruitful tension between what I would find it easier to believe and go along with if I was not Catholic and what requires from me a degree of self-denial and obedience as well as a huge effort to understand older teachings more deeply. I’m not trained in theology and have not had much opportunity to discuss or debate Church teachings with others, so I don’t expect to have anything to contribute to theological discussions in Purgatory. Lived Catholicism in accordance with what is demanded of us is for me an extraordinarily difficult and even impossible way of life even with the help of the sacraments and Church community, prayer, the Gospels and of course the aid of the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit. I don’t expect it to get easier and I don’t believe that the Church will ‘change’ in ways that accommodate more human rights understandings or social attitudes. I will always battle to both accept and understand the Catholic magisterium teachings by which I live, I will always feel anachronistic and at odds with the society in which I live.
When I write something like this, it only deepens my estrangement from many of those around me who argue so cogently and with such urgency for more inclusivity and more social justice. I listen with sympathy if not agreement and can only reply in a language I feel has been forgotten or discarded as irrelevant. It is painful and an unresolved dilemma for me and yet I believe at a very profound level of my understanding the Catholic Church safeguards eternal truths and is the instrument of our salvation. There is nowhere else to go, there is no life for me outside of Her.
--------------------
“You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you odd.” Flannery O'Connnor
Posts: 55 | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
SteveHep: '...when the bride speaks she does so with the voice of the Bridegroom. She is the body of Christ and her voice is that of her head who is Jesus'
Highly questionable theology of marriage here.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Desert Daughter
Shipmate
# 13635
|
Posted
...another thing to pursue in your quest, Michael, would be to read the Encyclical "Evangelii Gaudium" (eminently readable).
By the way, if you are wondering about Subsidiarity in the RC context, you are in good company. It is certainly worth following what Pope Francis and his "C-8" team (a council of eight cardinals whom he asked to help him with curial reform) will be coming up with in the coming months.
--------------------
"Prayer is the rejection of concepts." (Evagrius Ponticus)
Posts: 733 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Midge
Shipmate
# 2398
|
Posted
Hi Michael
Your use of the word 'Dissent' and post reminded me of this series of blog post titled 'Riffing the New' by Jonny Baker. It draws heavily on the writings of Catholic anthropologist and theologian Gerry Arbuckle. Your sentiments sound like that of a Refounder and Pathfinder Dissenter which are explored in some of the posts.
If you want to go straight to source try "Refounding the Church" Gerald A Arbuckle 1993.
--------------------
Some days you are the fly.
On other days you are the windscreen.
Posts: 1085 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
According to RC, the ordinary magisterium is infallible too.
That's not quite right. Some things are infallibly taught through the ordinary magisterium. That does not mean that the ordinary magisterium is infallible, it merely has the capacity to be so.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Meade:
An example of where I think the bishops keep getting it wrong (including in the Cleveland list) and we have a lot to learn from the sciences and from individuals concerned is gender.
One of the most annoying features about dissent these days is that it presents itself as the spiritual heroism of the lone conscientious objector, when it really is a coherent movement with specific themes and topics, whose argumentation invariably follows rather predictable lines. It is very modern, decentralised and emergent. It is a flash mob, not an army. Yet it is as individual a journey as a package holiday.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Meade:
I don't want to ignore official Church teaching but ask whether one can dissent and still engage with it critically and constructively.
You did not understand my challenge to you. I did not attack your (unspecified but fairly predictable) dissent. I asked you by what measure and by whom you want your dissent to be judged. Whose approval are you seeking, and on what grounds? Modern dissent has learned to play its cards very close to its humanist, materialist and hedonist chest. But it is precisely in asking what your hand is worth that you have to put your cards on the table. There probably are many things right and some things wrong with what you believe. Let us set that aside. What I'm asking you is what it signifies that you are asking us about a proper grammar of dissent. Never mind all the many difficulties you have with this or that doctrine. What are you doing right here and now, in the very act of posting here, and what does that tell you about your faith?
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Meade:
Within the principle of subsidiarity what is the competency of the lay faithful in navigating the moral and social issues before them which may not be answered satisfactorily by official teaching.
To critique the actions of a "higher" entity in the subsidiarity paradigm, you have to show what about the "lower" entity?
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
And you have a point in bringing this up.
He didn't. I did.
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
You might want to check in with the Leadership Conference of Women Religious and see how they are managing. Googling for lcwr and inquisition should bring you up to speed on their travails if you are not already.
I'm sure you are crying crocodile tears about the Franciscans of the Immaculate as well, aren't you? Here's the difference though, it is almost pointless to attack the LCWR crowd. Because they are so spiritually sterile. One simply has to wait, and they will die off all on their lonesome. But that traditional order was growing, rapidly by the sad standards of modern religious life. So the liberal "inquisition" certainly had good reason to go in hard and destroy what it could...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
With the RCC it seems that people want to have their cake and eat it. They join because they want the ancient, traditional, profound, authoritative, unchanging, beautiful, definitive, etc. But then they also want the postmodern, questioning, scientific, doubtful, new, liberal, radical, liberated, etc. They want the One True Church, but they want it to change with the times and the environment, just like everything and everyone else. This strikes me as a very tall order, really.
I wouldn't assume that's what people like Michael are looking for. Certainly the Catholic church is beautiful in that way, but for instance I know that's not why I'm interested in it. For me the appeal is how seriously they take the Eucharist--much more so than where I take communion in the mornings now.
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Meade:
Is there still room within the Catholic Church for an informed conscience and informed dissent on moral and social issues?
Yes. Stay with me; keep watch with me.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Meade:
The profession of faith made at reception into the Church is, "I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church teaches, believes and proclaims to be revealed by God."
And your point is that this means:
"Whatever the Church says was revealed by God, that I believe"
and not:
"Whatever the Church teaches, that I believe to be revealed by God".
I can't make sense of your argument unless you think its the first one that's the intention. But by my understanding of Catholicism (and I'm not Catholio), Church teaching is held by the RCC to be a means of revelation in itself, which has always made me think that if I did convert (and I've been tempted) I'd have to mean the second one.
Anyone know a definitive answer to this?
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the life". That may not seem like what the philosophers call a well-defined proposition, but it is certainly possible to interpret it to imply that seeking truth is seeking Jesus. So if you believe that Jesus is in some sense to be found more, to be more present, in the Catholic church than in others, then that's a good reason for you to be there. And if you believe that the leaders of that church - the people who decide the doctrine (because let's face it the ordinary people in the pews don't) - are saying things that are untrue, then to dissent from that "teaching" is to seek truth, is to seek Jesus.
How you should express that dissent is a separate question.
Every community has a culture. Maybe no community has a culture that exactly matches your sense of right and wrong on every issue. Maybe it wouldn't necessarily be good for you if it happened that one did. But there's no moral duty to conform to all the norms and customs of that community, beyond making a reasonable attempt to get along with one's neighbours.
The RC church is Roman as well as Catholic. Elements of the culture are Roman, while other elements are common to most or all Christian traditions. If you don't get on with Roman culture, being there may be uncomfortable. Depending on how adapted to the local culture your local Catholic congregation is.
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
And your point is that this means:
"Whatever the Church says was revealed by God, that I believe"
and not:
"Whatever the Church teaches, that I believe to be revealed by God".
I can't make sense of your argument unless you think its the first one that's the intention. But by my understanding of Catholicism (and I'm not Catholio), Church teaching is held by the RCC to be a means of revelation in itself, which has always made me think that if I did convert (and I've been tempted) I'd have to mean the second one. Anyone know a definitive answer to this?
I was writing a response, but then I noted that the Code of Canon Law is actually perfectly lucid and concise concerning this question. I would just add that the idea that the Church herself can reveal is most sorely mistaken. The Church always and only speaks of the Lord's revelation, she can never reveal anything truly novel, just expound and develop what was given.
quote:
Can. 748 §1. All persons are bound to seek the truth in those things which regard God and his Church and by virtue of divine law are bound by the obligation and possess the right of embracing and observing the truth which they have come to know.
§2. No one is ever permitted to coerce persons to embrace the Catholic faith against their conscience. ...
Can. 750 §1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.
§2. Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firmly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church. ...
Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.
Note the careful distinction between "believing with Divine and Catholic faith" and "religious submission of the intellect".
For the average person, this distinction roughly means the following: If you do not believe what you must believe by Divine and Catholic faith, then you are not Catholic, but a heretic, and indeed automatically excommunicated. In some sense this is the actual faith test. It is not enough to pay lip service there or even to follow diligently but without faith, this stuff you really need to believe. Or you are out. It should be noted that the number of such "proper dogmas" is small, but not as small as some people tend to think. It is not just ex cathedra statements of the pope which are "de fide"... However, there's a lot more that the Church teaches which does not come at this level. Here "religious assent" is required. That means you do not need to believe in this particular doctrine. You may even think it is poppycock. However, by virtue of believing in the Church, by virtue of being a loyal son or daughter of the Church, you must still go along with it. At a minimum you should be able to say "I don't believe this crap, but since you say so, let it be to me according to your word." Consequently, you should not explicitly and intentionally act or speak against such teaching, i.e., this is a real submission not just lip service.
Now, if you are some kind of expert, then in the realm of your expertise you can in fact licitly speak up against matters that otherwise require religious submission. Basically, if you can validly assume that you know better, then in fact it is your duty to try to correct the errors in the teachings that you have found. How you would do this depends on circumstances, but it should be obvious that it should be done with the same sort of respectful attitude that otherwise would make you submit to the teaching.
So in a fundamental "Catholic or not" sense, one has to have faith only in proper dogma (the interpretation you attribute to Michael). Whereas in a practical "living as a Catholic" sense, one has to be prepared to take on board all of Catholic teaching (your interpretation). However, the latter then possibly by submission rather than faith - it can be a matter of loyalty and acceptance, instead of conviction. And where one is an expert, one can licitly "refuse submission" at least in the sense of respectfully working towards correcting errors one believes to have identified.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
That's extremely helpful, thank you.
So if I don't believe that, say, the bread and wine at the eucharistic really become the body and blood of Jesus, and become Catholic anyway, I'd basically be lying, to the Church and to myself, and shouldn't do it. But if I merely think that the Church's current discipline about fasting on Friday is all superstitious nonsense, that should not prevent me affirming belief in the Church's teaching. I'm allowed to disagree, but should follow the rule out of obedience even if I can't do so from conviction.
Have I understood that corrrectly?
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Have I understood that corrrectly?
Yes, you have, though a discipline is perhaps not the best example for "religious submission" here. A discipline does not claim to be "true" anyhow, it merely claims to be useful for something. Consider rather as an example this: A common teaching of the Church is that "imperfect contrition" is sufficient in the sacrament of confession. That is to say, if one confesses one's sin not because one has sincere feelings of regret to have offended God and man with one's actions, but simply because one wishes to escape damnation and hell, personally, then according to common Church teaching such a craven motivation will do (even though it is obviously not ideal). Now, let us say that you feel that this is not true. Perhaps you think that confession is entirely pointless unless it comes "from the heart" and out of motivations that go beyond the base instinct of saving one's skin, if supernaturally. The "religious submission of the mind" then would mean that you hold your peace concerning this subject, instead of trying to convince everybody you know that the Church is mistaken about this. It would even require that you go and confess your own sins in spite of not having reached a state of "perfect contrition" in your own judgement. For most intents and purposes, you will speak and act as if the Church is right on this matter. Not because you think that she is, but because you think that she is the Church. If you are a master theologian, then indeed you could write a paper discussing whether "imperfect contrition" makes any sense. And you could try to get the ear or your local bishop on this matter, airing your misgivings. But that would require sufficient qualification. Or perhaps the direct question of a priest or bishop. It's basically a "Permission to speak freely, sir?" kind of challenge that is allowed, with the permission being assumed as a matter of course for those whose job it is to worry about those things.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The "religious submission of the mind" then would mean that you hold your peace concerning this subject, instead of trying to convince everybody you know that the Church is mistaken about this. It would even require that you go and confess your own sins in spite of not having reached a state of "perfect contrition" in your own judgement. For most intents and purposes, you will speak and act as if the Church is right on this matter. Not because you think that she is, but because you think that she is the Church.
Hi IngoB,
You're making a distinction between what we might call "passive dissent" - keeping one's disbelief to oneself unless asked a direct question or in a quasi-academic environment where different views are expressly welcomed in order to encourage thought and discussion.
And "active dissent" - trying to change the party line, either within one's own congregation or by lobbying those in positions of influence.
Which makes sense to me, as someone for whom belief or disbelief is not a choice, but what one does about it is.
Your suggestion that different norms should apply amongst expert theologians would make sense if, as you've previously suggested, theology is like physics. If someone struggling with Newtonian physics opines that they don't believe in Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, those who understand Heisenberg aren't going to take that dissent very seriously. But it's not obvious that theology is a body of knowledge in this way. Sometimes it seems much closer to politics...
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
SteveHep: '...when the bride speaks she does so with the voice of the Bridegroom. She is the body of Christ and her voice is that of her head who is Jesus'
Highly questionable theology of marriage here.
Not to mention, stretching a metaphor to its breaking point.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
The only party line within the Catholic church which really counts is the injunction of Jesus to'love God and to love our neighbour as ourselves' Everything else flows from that.
Not every human being is able to believe in God,not every human being is able to believe in the sacrificial death nor the resurrection of Jesus.Nor is everyone who does accept these beliefs, able to accept that as children of God we are all in some way members of the Catholic church.
The Catholic church teaches with what it believes to be the authority of Jesus.
It proposes ideals,but it is well aware that many people will find them difficult to follow.It is part of our imperfect nature.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michael Meade
Apprentice
# 18101
|
Posted
Thank you again for your welcomes and contributions. Especially EloiseA; something of your experience resonates with me and I sense it has been a hard path for you.
StevHep. Thank you for explain more of what you meant. I am still uncertain especially you appear to be applying quiet a particular understanding of nuptial imagery and applying it not so much to the people of God but to the hierarchy.
However, yes, awareness of my invincible ignorance can be consoling and a mindful way of holding a questioning faith. There are certainly some teachings that I have not only come to understand but to cherish, especially as their implications broaden through lived faith.
The difficulty comes however when issues of dissent arise and, as Barnabas says, I am sure that I am not ignorant. Especially when they also become issues of justice or integrity.
The dilemma is then whether I can find in scripture and tradition hope that the Church's teach might be developed or changed. When, however, the Church becomes more trenchant or shuts down discussion or dissent this hope becomes not only harder to hold but leads to further questions about the nature of the Church.
I mean, at what point do we consider that the Bishops have ceased to be guardians of revelation and instead have begun to "lord it over" the flock? This is what worries me in IngoB's response. I became Catholic because I became convinced that the Bishops had guarded and handed on the teaching of the Apostles. That is their job, I understand that, but in this job are they servants or masters? How do we tell the difference? And what does it say about the nature of the Church when only expert scholars can entertain doubts or alternative interpretations in seminar rooms and journals? Instead should the Church not expect to nurture an engaged and educated laity who will at times have difficult questions. Surely mature discipleship would then include challenging one's bishop. Though mature discipleship would indeed also include holding tight and trusting that God is in time leading the Church into truth. In this sense Russ and Forthview's reflections on culture and the party line that really counts are helpful.
In this respect both Barnabas and IngoB reflect what is at stake for me in posting this thread. I think I have in this post gone some way to answering IngoB's very pertinent question. I am not (IngoB) seeking any approval but what I am doing right here and now is asking if there is no room for dissent then does my perception of the nature of the church and discipleship change? And does my understanding of the authority of the magisterium change. In other words, I am considering in my bowels, if not indeed "the bowels of Christ", whether I have been mistaken.
Therefore, the mode and ground of my believing, praying, living and fellowship is at stake. If I cannot assent to X, to which assent is demanded, what are my grounds for assenting to Y which I assented to readily on the grounds of the same authority? This is not to say that my Christian faith is at stake. Only its entire context and formulation.
If I am sure of my dissent and if there is room for dissent, dialogue and change then I can perceive that Christ is indeed leading us into all truth through the visible teaching body of the Church, however long that might take.
If there is no room for dissent and the Church seems intransigent then I begin to question not only the weight and nature of the Church's authority but whether I find myself outside of the Church both in discipline and understanding.
IngoB's explanation of the different forms of consent seems at the moment to underline rather than resolve the dilemma. But yes Eliab you are right I understand the profession to mean: "Whatever the Church says was revealed by God, that I believe". But also take seriously the second obligation (which is why this is a dilemma).
Posts: 4 | From: in a strange land | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
MM,
Sometimes I think I know where you're coming from, and the next moment I'm not so sure.
When you say you worry that you will find yourself outside the Church, whose rejection are you worried about ? Is it God's ? If you think there's a significant chance that Jesus will turn around and say "no, he's not one of mine - he's one of those freethinkers" then that's a big issue. But it sounds like you're at least moderately convinced that you did your best to follow God's will in joining the RCC and you're continuing to do your best to do God's will in seeking out what is right and true.
Is it your fellow parishoners ? Do you fear that they would reject you and despise you and feel deceived by you if they knew that you harboured these dissenting thoughts ? If that's your real worry, then perhaps the only way to resolve it is to talk to some of them, just informally sound people out about what they think, so you can see or not whether your dissenting views create a gulf between you and them. My guess is that you'd find that many of the cradle Catholics think much as you do.
So the remaining possibility seems to be that as far as you can tell you're right with God and you're at one with your Christian brothers and sisters, and you're cool with your spiritual leader Francis. So why worry about some canon law bureaucrat in the Vatican ?
Put it another way. There are truths of mathematics which stand alone, are evident no matter what faith community you come from. If someone could prove to your satisfaction that the popes taught 2+2=5 then you'd say no, that's a mistake, the institution has got it wrong somewhere.
There are truths of science upon which the Church has no competence to pronounce, as Galileo demonstrated.
So in practice everyone accepts authority only up to a point.
If your concept of where the boundary to the competence of religious authority lies isn't quite the same as the next person's, that's not a black-and-white pass/fail binary choice marking who's in and who's out of the golden circle; that's a matter of degree.
Not sure that's any help - feel free to ignore if not.
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
