DISSENT IS LEGITIMATE IN THE ROMAN
CATHOLIC CHURCH
“Commenting on Benedict’s intervention Fr Brendan Hoban of the
Association of Catholic Priests described it as ‘an extraordinary turn of
events whereby Benedict finds himself doing what he is doing. He is challenging
the Pope. This from a man who had been very strong on obedience, order and
discipline. He seems to be doing and saying things he opposed in the past.’
“...By speaking out publicly ‘on such a divisive and sensitive topic as
mandatory celibacy, he has placed Pope Francis in an awkward position. Benedict
is encouraging dissent. He is widening the divisions in the church. He is
increasing the possibility of schism,’ said Fr Moloney in his blog From my
Pulpit.
“He noted how ‘in the past, those who dared criticise Benedict or his
predecessor were summarily dealt with, told to desist, effectively silenced.
Some are still being punished. Many of those who tolerated no criticism of the
Pope or the institutional church when John Paul II and Benedict were in office,
now have no problem in openly attacking Pope Francis,’ he said.”
See:
—Patsy McGarry, “Former pope Benedict ‘doing and saying things he
opposed in the past’,” The Irish Times
(January 14, 2020)
Let us set aside the question of whether Benedict XVI agreed to
co-author the book.
Even if we assume he did not agree to be listed as co-author, it is
apparent that he agreed to publish his views.
His views are at least divergent from the Amazon synod’s and could be
interpreted as dissenting. Is he dissenting and thereby succumbing to the very
proscription that he himself set forth under his pontificate?
In my view, dissent—delimited by yet unspecified bounds—is acceptable conduct for a Roman Catholic. Benedict XVI's published essay plainly affirms this
principle.
A theological basis for legitimate dissent in the Roman Catholic Church lies
in acknowledging the fallibility of the ordinary magisterium besides affirming
the doctrine of reception.
“The Fallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium”:
“The Doctrine of Reception”:
The links cited above recount a classic illustration of legitimate
dissent in the Roman Catholic Church, “Pope John XXII and the Beatific Vision.”
Photo courtesy of Papist
ReplyDeletePhoto link: https://www.flickr.com/photos/26114656@N08/2444601744
Gonzalinho
“I want to hear what you have to say. Criticisms, complaints, and questions are welcome. That’s how the Holy Spirit works. The Holy Spirit can't work if we’re all walking on eggshells and afraid to say anything.”—Papa Francesco, February 10, 2020
ReplyDeleteLink: https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2020/02/10/pope-francis-us-bishops-some-will-be-disappointed-exhortation
Gonzalinho
—Catholic News Service, “Pope Francis to U.S. bishops: Some will be disappointed by exhortation,” America: The Jesuit Review, February 10, 2020
DeleteGonzalinho
Notable historical examples of legitimate dissent in the Roman Catholic Church:
ReplyDeleteAlmost everyone is aware of the strong dissent Saint Paul expressed toward Saint Peter’s position on regulations for Christian converts, as noted in the second chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians. Paul publicly “withstood to his face” this first pope “because he clearly was wrong” (Gal. 2:11), and Peter eventually reversed his position and concurred with Paul in the dispute.
…To cite a far more recent example of responsible dissent, consider the church's reversal of its time-honored stance on freedom of religion—a reversal that occurred over a 15-year period in the 1950s and 1960s. For the greater part of Christian history, it was accepted as absolute doctrine that civil governments had an obligation to officially recognize the church and support it.
Pope Pius IX made the point in no uncertain terms in 1846 in his encyclical Quanta Cura and the accompanying Syllabus of Errors: “The state must recognize [the Catholic Church] as supreme and submit to its influence. . . . The power of the state must be at its disposal and all who do not conform to its requirements must be compelled or punished. . . . Freedom of conscience and cult is madness.” Catholics were told that they need not openly oppose a government that did not so recognize the church (as in the United States); rather, they should tolerate the existing situation until such time as Catholics formed a majority of the voting population.
Beginning in 1950 Father John Courtney Murray, a Jesuit theologian, argued that the old tradition must yield. In a series of articles in Theological Studies magazine and in public appearances, he contended that the state should not be the tool of the church and has no business carrying out the church’s will. Rather, he said, the civil government’s single yet profound obligation is to insure the freedom of all its citizens, especially their religious freedom.
“Every man has a right to religious freedom,” he wrote, “a right that is based on the dignity of the human person and is therefore to be formally recognized . . . and protected by constitutional law. . . . So great is this dignity that not even God can take it away.” Murray claimed the old doctrine as enunciated by Pius IX was not an absolute, static thing but a teaching that had been developing over the past 100 years—a development which Murray saw in the writings of Popes Leo XIII and Pius XII.
https://uscatholic.org/articles/200807/catholic-dissent-when-wrong-turns-out-to-be-right/
—Robert J. McClory, “Catholic dissent: When wrong turns out to be right,” U.S. Catholic, July 28, 2008
Gonzalinho
Some conditions that have been advanced for legitimate dissent—I agree with them:
ReplyDeleteU.S. bishops even set out norms for legitimate dissent. It is proper and acceptable, they said, “if the reasons for disagreement are serious and well founded, if the manner of their dissent does not question the right of the hierarchy to teach or cause great scandal.”
The bishops took note of John Henry Newman’s description of circumstances in which conscience could oppose the authority of the pope and they praised “the spiritual tradition which accepts enlightened conscience, even when honestly mistaken, as the arbiter of moral decision.”
Theologians throughout the world, like Bernard Haring, Walter Burghardt and Karl Rahner, weighed in on the subject, arguing for the right, even the obligation of disagreement.
https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/dissent-dont-you-dare
—Robert J. McClory, “Dissent? Dont You Dare!” National Catholic Reporter, September 9, 2011
However, it’s not entirely clear what “cause great scandal” consists in. How do you determine “great scandal,” for example, or establish causality?
Gonzalinho