More proof that dissenting Catholics also dissent from reason.
Why can’t I be a good Catholic and dissent? Apparently, being a dissenter and a good Catholic are mutually exclusive. Why can’t I be both? There is no “Thou shall not dissent” commandment. Yet today it appears that anyone who does not strictly follow or agree with the rules promulgated by Rome is considered to be a bad Catholic. And this to the point that Pope Benedict XVI is apparently saying good riddance—who needs them anyway—let them fall by the wayside: they are just weeds in the field.
How about if you love me keep my commandments and what Jesus told the Apostles "He who hears you hears Me." If you deny the nature of the Catholic Church and apostolic succession and the authority of the pope and the bishops in union with him, then there is really no point to in being Catholic at all. As for the weeds in the field well Jesus did say the tares would grow with the wheat, but to assign an attitude of good riddance to the Pope is to totally lack any knowledge of him at all. I can easily imagine these same people among the Israelites as Moses brings the Ten Commandments down from the mountain and complaining about rules and a patriarchical figure bringing an edict.
Why is questioning and asking about change deemed equal to heresy? It is akin to being against the war in Iraq and being labeled anti-American. This country was formed by a group of dissenters who believed strongly in freedom of speech and religion. Unquestioned, blind followership has had many a bad result historically—the Crusades and Hitler to name a few examples. Jesus Christ Himself was a dissenter. He objected to the behavior of those who observed the minutiae of the law, while ignoring its spirit. Saint Paul too was a dissenter amongst the apostles. Saint Paul made a strong distinction between the letter and the spirit of the law. Were Christ and Paul labeled as insurgents? Absolutely—and ultimately they were put to death for their beliefs.
Questioning is not equal to heresy. There are lots of items that we can question and ponder and mysteries beyond mysteries to delve further into. The problem is questioning that which has been settled. "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same." If indeed you fall into this narrow guideline then heresy it is. They just like to throw this word around in cases where it doesn’t apply like letting priests getting married. Christ and Paul labeled as insurgents? Sorry they were not part of an armed uprising and tossing around the word insurgent in reference to Our Lord is ridiculous. The letter and spirit of the law are united ;the letter can’t imply one thing and be interpreted in a totally opposite way. It is not a choice between following the letter or the spirit, but that you should have an understanding of both of them as a union.
Requests to allow priests to marry or allow women to become priests have fallen on deaf ears in Rome. Bishop Chaput, as quoted in the New Yorker, said:
“
The lack of orthodoxy has already proven that it’s empty. So I can’t understand why people would want to move in that direction. I mean, all the things they’re pushing for have already been tried by mainline Protestant churches, which are shrinking in numbers. And these religious orders, where they’ve abandoned the tradition, there are no vocations, but they still talk like they’re the future. Why would they? You just have to open your eyes and see. If they have ears, they don’t hear. If they have eyes, they don’t see.”* Eighty-five seminarians hardly represent the triumph of orthodoxy. Be leery of the one who spouts contradictory statements in the face of facts.
Well large diocese with a paucity of vocations is not exactly the triumph of dissent either.
As for women in the priesthood, an objection is that all the apostles were men. Who was more inclusive than Christ? He spoke with women from other religions, ate with women, and had women in His entourage. After He rose from the dead, He first appeared to Mary of Magdala. Coincidence? I think not. This issue is about power.
Wow what a stunning argument. He ate and spoke with women so I guess every women at the dinner table were instantly ordained to the priesthood. He first appeared to Mary Magdalene so that too made her an apostle. So according to history exactly what see did she found? What bishops and priests assign their lineage to being ordained by her? Funny how we have some stories of all the other Apostles and for the most part their eventual martyrdom, but I guess the eviiillllll patriarchical Church once again managed to erase all traces of any of these traditions. Why is it they always say this is a power issue when really they only see the priesthood as a means to power and not to sacrifice. The true power within the Church is Christ himself and prayer when we unite ourselves to him by doing his will. Last I checked their was no gender requirement for doing that.
Despite Rome’s expressed support for the separation of church and state, it was a huge contributor to the reelection of President Bush by its decree, issued through bishops such as Chaput and Sheridan of Colorado, whereby they proclaimed those who voted for Senator John Kerry could be denied Communion. Instead of being proud that a Catholic could be elected to the presidency of the United States, whose humanistic values could influence how it treats and perceives humankind, the Catholic Church chose to throw its implicit support to a man whose religion was formed by a dissenter from Rome and who doesn’t “know the way.” This is the same man John Paul II tried to talk out of going to war with Iraq. Killing is killing whether it is by abortion, war, or the death penalty. Ironic is one word that comes to mind; expediency is another.
This part is just nutty in expressing a push by the Vatican for the reelection of President Bush. Last I checked Pope John Paul II’s reservations about the Iraq war were not exactly used in reelection campaign ads. Bishop Sheridan acted on his own and his conscience with no prompting’s from the Vatican. To think otherwise is to see know nothing conspiracy theories in every shadow. If President Bush had been Catholic would she be proud to see a Catholic in office? And if her definition of humanistic values include support for abortion and murder through embryonic stem-cell research then she had defined humanity down to what is convenient. It is funny how liberal Catholics always talk about shades of gray and make fun of those who see things in black and white moral terms and yet talk about abortion, war, and the death penalty as one lump of an indistinguishable moral lump.
The Catholic Church today may not want dissenters, but it has them. Being a dissenter should not, ipso facto, equal being a bad Catholic. Asking for change when it is necessary, valuable, and appropriate is different, yet Rome does not appear to see the difference.
Dissenting from truth carries no reward and should not be bragged about. There is plenty to dissent about today such as the secular humanists view of the world and the denial of the dignity of human persons. We should dissent from all that is not true and resist the winds of modernism that attempt to blow through Christ’s Church. But before you dissent from the Church it might be a good idea to first learn about the nature of the Church before spouting talking points as if they contained wisdom.
21 comments
+JMJ+
Dissenters misunderstand the whole relationship between the Church and the individual. Not to mention the GIFT of faith. Having a hard time with a doctrine even though you realize the Church’s authority to promulgate the doctrine is not the same thing as saying, I’m Catholic, but I don’t believe this, that or the other thing. It is much like being Protestant–everyman his own Pope. Sure, the Church teaches this, but I know better. You end up worshipping your own (FINITE) understanding of what you think Jesus wants instead of submitting to a supernatural teaching authority–it boils down to “lack of faith” –(and usually ends up with ‘lack of reason’)
Excellent fisking, Jeff. The editor’s note is entertaining as well.
Romans 2:12 springs to mind.
I love how liberal Catholics want to be leaders of change, and not servants of the unchanging God.
-El S.
Perhaps they should be reminded that Jesus prayed THY will be done, not MY will be done.
If being sent away (apostle means one who is sent away) by Jesus to carry the good news to the apostles makes Mary Magdalen an apostle in the same sense that the other apostles are apostles, being sent by God with a message makes Mary Magdalen an angel in the same sense as the other angels (angel means simply messenger). Which is ludicrous.
“Despite Rome�s expressed support for the separation of church and state…”
I wonder if supporting Kerry as a guy who does “know the way” (???) because he’s nominally catholic would be a clear example of separation of church and state in the eyes of these brilliant dissenters.
Ciao, Paolo
Is there a typo in the sentence “Questioning is now equal to heresy.” Should that be “not?”
Very well said Nancy…
‘THY will be done’ is something the libs forget.
They are too concerned with what they want.
When does the realization set in that you actually ARE a bad Catholic?
Talk about blind followership. Unquestioningly follow your Satanic devotion to rebellion.
The editor’s note is just silly.
As if evangelical Protestants don’t wield secular power when they get ahold of it.
In the end, all they seek is a way to justify their errors, because they know they are wrong, and their soul and conscience tells them they are losing God’s love, and seeking His wrath.
The Devil would do the same if he was capable of it. But their nature is too perfect, when they fall, they fall forever.
Jesus told his disciples that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood…many dissented and desserted and Jesus didn’t chase after them. Apparently he was saying good riddance – who needs them anyway?
“The issue is about power.”
I have never been able to understand that one. All things being the same, what difference would it make to me to elect a dude or dudette? It is not as if all males have a conspiracy against women and share a secret handshake. At least I didn’t get that memo.
If you protest the teaching authority of the Church..you are a protestant…that’s the meaning of the word!
I know, I know, Protestants have to trace their roots back to the Reformation…..I still believe the statement above.
Maybe I’m mistaken, but doesn’t the story about Saint Thomas the Apostle teach us something about “dissent?” When Christ first appeared to the Apostles after the Resurrection, where was Thomas, and why wasn’t he with the others? Who knows? But we do know the immediate result — when they told him what they had seen, he scoffed at the possibility; when faced with the testimony of ten other Apostles, how did he answer them? “I do not believe you!” Of course, he qualified that statement with a great big “unless…” but imagine it! — an Apostle denying the testimony of an Apostle! If that isn’t “dissent”…
When, at last, Thomas encountered Christ in the midst of the Apostles, in the heart of the Church, and saw in Christ the Divinity of God, he also saw in the Church, the Divinity of Christ. “Believe,” he was told, and obediently, he believed to his last breath.
In other words, “dissent” itself kept an apostle apart from the Church, the Church did not keep a dissenter from being an apostle.
Another St. Thomas, St. Thomas More, like the first one, obedient to Christ and His Church to the death, asked, “Why should they not believe the Church when it tells them what Christ said and did?” (Apology).
Jesus Christ Himself was a dissenter. He objected to the behavior of those who observed the minutiae of the law, while ignoring its spirit.
Translation: “I contracept.”
M. Archangelo, St. Thomas was a doubter in this case, not a dissenter. Big difference.
Um… Jesus could tell people what to do because He spoke with authority. Because He was Authority Itself, as well as Truth. Everybody else was dissenting from Him, not the other way around.
Whereas if I dissent, I am moving away from Truth.
So the way for us to reform things is to point out where common practices and ideas dissent from His Truth as transmitted to us through the Church, and conform ourselves to Him. Anything else isn’t reformation, but deformation.
“Liberalism is a mental disorder.” And it’s chief symptom is denial.
Good job with the fisking Jeff.
Um, correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the picture with the words “A Catholc Dissent” on it actually of Martin Luther?
GAAAAAAAAAH! THAT WAS AN AWFUL ARTICLE!
The claim is often made that American Catholics only understand politics and political power.
It’s usually true, much to God’s dismay.