When is dissent not just dissent?

As an RCIA instructor, I am surprised at the number of practicing Catholics who do not understand either basic Catholic teachings on certain topics, or the rationale behind those teachings.

I must wonder if the clergy is doing an adequate job of explaining and "selling" those ideas to thge laity. Not everyone is a routine reader on Catholic teachings. Many must be reached in the market place of ideas with carefully explained teachings oftern supported by more than the Church's Magisterium.

HONESTY, NOT DISSENT ! ...... Thanks, Bob, for once again both leading us, and showing us how to think, about what Catholics believe and why they believe.

As far as we can tell, neither Jesus nor any of his apostles were canon lawyers. Neither Jesus nor any of his original apostles left us any direct writings and certainly no code of canon law. Paul wrote, but he did not have direct contact with Jesus, other than miraculously.

These apostles, however, left behind a church that developed rules consensually, mainly as the need arose . The faithful were usually directly involved in making and changing most rules for three centuries.

Then along came Constantine in the early fourth century. He captured the Church for his imperial purposes. Thereafter, rules usually came from the top down.

The present Roman hierarchy still rules in Constantine's monarchical style and appears to "care less" generally about what Catholic "subjects" think. Consequently, a substantial and growing majority of the Catholic faithful pay little heed to what the hierarchy says on most issues. The hierarchy retains a large surplus of power and wealth, so seem indifferent in their comfortable and unaccountable positions to the views of the faithful.

For more information on the hierarchy's disregard of the faithfuls' views since Constantine, please see the NCR comment and related cross links under the comment heading, "Benedict XVI and Constance" , accessible by clicking on at:
http://ncronline.org/blogs/essays-theology/end-western-schism

For an example of the large disconnect between the present Church hierarchy and the faithful on a major current issue, protecting children, please see the NCR comment and related cross links under the comment heading, "Bad Bishops/Good Kids" , accessible by clicking on at:

http://ncronline.org/blogs/small-c-catholic/sexual-misconduct-church-won...

On a similar note ; I wonder about the public accession to the existence of the unique construct called the " Corporate Person " in the global economy. Granting that Christ is the founder of our Firm and that we the faithful constitute the Body of Christ, how do we reckon the conflation of that special entity into a pragmatic economic " Being " without creating an automaton presaging the emergence of the Anti-Christ.

This gets off on the right foot by noting that "surveys are polluted by the number of lax Catholics, half-Catholics, and pseudo-Catholics" who misidentify themselves as Catholics and are therefore erroneously included in polls as Catholics. More detailed polls normalize by using a proxy such as Mass attendance, which allows us to see that most of the "catholics" who push up the numbers in "x% of catholics support [insert heretical agenda]" polls haven't attended Mass in a month of sundays. If you haven't attended Mass this year, and you haven't been stationed in Antarctica or the like, you're not a Catholic. You might say that you're not a practicing Catholic, but there's no such thing; a Catholic is a practicing Catholic and a "non-practicing Catholic" is a lapsed Catholic.

But then we get into the non-reception canard; far from the new notion presented here, this one's as old as the hills and has been wielded repeatedly by dissenters in the last handful of decades. (Ironically, most of those dissenters would align themselves with Vatican II even though Vatican II's teaching on the magisterium contradicts their notions on this point.) You're not a non-receiver, you're just a dissenter. Stop trying to dress it up in fancy terms. If you want to tell yourself that you're succeeding in passing this attitude along to another generation of dissenters, feel free, but if you want to know what younger Catholics really think, go talk to some younger Catholics after Mass. You will find that we have absolutely no truck with the nonsense you're peddling. Unsurprisingly, you will not find those folks in your survey who say that you can be a good catholic without attending Mass—after all, few protestants attend Mass.

Interestingly, however, if you find some protestants, you'll find a crowd receptive to non-reception. That ought to be a warning that you've gone far, far afield.

Dear Anonymous, it's sad to read such a narrow definition of Catholic - i.e., attendance @ Sunday Mass. On that basis, if there's no such person as a non-practicing Catholic I'm bold enough to say it's equally true there is no such thing as a practicing Catholic. Catholicity is not something that can be quantified, measured.

Now if you were to say the difference lies in being a Catholic of faith and a Catholic of no faith, we might be able to dialogue. Then we have to decide what's faith and what's not faith. I will tell you right off that, for me, faith does not consist in practices or fulfilling rules/regs. For this reason I can relate to a non-receptive catholic....

Said another way, the Vatican and its monarchical dictates get all the respect they deserve.

I used to go along with you 100% Roberto, however now I am reaching 120% simply because you are finally getting down to the “quid of the question”.

The idea of a static “flock” to pick up the nods of the all-knowing “shepherds” is no longer acceptable even for those who do not go along with the philosophic vision of Heraclitus of our universe in constant change.

In the USA my father finished 8 grades; my mother 8 grades plus “Teachers’ College”. Of their 6 children 5 graduated from universities, three with doctorates. Of their 31 grandchildren, perhaps TWO would still sign in as “Roman Catholic” in the USA today.

Nevertheless I can vouch for the fact that well over half of these grandchildren are continually committed to “pushing along the cart of the Kingdom of God” in their personal and professional lives, working for “Thy Kingdom come on earth just as it is in heaven.” They see it as that “other possible society”, that “other possible world” so unlike what we have made for ourselves in today’s world, where every 4 seconds one of our sisters or brothers dies of hunger, where we kill millions of people in wars over petroleum or jockeying for strategic global positions, just as by our greed we nonchalantly keep on destroying the future for our grandchildren, our own Dear Mother Earth.

Most of these younger relatives of mine just don’t see that “other possible world” coming out of what is being offered today by those who supposedly publicly represent “the Church”. As Jesuit Padre Ladislas Orsy, puts it so well: they just can not swallow that “creeping infallibility” which seems to be the trade mark of what they hear from the “teachers” who seem to have forgotten that the greatest human power is intelligence. It is our intelligence that lights up our way into faith in Jesus of Nazareth and his life program and shapes up our personal conscience.

The USA with its historical “puritanical” roots and then massive immigration from different ethnic groups many escaping ideological imposition, no longer seems to be “accepting as Gospel” that which they no longer seeeeee as Gospel and law.

In Mestizo America (incorrectly refereed to as “Latin America”) we were spared that puritanical worship of law because of our deep mestization with myriads of original indigenous cosmic visions which remained lodged in the sub-consciousness of our peoples despite the bloody efforts of “the sword, the cross and the crown.”

If you keep opening doors, Roberto, we might just be able eventually to settle a fundamental question today: ¿JUST WHY DOES THE CHURCH EXIST, AND HOW DOES SHE ENTER INTO OUR COMMITMENT TO LIVE AND WORK FOR THAT OTHER POSSIBLE WORLD TODAY?

Justiniano de Managua el 17 de nov. 2011

One problem - some of the stuff being voted off the island so to speak in era where our consciences trump the words of Christ - are the words of Christ. Wonder what Christ will say upon our encounter with him when we say - hey, I decided to not to be selfish and didn't have too many kids., I didn't burden the planet. And he says - hey, how do you think I feel that you rejected my Father's gifts. Oh, and how about, that little notion I gave you that marriage is forever, divorce is wrong. What will we say about our consciences then - oh well, this theologian said that church teaching has a two tiered approach?

How many of us know priests and lay people, active in parishes and dioceses, who compromise their core beliefs so as to carry on the good work they are doing within church structures? Whether the issue is Eucharistic inclusivity, option for the poor, a thinking laity, married clergy, women’s ordination, homosexuality, contraception, our Church fosters a culture of keeping quiet so as to keep going. Sometimes the pressure from above is overt, but we are all subject to that subtlest form of institutional intimidation which everyone registers without it having to be articulated.

We watch the few who persist in standing against it being marginalized or pushed out altogether; their whole lives can be taken apart. Many, both young and lifelong churchgoers, can no longer accept it and are walking away. Meanwhile those who slip into capitulating to it progressively deform their spiritual integrity.

Of course, the Protestant tradition and secular society have long picked up the tenor of hypocrisy about Catholicism. After Vatican II, though, many of us felt we were on the way to being freed from it. But the volume now seems to be ratcheting up again. How can we commit to the Church we love without dancing to this particular tune?

The intensity of dissent depends on two things: how much you do not agree and how much you care. Intensely dissenting people care intensely about their religion. Alienating this highly caring segment to simplify the Church's diversity is not wise.

mclory is corrupt in his thinking by deliberately using bishop Butler's and Ratzinger's words out of context."if a teaching failed to enjoy reception on the part of the church" On the part of the church means the Magisterium,not the laiety.

mclory's article is rubbish.

Mr. McClory, I think that you are exactly right about this. The Greeks have an analogous practice, which has been exercised a few times in the past century: When a new bishop is appointed, the congregation is asked if he is worthy. On a few occasions, those assembled (or a large part of them) have shouted "Anaxios" (UNworthy); and those bishops were not installed.

We may well see a similar exercise of non-reception with the looming liturgical debacle. Will people realize the deep ecclesiological ramifications of the new "translation", and if so, will they accept its de facto rejection of Vatican II? Time will tell.

Which leads me to a second reason (there are probably others, including lack of knowledge) for the phenomenon of non-reception: The hierarchy, from the Pope on down, have virtually destroyed their own credibility by their mishandling of the sexual abuse crisis and (in the case of Rome and a few other places) their mishandling of finances. Large parts of the laity simply no longer respect their bishops, nor do they have any confidence in their moral judgment. So, why pay any attention to them at all? Admittedly, this strikes close to the heart of Catholic ecclesiology, but the situation is what it is.

It is difficult to see the way out of this morass, but the Holy Spirit often does surprising things. So keep the faith!

It used to be called the Spirit of Prophesy in the Early Church. This is especially the case regarding teachings having to do with the status of women and sexuality generally.

Bob-
Thanks for your continuing the discussion. In Ladislas Orsy's "Receiving the Council" there is a chapter on "Reception of the Laws" which goes into greater depth on this subject.
He writes "The scope of the legislator consists in issuing commands with authority in view of the acquisition of values by the community. This is the most that he can do. He has no capacity to create and give any of the values the community needs; all he can do is prompt the people to reach out for them." The reception is described as a "dynamic process" where the people first come to perceive the teaching, then to truly try to understand it-to find the value that prompted the teaching.
This should not be passive acceptance, because "a lack of understanding of the reason for law ...can eventually lead to discontent and frustration". Finally, "the law meets the conscience of the reveiver. It reaches that luminous part of the person where he or she is bound to God.There a sovereign judgment will have to be made over the law, a judgment for which the person is responsible to his or her Maker and to no one else."
Then the people may find the teaching in "harmony with the fundamental obligation to serve God" and act to implement its values. If not, if a disharmony is found, a conflict develops and must be resolved.
I would just want to add that the "dynamic process" calls us to take seriously the analysis of church teaching-to discern deeply and thoroughly.This process must be encouraged in our church.
But one other aspect of this discussion makes this question perhaps more complicated. Orsy makes this point: "it cannot be stressed enough that there is a great difference between proclaiming doctrine and promulgating a command. When doctrine is handed over, the intent of the giver is an increase in knowledge; when a command is conveyed, his intent is the performance of an action. It follows, therefore, that there must be a great difference between the reception of doctrine and that of law.In the former case reception consists in assimilating the knowledge in an ever expanding manner; in the latter case reception consists in narrowing the attention to one precise action and performing it."
The faithful need to be engaged also in the process of developing doctrine, as Newman argued for in "On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine".
Finally, Orsy also points out that a community not living up to Christian ideals may not be receptive to good teaching. There is always the need for circumspection in our faith. But Orsy writes, in words from last weeks liturgy:
"These simple rules are really based on an ancient wisdom: those who walk in the light are friends of the light. In other terms, a community that needs peace in order to grow in faith, hope and love is likely to be open to all laws that help it to fulfill their deepest aspirations".

I ever remain so disappointed not to recall, not to read, here anyone call me heretic, not yet . . .

Is it really possible to "command" the heart, mind, and soul of another?
At this time "cafeteria catholicism" is what is keeping the church going!