Can We Dissent From The Magisterium?

[mortify]

Vote!


Personally I believe it is *never* OK to dissent from the Magisterium, [i]even[/i] in [b]fallible[/b] rulings.

[CatherineM]

It is possible for a good Catholic to disagree with the fourth level of church teachings which include provisional applications of church doctrine, church discipline, and prudential admonitions. We should still obey these provisions even if we question them, unless following it might lead us to sin (although I can't personally think of how that would happen).

As an example, I can personally disagree with the idea of priestly celibacy, which is a church discipline, as a good Catholic. However, as a catechist, I can not teach against this discipline publicly.

[frenchfry]

I guess that there are times when it is technically "ok," as in not a sin or anything, but I think that it is good to agree on everything. For one, those people are a whole lot smarter than I am. For another, it's a good practice in obedience. Maybe if you are a fantastic saint and God personally reveals the error of the Magisterium so that you can correct it...lol other than that, I'm agreeing with everything.

[mortify]

How would you guys understand this:

[b][color="#0000FF"]"It is sometimes reported that a large number of Catholics today, do not adhere to the teaching of the Church on a number of questions; notably, sexual and conjugal morality, divorce and remarriage, some are reported as not accepting the Church’s clear position on abortion. It has also been noted that there is a tendency on the part of some Catholics to be selective to their adherence to the Church’s moral teaching. It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the Magisterium is totally compatible with being a "good Catholic" and poses no obstacle to the reception of the sacraments. This is a [u]grave error[/u] that challenges the teaching office of the Bishops of the United States and elsewhere." [/color][/b]
Pope John Paul II 16 September 1987 Reference Vatican II Lumen Gentium 25

[CatherineM]

[quote name='mortify' post='1726275' date='Dec 11 2008, 10:06 PM']How would you guys understand this:

[b][color="#0000FF"]"It is sometimes reported that a large number of Catholics today, do not adhere to the teaching of the Church on a number of questions; notably, sexual and conjugal morality, divorce and remarriage, some are reported as not accepting the Church’s clear position on abortion. It has also been noted that there is a tendency on the part of some Catholics to be selective to their adherence to the Church’s moral teaching. It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the Magisterium is totally compatible with being a "good Catholic" and poses no obstacle to the reception of the sacraments. This is a [u]grave error[/u] that challenges the teaching office of the Bishops of the United States and elsewhere." [/color][/b]
Pope John Paul II 16 September 1987 Reference Vatican II Lumen Gentium 25[/quote]

I obviously agree with the Pope that well meaning (in my opinion ignorant) Catholics believe they can dissent from the Magisterium [b]about anything they want to.[/b] That is not what I said however. You can not dissent from Dogma, Definitive Doctrine, and/or Authoritative Doctrine (where a lot of the moral stuff falls). Even in the areas where we are allowed to question the church's teachings, we are called to follow the teachings in good faith even if we don't know for sure if we agree with it.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='frenchfry' post='1724899' date='Dec 10 2008, 09:29 PM']I guess that there are times when it is technically "ok," as in not a sin or anything, but I think that it is good to agree on everything. For one, those people are a whole lot smarter than I am. For another, it's a good practice in obedience. Maybe if you are a fantastic saint and God personally reveals the error of the Magisterium so that you can correct it...lol other than that, I'm agreeing with everything.[/quote]
Nope, it is not technically ok to disagree with the Magisterium and call yourself "Catholic".

[dairygirl4u2c]

some people use 'ordinary magisterium' informally to mean things that are not infallible and can be dissented from.

others use it as required all the time, cause they say it's all infallible.
others use it as it's required all the time, but not cause it's infallible but because it should be followed.

if you do a search on magisterium in the archives of my profile, you'll find some interesting conversations onthe use of the world, and how popes have used it in that first informal sense i mentioned.

after the semantics, i don't think most people disagree on a whole lot, the good catholics anyway, as per this issue. if they do, it's the second and third type of situation i described about "others use it as" scenarios.

[track2004]

I typo-ed in this one, then I double posted, so ignore this. Sry.

Edited December 14, 2008 by track2004

[track2004]

I struggle with this question a lot. I don't agree with the church's teaching on sexuality (obviously), but I still think of myself as Catholic.

The major problem I have with it is that I still believe all the really important things that I couldn't find in any other Christian religion, and seeing as I believe in Christ, no other religion either.

So I believe that the Eucharist is Christ's body and blood, but I disagree about 2 guys or 2 girls getting married. The second feels like small apples in comparison with the first, so I think of myself as Catholic. I'm admittedly not a very good Catholic for other reasons, but I can't be anything else and I don't want to make up some protestant denomination that believes in the major tenants of The Church but not the sexuality, abortion, priestly celibacy, etcetc. It seems like a lot of work.

[mortify]

[quote name='track2004' post='1727887' date='Dec 14 2008, 07:32 PM']I struggle with this question a lot. I don't agree with the church's teaching on sexuality (obviously), but I still think of myself as Catholic.

The major problem I have with it is that I still believe all the really important things that I couldn't find in any other Christian religion, and seeing as I believe in Christ, no other religion either.

So I believe that the Eucharist is Christ's body and blood, but I disagree about 2 guys or 2 girls getting married. The second feels like small apples in comparison with the first, so I think of myself as Catholic. I'm admittedly not a very good Catholic for other reasons, but I can't be anything else and I don't want to make up some protestant denomination that believes in the major tenants of The Church but not the sexuality, abortion, priestly celibacy, etcetc. It seems like a lot of work.[/quote]

Well track, you seem like a very sincere person struggling with certain teachings. I guess what I don't understand is that if you believe the Church's teaching on bread becoming Jesus, why can't you accept the teaching concerning marriage? Sometimes we don't understand certain teachings, perhaps everything appears to deny what the Church teaches, but we still believe what the Church teaches because we know the Church can't be in error. So you can struggle with teachings and still humbly accept them, I think it only becomes a problem when you reject them.

[Formosus]

In the case of the ordinary magisterium, if it is incorrect (such as the approval of slavery in the past) and constitutes a grave evil to obey, then yes sometimes disobediance to the ordinary magisterium is necessary. The Extraordinary magisterium can not be willfully disobeyed ever.

[Barbarus]

[url="http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/68-11-15humanlifeinourdaynccb.htm"]From the USCCB, in 1968 in response to, among other things, "Humanae Vitae":[/url]
Norms of Licit Theological Dissent

49. There exist in the Church a lawful freedom of inquiry and of thought and also general norms of licit dissent. This is particularly true in the area of legitimate theological speculation and research. When conclusions reached by such professional theological work prompt a scholar to dissent from noninfallible received teaching, the norms of licit dissent come into play. They require of him careful respect for the consciences of those who lack his special competence or opportunity for judicious investigation. These norms also require setting forth his dissent with propriety and with regard for the gravity of the matter and the deference due the authority which has pronounced on it.

50. The reverence due all sacred matters, particularly questions which touch on salvation, will not necessarily require the responsible scholar to relinquish his opinion but certainly to propose it with prudence born of intellectual grace and a Christian confidence that the truth is great and will prevail.

51. When there is question of theological dissent from noninfallible doctrine, we must recall that there is always a presumption in favor of the magisterium. Even noninfallible authentic doctrine, though it may admit of development or call for clarification or revision, remains binding and carries with it a moral certitude, especially when it is addressed to the Universal Church, without ambiguity, in response to urgent questions bound up with faith and crucial to morals. The expression of theological dissent from the magisterium is in order only if the reasons are serious and well-founded, if the manner of the dissent does not question or impugn the teaching authority of the Church and is such as not to give scandal.

52. Since our age is characterized by popular interest in theological debate, and given the realities of modern mass media, the ways in which theological dissent may be effectively expressed, in a manner consistent with pastoral solicitude, should become the object of fruitful dialogue between bishops and theologians. These have their diverse ministries in the Church, their distinct responsibilities to the faith, and their respective charisma.

53. Even responsible dissent does not excuse one from faithful presentation of the authentic doctrine of the Church when one is performing a pastoral ministry in her name.

54. We count on priests, the counselors of persons and families, to heed the appeal of Pope Paul that they "expound the Church's teaching on marriage without ambiguity"; that they "diminish in no way the saving teaching of Christ," but "teach married couples the indispensable way of prayer . . . without ever allowing them to be discouraged by their weakness" (Humanae Vitae, 29). We commend to confessors, as does Pope Paul, the example of the Lord Himself, Who was indeed intransigent with evil, but merciful towards individuals.

[Giolla]

There is one thing I have ever disagreed with the church about and that is the Swiss Guards. I think everyone should be able to be in the Popes Army. I don't want to get my Swiss citizenship first.

[track2004]

[quote name='mortify' post='1727909' date='Dec 14 2008, 09:59 PM']Well track, you seem like a very sincere person struggling with certain teachings. I guess what I don't understand is that if you believe the Church's teaching on bread becoming Jesus, why can't you accept the teaching concerning marriage? Sometimes we don't understand certain teachings, perhaps everything appears to deny what the Church teaches, but we still believe what the Church teaches because we know the Church can't be in error. So you can struggle with teachings and still humbly accept them, I think it only becomes a problem when you reject them.[/quote]

The teachings on sexuality seem very tertiary to being Catholic. I can't assume that the Church teaching is perfect like you can, it's just not something I can comprehend. Also I get why the transubstantiation is vital to the teaching and theology, but I don't get why God cares who I'm sleeping with (in a long term committed relationship, etc, etc).

It also feels wrong that I can be excommunicated for disagreeing with the Church about the legality of abortion, gay marriage, or dating (and hopefully marrying) a girl. I understand the Church won't settle and that this isn't a democracy, but kicking people out seems so harsh. A lot of people like me believe in the major doctrines and that makes us Catholic, probably bad Catholics, but I cannot be anything else.

I understand that my position is all based on feelings and personal thoughts, which isn't what the theology is based on, so forgive me for that.

[Madame Vengier]

The way I see it, if the Church is right about Transubstantiation, she must be right about a whole lot of other things.

I have encountered many liberal Catholics--in full dissent--in my time, and the greater majority of them profess to be wholly devoted to the Eucharist. What I never understand is how they can trust the Church on a miracle that is so incredible and profound and which defies all human logic, but they question this SAME Church on vastly more simple and more easily explained things like abortion, male priesthood, homosexuality and contraception.