Dissent III

Dr. William E. May, Michael J. McGivney Professor of Moral Theology at the John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family at The Catholic University in Washington, D.C. writes at ignatiusinsite.com on Authority and Dissent in the Catholic Church. Good background for explaining to those who think that a "ardent" Catholic can dissent from the teachings of the Church on contraception or abortion.

Upon this Rock

On the road to rescuing Princess Fiona, Shrek tries to explain to Donkey the complexities of ogre personality. "Ogres are like onions," he says. "They have layers."
Scripture is like ogres...I mean onions. It has layers. What does this mean? One of the primary characteristics of Scripture, is, being inspired by God, it has meaning when it was revealed, relating to the time and place to which it is tied. Scripture also has meaning throughout time, off times in relationship to salvation history, that is, to the story of our salvation through Christ. It also speaks to us today, in our own lives. One thing this means is that trying to tie a single definitive meaning to a specific scriptural passage is a chancy thing. Almost all passages of scripture have more than one authentic meaning, as well as an almost unlimited number of incorrect interpretations, hence the danger of solo scriptura and the need for the Magisterium of the Church.
One place where scripture is very much part of our daily lives is during the Mass. Scott Hahn does a very good job of explaining how The Book of Revelations is a map to the Mass, as well a probable writing on the first century Roman Empire, as well as a possible hint of the end times. See, like an onion?
One place that scripture is very visibly in the Mass is during the readings. When the Mass was revised after Vatican II the cycle of readings was changed from a single year cycle, which is still used in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite, to a three year cycle. Readings were added and an attempt was made to try together at least two of the readings. This most often results in a common thread running between the first reading, which is most often from the Old Testament and the Gospel.
For the Twenty-first Sunday of Ordinary time, cycle II (or B) we hear from Isaiah 22:19-23. The story concerns Shebna, who was the steward of Hezekiah, King of Judah, that is the Southern Kingdom of Israel. In those days the king's steward was the government comptroller, secretary of the treasury, head butler and chief of staff all rolled into one. The crux of his duties and the source of his power was that he held the keys of the king. When it was time to pay people he had the keys to the treasury. When someone wanted to see the monarch he held to keys to the door they would have to pass through before they could enter the king's presence. The king held the real power, but folks understood that the steward held authority too. That authority came from the king, but like the power of the king that authority ultimately came from God. Shebna was reminded of this fact when God sent Isaiah to toss him out of office and anoint Eliakim to take his place.
Now the Gospel comes from Matthew 16:13-20. This is one of the readings that Protestants dance around and write whole books about how Catholics have got it wrong. This is the place where Christ gives the Keys of Kingdom to Peter. Like Eliakim he will be able to open or close doors and from that will flow his power to bind and loose, a term that in Jewish law was concerned with the ability of rabbis and judges to interpret law and contracts. Like Eliakim his power does not come from his own authority, but from the authority of the King. In Israel the position of steward was hereditary with the power of the keys being passed down to the Eliakim's heirs.
Now it was a sure bet that the Apostles knew the story of Eliakim. They would have recognized the meaning of Christs words, when he used the terms "keys", "binding" and "loosing." Even after Jesus' death, before Pentecost, they, the Apostles, gathered around Peter and recognized his authority. Which is why Mary Magdalene sought him out when told to tell the Apostles about her meeting with the Lord following his resurrection. And why the other Apostle, even though he reached the tomb first on Easter morning, allowed Peter to enter first, out of respect to his position as leader of the Apostles. Even Paul, who was appointed an Apostle by Jesus himself, sought out Peter to bless his ministry.
Often you'll hear a Protestant apologist claim that the early Church fathers don't mention the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. They don't mention the existence of the Emperor either, or the geographic location of Rome or the color of the sky. Why not? Because those were assumptions that they knew were accepted by their readers already. One does not explain or defend that which is already accepted.

Dissent II

Last month I wrote on Dissent, describing the various aspects of the magisterium. That post was the result of a conversation with someone over the right of Catholics to dissent from Church teaching. In that discussion the other person sited support for their position in the writings of several noted (liberal) theologians.
My answer was that I could site numerous theologians who disagreed with that position. Why did I think my theologians were better than her theologians? Because, I stated, in this battle of dueling theologians mine worked for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.
What I was thinking of at the time was DONUM VERITATIS, On The Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian. This CDF document makes it quite clear that a distinction exists between the Magisterium of the Teachers (or, experts) (magisterium cathedrae magisterialis) and the Magisterium of the Pastors (the bishops and the pope.) The theologians get to propose and theorize, but the pastors get to decide. This is not new, but has ever been that way in the Church.
So it does not matter how many theologians might believe that its not heretical to dissent from the teachings of the Church on abortion or contraception, the Magisterium of the Church teaches us that it is.

The Vindication of Humanae Vitae

Mary Eberstadt writes in First Things on the vindication of Paul VI's reaffirmation of traditional Christian doctrine in light of modern social science. A thought provoking read.

ΙΧΘΥΣ

Over the millenia Christians have used many symbols, the Cross being perhaps the most well known. Protestants commonly use a plain cross, while a Crucifix is more common among Catholics. A symbol very common among modern day Christians, is the fish.
How did the fish, which is never mentioned in scripture as a symbol related to Christ come to be a Christian symbol?
In Greek, the language of the early Church, ichthus is the word for fish. In Greek ichthus is spelled ΙΧΘΥΣ. That is Iota(Ι), Chi(Χ), Theta(Θ), Upsilon(Υ), Sigma(Σ). Each of these letters can be made to stand for a word, a kind of code for those who know.
Iota(Ι) is the first letter of Iesous, Jesus in Greek. Chi(Χ) is the first letter of Christos, Christ, which means "anointed One" in Greek and can be translated more correctly into English as Messiah. Theta(Θ) is the first letter of the Greek word Theos. While god is most commonly described using the word Dios, this word is typically applied to the pagan Greek gods. The translators of the Septuagint used the word Theos to refer to the God of Jacob. Upsilon(Υ) is the first letter of the Greek word uios, meaning son. Sigma(Σ) is the first letter of the Greek word for Soter, which means savior.
So Ichthus (ΙΧΘΥΣ) can stand for Jesus Christ, Son of God and Savior.
The symbol of the fish was use by followers of the Way to mark places where they met and is also believed to have been used as a sign between Christians who did not know one another.
Today many Christians display the ichthus proudly to proclaim they are followers of the Son of God.

Breathing with two lungs

John Paul II once described the Church as breathing with two lungs, through the Eastern Rite and Western Churches. For too long have East and West lungs not breathed together. Certainly the Eastern Rite Churches contribute greatly to the function of the body of the Church, but still a great number of our Orthodox breatheren are separated from us, by ancient divisions in theological points.
Today two hopeful occurrences have happened to make it more hopeful that in the future East and West may breath together more powerfully, something which, considering the state of the world, can only be for the good.
The first is discussion by the Ukrainian Catholic Church with the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople for a system of "dual-unity" by which they would be both in union with Rome and with the Orthodox Churches. This would be a big deal, effectively turning back the clock one thousand years. This is a good thing.
The next is the Mass for the Solemnity of Sts. Peter and Paul at which Bartholomew I, Ecumenical Patriarch of the Orthodox Churches joined the Holy Father. The Holy Father and the Patriarch together recited the creed, in Greek (without the troublesome Filioque clause), Bartholomew and Benedict gave the blessing with the Book of the Gospel, after which the Gospel was sang by an Orthodox deacon. Both the Holy Father and the Patriarch gave addresses at the homily.
This is too a big thing.
The Orthodox bishops are real bishops, with apostalic succession going back the the apostles. As is says in the Guidelines for the reception of Communion:

"Members of the Orthodox Churches...are urged to respect the discipile of their own Churches. According to Roman Catholic Discipline, the Code of Canon Law does not object the the reception of Communion by Chrisitians of these Churches."

It is also permissible for a Roman Catholic to receive Communion in an Orthodox Church, at least according to the Code of Canon Law, provided a valid Catholic (Roman or Eastern Rite) Mass is not available. In both case the disciplines of the Orthodox Church may not permit this.
There have certainly been cases of even Orthodox bishops recieving Communion in a Roman Catholic Mass, though it is hardly routine. Perhaps someday it will become so. Considering the very close theological beliefs of East and West it can only be for the good.

Dissent

The teaching authority of the Church, its magisterium, is exercised through her bishops in union with the supreme bishop, the Roman Pontiff. All Church teachings held through the magisterium are true, but not all teachings are held to be infallibly true. Those teachings which are not held to be infallibly true are said to authoritatively true.
Church teachings whether infallibly true or authoritatively true are proposed to be held as true by the faithful.
So what does this mean?
Some Catholic teachings are dogma. That means they are held to be irreformally true, that is infallibly true. They are divinely revealed and are defined by an ecumenical council or the Pope speaking ex cathedra. This the Extraordinary and Solemn path of magisterial action. Dogma can also be revealed in the ordinary and non-solemn action of the bishops in union with the Pope. As Lumen Gentium says:

Although the bishops individually do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim the teaching of Christ infallibly, even when they are dispersed throughout the world, provided that they remain in communion with each other and with the successor of Peter and that in authoritatively teaching on a matter of faith and morals they agree in one judgment as that to be held definitively.Doctrine which is not divinely reveal may also be Extraordinary and Solemn. Such truths are revealed by the Holy Spirit and are typically inimately linked with revealed truths. Such truths make up Definitive Doctrine.

The rest may be said to reside under the heading of Authentic Doctrine. These truths are reformable in the light of the formation of faith, but are still authoritative, that is they must be adhered to by the faithful.

None of this was controversial at all until the post Vatican II period, specifically after July 25, 1986. What happen then? Pope Paul VI promalgated Humanae Vitae which did nothing but confirm traditional Catholic teaching on abortion and contraception.
100 theologians, among them Fr. Charles E. Curran, who was then a professor at Catholic University of America, issued a statement claiming that Catholic's individual consciences can prevail over non-dogmatic teaching, effectively rendering Authentic Doctrine meaningless. At the same time the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops issued the infamous Winnipeg Statement, which effectively said that Catholics were free to dissent from the teachings of the Church based on their own consciences.
This is not the teaching of the Catholic Church, though some theologians continue to support it. This has been addressed by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. The CDF holds that while theologians may question the content of proposed authoritative teachings in the pursuit of their vocation, such views are publish only so that they may be may be reviewed by their peers for submission to those within the Church who have the authority and responsibility under the magisterium to discern such doctrine. At no time are the faithful free to accept such proposed positions if they conflict with the present Authentic Doctrine as taught by the Church. Holding any other position is contrary to the Obsequium, that is the submission of will and intellect required for Authentic Doctrine.