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.