Catholic Church and Dissent

Bishop William Levada’s recent essay (Editorial Pages, Jan. 24) on the non-selectivity of the Catholic faith is an insightful statement of the logic governing the U.S. hierarchy’s response to the October statement of the Catholic Committee on Pluralism and Abortion.

1--The understanding of “church” is exclusive and clerical. It is no more and no less than the power and jurisdiction of the magisterium. Thus, to disagree with the “church’s” teaching is really to disagree with the authority of the bishops.

2--Once the label of “doctrine” is applied to a moral issue that issue is removed from the realm of propositional discourse. “Dialogue” on that issue only exists in the form of a “more persuasive presentation and thorough understanding of church teaching,” according to Levada.

3--Dissent from the church is the ultimate error because dissent is a challenge to an authority passed from God to the hierarchy.

Levada’s logic is consistent. The difficulty is that it is based upon questionable assumptions. A monolithic deposit of faith professed by all Catholics is a theological fiction that only exists in the minds of bishops. There may be one creed, but, like it or not, there are numerous interpretations of it. A review of church history, a survey of contemporary theology, a conversation with a local parishioner reveals as many christologies, soteriologies, eschatologies and moral theologies as there are believers.

It is not clear that those who disagree with the position of the bishops have been more influenced by the norms and mores of “secular” society than by the church. One suspects that the 96 women and men who signed the statement in question were most influenced by responsible theological deliberation. Even more fundamentally, good theology has always grown out of the reflective effort of quite worldly people who believe that something of decisive importance for their lives and their world took place in Jesus of Nazareth. The world’s sin and grace should have a significant influence in the formation of Christian theology. One should expect nothing less from a religion that believes in the incarnation of its God in a very secular world.

Bishop Levada’s position is unsatisfactory because it silences those who are most qualified to speak. He is correct in stating that “such public dissent is in fact the end of any dialogue that respects the intrinsic principles of Catholic faith and theology.” He fails to realize that he and his colleagues are the ones who bring that dialogue to termination and closure.

LEE E. KLOSINSKI CSC

Our Lady of

the Assumption Church

Claremont