Who is a dissident?

by Editor · Published November 19, 2003 · Updated March 6, 2012

Shortly before Cardinal Keith O�Brien, archbishop of Edinburgh, was elevated to the College of Cardinals in October, he made a public profession of faith (as is required of all cardinals-designate), adding a pledge of fidelity to Church teaching to the standard Nicene Creed.

Ostensibly, he did so following publicity over his disposition towards entering into discussion on issues such as clerical celibacy, homosexuality and birth control. Rightly, Cardinal O�Brien pointed out that Pope John Paul knew his philosophy on these issues before he was appointed cardinal. It follows that the Holy Father did not regard the archbishop of Edinburgh as lacking in orthodoxy.

However, there are some Catholics who beg to differ with the pope�s judgment. One Catholic news agency scoffed that the Vatican had called Cardinal O�Brien to order�a suggestion rejected by both the cardinal and the Vatican�going as far as calling him a “dissident”.

Such emotive labelling has no place in the Church. Cardinal O�Brien is no “dissident” for tolerating or even engaging in discussions on moral principles or discipline. To tag him thus is calumny.

The dichotomy of “dissident” and “orthodox” Catholics is polemical. Those prone to use such terms tend to describe themselves as “orthodox”, and those they regard as “progressive” as “dissidents”. Such Catholics tend to define orthodoxy by their own narrow interpretation of the Church, often placing an inordinate value on the Church�s law above the definitive Christian virtues of love and compassion. Their uncharitable use of the word “dissident” testifies to that.

Of course, it must be noted that not all conservatively-minded Catholics engage in such trenchant name calling. Indeed, the lines between conservative and progressive Catholic thought often overlap to such a point that these labels are all but meaningless.

Ironically, most of those marked as “dissidents” are perfectly “orthodox” by virtue of their acceptance of the immutable deposits of the faith which define Catholicism. An authentic dissident would dispute solemnly defined dogma, such as the resurrection or the divinity of our Lord.

Questions such as those raised by Cardinal O�Brien are not solemnly defined dogma, and may therefore be scrutinised. Future popes may adapt or even undo them.

The act of examining whether contemporary Church teachings and practices hold up to the will of our Lord is neither disloyal nor unorthodox.

The magisterium is a living, constantly evolving entity. There were times when the Church taught definitively that the sun rotates around the earth, outlawed usury, imposed extensive days of fast, and sold indulgences to finance building operations.

Today, the Church affirms scientific inquiry, embraces the world of banking, allows the consumption of meat on most days of the year, and has mostly disowned the distribution of indulgences.

The teachings of the Church require perpetual reflection and contemplation, in charity and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. There is no disloyalty, never mind dissidence, in reviewing the teachings of the Church, provided one persists in submitting to these teachings to the best of one�s capacity and conscience.

There is no disobedience when Catholics make a faithful appeal to the teaching authority of the Church. On the contrary, such appeals are an expression of love for the Church, and should be seen as such even by those who disagree.

In debate, we should be guided by words often (though inaccurately) attributed to St Augustine: “In essentials, unity; in doubtful matters, liberty; in all things, charity.”