|
LETTERS
to the editor
Letters responding to Vineyard Nov.
30 commentary
on Dissent:
“Just an historical note on Gaile Pohlhaus’ comment
on Bp. Bruskewicz’s excommunication venture:
the original Code of Canon Law was promulgated in 1917,
not 1910.
All of us on the liberal side of the aisle remember
(at least if we are over 50) our pleased reaction when
Abp. Rummel excommunicated New Orleans politician Leander
Perez and some of his associates over their resistance
to the racial integration of parochial schools and
Cardinal Cushing’s excommunication of Leonard
Feeney over his extremist interpretation of extra
ecclesia nulla salus. I think in both of those circumstances
excommunication made sense where there was a danger
that people both inside and outside the Church would
misunderstand positions taken by prominent Catholics
as being within acceptable parameters of orthodoxy.
Because of the variety of positions taken by the various
groups whose members were excommunicated by Bishop
Bruskewicz, I am uncertain whether the message is as
clear. If not, did it need to be sent?” Michael
R. Merz
“I’m wondering whether VOTF has issued
any response to the new USCCB document on receiving
Communion.
The document seems to bar anyone with a disagreement
with magisterial teaching from receiving Communion.
The new document reads: ‘If a Catholic in his
or her personal or professional life were knowingly
and obstinately to reject the defined doctrines of
the Church, or knowingly and obstinately to repudiate
her definitive teaching on moral issues, however, he
or she would seriously diminish his or her communion
with the Church. Reception of Holy Communion in such
a situation would not accord with the nature of the
Eucharistic celebration, so that he or she should refrain.’
How sad to see this rigid stance from the same body
that, in 1968, published norms for licit theological
dissent!
Here’s a selection from the 1968 text. After
making clear that the ordinary response to clear and
authoritative magisterial teaching is assent, they
state: ‘The expression of theological dissent
from the magisterium is in order only if the reasons
are serious and well-founded, if the manner of dissent
does not question or impugn the teaching authority
of the Church and is such as not to give scandal.’ In
sum: In 1968 the bishops recognized the liceity of
dissent, though requiring that it be careful and respectful,
while today’s leadership expects those who dissent
to refrain from communion. In sum, the cost of dissent
on non-infallible teachings is to be cut off from the
grace of Eucharistic communion. Thomas Aquinas, who
recognized that true teaching need not fear intelligent
discussion, even disagreement, must be weeping.
It is clearly the case that much contemporary dissent
on non-infallible teachings, including the question
of the ordination of women, priestly celibacy, contraception,
homosexual relationships, et al. do meet the norms
for licit dissent according to the 1968 document. And
I would note that the present document is itself a
revision—a dissent!—from the earlier authoritative
bishops’ document.
Since VOTF has been vocal in raising questions concerning
Church practices, and calling for change, it might
be worth keeping an eye on how this document is used.
My sense is that it provides further documentary justification
for actions like Bruskewitz’s, though of course
this document only urges those in disagreement to ‘refrain’ from
Eucharist.
Thank you for your work!” Lisa
Fullam, Ass’t
Prof. of Moral Theology, Jesuit School of Theology
at Berkeley
|
