Under Pope Francis, has the ‘theology of dissent’ triumphed?

Under Pope Francis, has the ‘theology of dissent’ triumphed?

Father Peter Mitchell

December 1, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) — I am a parish priest, a pastor of a typical suburban American parish who tries, as kindly and patiently as I can, to help people who often have not been well-formed in their Catholic faith to understand what the Church teaches and why. My repeated experience is that people are grateful when a priest explains to them the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, as most adult Catholics today readily admit that they generally have not been well catechized.

Like many of my brother priests, I have been concerned by the two Synods on the Family (2014 and 2015) and the Post-Synodal Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (April 2016), because the teaching coming from the synods sometimes seems to confuse the clear teaching of the Catechism and even undermine a pastor’s work catechizing a parish. According to the more ambivalent language of Amoris, a pastor is no longer able to explain to people simply that certain actions are mortal sins – as the Church has always taught – and that those who commit them need to repent and receive the Sacrament of Penance prior to receiving Holy Communion (AL 301). Instead, I am now advised to exercise “pastoral discernment” and recognize that “the consequences or effect of a rule need not necessarily always be the same” (AL 300). The challenging but rewarding work that I have spent my priesthood doing – patiently teaching the clear moral laws of the Church to people and finding that when I have done so they have been profoundly grateful – has now, it appears, been described as “throwing stones at people’s lives” and “hiding behind the Church’s teachings” with a closed heart (AL 305).

At the same time, official Church communications and the Catholic media are consistently eager to extol Francis as the “Pope of Mercy,” a visionary who has revolutionized the Catholic Church with his new approach embodied early in his pontificate by his defining statement: “Who am I to judge?” Francis proposes a supposedly new and merciful approach of “discernment” and “accompaniment” of those whose lives do not conform to the moral teachings of the Church, criticizing those who would see moral issues as “black and white.” Since 2013 I have listened carefully to Francis’ words to priests and tried to discern what my role now is as I try to follow his guidance as teacher of morality to the faithful. I have also tried to understand the many informed and devout lay people, my spiritual children, who frequently share with me that they also have been confused by the words and tone of the Holy Father.

My confusion only increased when Pope Francis recently advised the General Congregation of the Jesuits to praise Bernard Häring as a true mentor, even “the first to start looking for a new way to help moral theology to flourish again” (La Civilta Cattolica, Oct 24, 2016). In this commendation the Holy Father affirms a theologian who spent decades proposing and promoting what used to be called “dissenting theology.” Häring, German professor of moral theology at the Alfonsianum in Rome from 1950 to 1986, was the key influence on Charles Curran and an entire generation of theologians who defined themselves in 1968 with their “Statement of Dissent” against Pope Paul VI’s encyclical letter Humanae Vitae. Indeed, it was Häring’s support for the Statement of Dissent that was a crucial factor in Curran’s dissent gaining theological legitimacy and forming a generation of other theologians to the same dissenting point of view. In the years following 1968, this theology of dissent spread and became characteristic of much of the Catholic Church in the United States and especially the halls of Catholic higher education. Häring, Curran, and other theologians encouraged Catholics to think for themselves and to resist the teaching of Pope John Paul II as being rigid and anti-personal. By praising Häring as a pioneer, Pope Francis seems to be praising those who do not affirm the definitive moral teaching of the Catechism. It’s difficult to reach any other conclusion.

All of this is deeply confusing for Catholics like myself of the “JP2 Generation” who were drawn to the Catholic Church precisely because of the courageous witness and clear moral teaching given to us by Saint John Paul II. I went through seminary and was ordained in the 1990s; John Paul II inspired my vocation. He made it clear that he was the “Pope of Mercy,” canonizing Saint Faustina Kowalska and promoting the message of Divine Mercy throughout the world. Throughout my seminary years I read his encyclicals and was formed to teach others how to embrace the beautiful challenge of our Catholic faith in a world that was often confused about the meaning of truth and love. The publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the encyclical letters Veritatis Splendor and Evangelium Vitae, among others, were defining moments in my formation. These beautiful documents clearly teach that actions which violate the Ten Commandments are intrinsically evil; that is, they may never be morally justified under any circumstances. As John Paul II explained, in the Gospel Jesus tells the rich young man, “If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments” (Mt 19:17), and so “a close connection is made between eternal life and obedience to God’s commandments: God’s commandments show man the path of life and they lead to it” (VS, 12). His words were challenging, they made sense, and they inspired us. Although it was certainly difficult to be Catholic in a culture that promoted materialism, unbridled pleasure, and “doing whatever I want” as the ultimate expression of freedom, thankfully we had a chief pastor who supported us in our mission and invited us to show God’s mercy to others by speaking the truth to them with clarity and love. John Paul II inspired us to live and share with others the gift of Jesus’ Merciful Love by presenting to the People of God the gift of the Church’s moral teaching at a moment in history when “we are facing an enormous and dramatic clash between good and evil” (EV, 28).

Throughout those same years, I and many of my seminary confreres were aware that there was an element within the Church that rejected the teaching of John Paul II as unsophisticated. Theologians who dissented were allowed to exist side by side at Catholic institutions with theologians who taught in union with the Catechism and the Magisterium. The reasons for this were never clear to me and still are not. Encouraged directly by Pope John Paul II at World Youth Days to be “unconditionally pro-life” (EV 28), we persevered in praying the Rosary outside abortion clinics, often as we were subtly ridiculed as being “divisive” by some of the theologians who taught us. Despite this internal persecution, we always were encouraged by the knowledge that the Holy Father supported us, and eventually we were ordained and began the work of teaching and preaching to two generations of Catholics who had been taught very little of the content of the faith. We often found ourselves in the situation of being tolerated at best by those within the Church who took a dim view of John Paul II and were far more sympathetic to the teaching of Häring, Curran, and like-minded dissenting theologians.

Now it appears that what used to be called the theology of dissent has emerged triumphant within the Church – and clergy who are sympathetic to it have found themselves favored and promoted by the Holy Father. We have seen bishops ambivalent towards pro-life witness elevated to the rank of cardinal while cardinals who have questioned the confusion caused by the Synod on the Family have been sidelined. The dubia respectfully submitted by four cardinals to the Holy Father have summarized the real confusion that exists for those to whom it appears that the teaching of Amoris Laetitia has effectively overturned the teaching of the Catechism and Veritatis Splendor. It seems that those who wish to teach what is taught by the Catechism are now being condemned as divisive and lacking obedience to the Magisterium. Those who would dissent from the Catechism are now praised as being in union with the Magisterium and promoters of unity. Everything seems to have been turned upside down. The Church requires every parish priest to take an “Oath of Fidelity” to the Magisterium at the time of his installation as pastor, but it is now extremely difficult as a priest to know what exactly such fidelity means. I took the oath earlier this year and truly felt confused as to which authority I was promising to adhere to when I pledged my “religious submission of will and intellect” to the teaching of the Pope and bishops, because it seems that the teaching of a 2016 Apostolic Exhortation has apparently invalidated the teaching of a 1993 Encyclical as well as the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

At another confusing moment in Church history, at his trial before his execution in 1581, St. Edmund Campion declared to those of the “Church of England” who had condemned him for treason on account of his Catholic faith, “In condemning us, you condemn all your own ancestors…For what have we taught, however you may qualify it with the odious name of treason, that they did not uniformly teach? To be condemned with these old lights – not of England only, but of the world – by their degenerate descendants is both gladness and joy to us.” It would seem that another such moment of “political correctness” is upon us. The two Synods on the Family appeared to be stacked with bishops desiring to ignore or dismiss the magisterial teaching of John Paul II, thereby giving the appearance of ecclesial legitimacy to the theology of dissent. Those ascendant bishops and cardinals who now vehemently affirm the Francis-endorsed interpretation of Amoris Laetitia are indicating that the teaching of John Paul II is no longer applicable in the “Church of Francis.” In sidelining John Paul II’s teaching on marriage they condemn many other great lights of the Tradition. The revision has been couched in terms including “discernment,” “accompaniment,” and most of all “mercy,” but the truth contained in the perennial teaching of the Church cannot be changed by majority vote of a synod or anyone else. Let’s pray fervently that some of our bishops may have the child-like simplicity and humility that is needed in this moment of crisis to defend the timeless infallible moral teachings of our Church and protect the People of God from ongoing confusion.

Father Peter Mitchell, H.E.D., is a priest of the Diocese of Green Bay. He received his doctorate in Church history from the Pontifical Gregorian University in 2009. He is the author of The Coup at Catholic University: The 1968 Revolution in American Catholic Education (Ignatius Press, 2015).

Get AQ Email Updates

4 comments on “Under Pope Francis, has the ‘theology of dissent’ triumphed?

  1. Several decent points Fr Mitchell raises, of course. Yet, what was not said was that there was no concerted, consistent effort by JPII’s Vatican to destroy the evil rampant among some of the clergy and hierarchy, especially concerning sex ed being universally imposed upon diocesan schools and clerical pederasty. Both items are straight from hell. And nothing was done to stop it. Nothing.

    Executing papal authority involves much more than jet-setting, hosting immoral youth “days,” giving Communion to the topless, having diabolical women paint pagan dots on the papal forehead and trying on sunglasses with rock stars.

    Some times (in JPII’s case, a whole lotta times) popes are obligated to chop off heads, kick ass and take names. I repeat – obligated.

    That the Church slid ever more precipitously into an abyss of anarchy as the 26+ years of JPII’s tenure rolled on is precisely why at least half the problems poor Fr Mitchell correctly laments were allowed to incubate, springing full blown into an epidemic throughout the Church in 2013.

    As our friend, quomodo, wrote yesterday, you can’t cure modernism by treating it with even more modernism.

    Pray for the repose of Karol Wojtya. Pray for the conversion of Bergoglio. It would be nice if the latter were to actually BE a Catholic when he meets his Maker.

  2. The awakening has begun. Or as Hilary White put it, the fungus is consuming the rot. Father grew up seeing only the good side of Wojtyla (yes, pray for KW) — and KW taught many good things. But it was all Wojtyla’s synthesis of the new and the old, a chimera, that would inevitably teeter to the dark side when KW was no longer around to keep propping it up.

    My eldest is now discovering KW and gently lets us have it for keeping all the new Church teachings hidden. It’s fun to watch, and like with all the wild and crazy stuff young adults must come up to speed on, Catholics have to come face to face with the V-II revolution. Being well grounded in St. Thomas and the Fathers, she’ll eventually see KW in proper historical perspective as the equivalent of an EF5 tornado that blew up the V-II bubble bigger than life just in time for Francis to pop it.

    I hope Fr. Mitchell’s faith is strong enough to survive the eventual crumbling of the house of cards, as all the points of novelty give way and expose the Satanic scam foisted on the faithful. That’s right–KW and now Bergoglio could never have survived a 19th-Century Inquisition by the Holy Office, but eventually this must occur. And maybe Fr. Mitchell has the honesty and humility to become one of the Inquisitors.

  3. gpm, cyprian,
    Couldn’t have said it better myself, but if I may add another impression:
    There is no surer sign that the excrement has really struck the ventilating device than when priests of such obviously good will are seen to be so woefully behind the curve, simply because they were trained in the New Church.
    Keep digging, Fr. Mitchell, you are doing well, but you have a LONG way to go. The Church didn’t begin with “Saint” JPII. Those who taught you are NOT to be trusted. Only three things can be trusted:
    1) Facts that are certainly known as such. (Contra factum non est argumentum).
    2) A valid argument from reason; a deduction from data that are known with certainty, and which flows from correct application of the rules of logic.
    3) The argument from authority, based on Tradition. (Assuming one knows what Tradition, with a capital T, is).
    The four cardinals are using the argument from authority, and they know what they’re doing. They are clearly distinguishing the different levels of authority (the “theological notes”) in the statements of Scripture, popes and councils.
    Ah yes, it’s all wonderfully black and white. Like when Christ said “I would thou wert cold or hot. But because thou art lukewarm and neither cold nor hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth.” (Apoc. 3:16)

  4. It seems very likely that Bergoglio’s praise for Bernard Häring was a “nudge, nudge, wink, wink” that Humanae Vitae is next for his dissembling modernist Situation Ethics. The progressive dissenting position on Humanae Vitae has been the semi-official position on birth control within progressive modernist circles in the Society of Jesus since the 1970s. Brace yourselves.

    Just do the math. Bergoglio is an enthusiastic cheerleader for climate change hysteria, to the point of absurdity. He’s worried about air conditioning. He has invited UN population control freaks to the Vatican. He made a comment about Catholics “breeding like rabbits.” He thinks Communion for the divorced and remarried is fine. He’s a very vulgar, emotional, passive-aggressive peasant from South America who, quite rudely and pompously, refuses to answer questions from his Cardinals about doctrine. What could go wrong?

Leave a Reply