John Allen’s strategy for legitimizing Catholic dissent

It’s about time this man got his comeuppance.

The gloves are coming off.  Thanks be to God for that.  I’ve hated this clammy hand-holding with these people for years.

Let’s face it:  we’re not in Communion with them.  So why should we pretend?

It’s time to breathe Catholic once more.  Happy days are here again.

4 thoughts on “John Allen’s strategy for legitimizing Catholic dissent

  1. Just a thought on the “us vs. them” or “tribalism” issue, as its called in that article.

    I think we absolutely have to say that dissent from church teachings is not a legitimate catholic position. We can’t give any ground on that.

    But there are other times when I try to be charitable to the other “tribes”. For example, while I think the bottled water issue is unimportant and a distraction, it’s not opposed to Catholic doctrine, so I won’t criticize a catholic brother or sister for thinking that issue is important. Debate, maybe, but not exclude them or criticize them for it. I think you could be a solid catholic *and* opposed to bottled water.

    That’s just one example. There are a whole bunch of others.

    So, if someone is pro-abortion in some way, I really don’t think they’re good catholics and I don’t want to find a middle ground with them. But I’m glad to share a church with someone who is opposed to bottled water, if they are good catholics.

    I wonder if that kind of limitation of criticism of the other “tribes” could go a ways towards what John Allen is describing as respect for other viewpoints? As long as the ‘common catholic identity’ always include complete respect for official catholic teachings, IMO.

  2. Neil, my friend, I wish it could be as you say, but sadly, we are not talking about legitimate differences of opinion, because the issue here is one of emphasis. If one keeps emphasizing water bottles and other eco issues above and beyond core Catholic works of mercy, you will have “pastorlized” your way out of the Faith.

    D&P is a perfect example. They don’t participate in anything which directly contradicts the Faith. They just emphasize non-essential things to an extreme and demote traditional Catholic activities.

    You can die by heresy or by neglect. Which do you suppose is worse?

  3. Hi John,

    I would say that D&P *does* participate in things directly contrary to the faith, when they fund those pro-abortion groups. So I don’t think what they do is acceptable at all. I didn’t mean to imply that D&P is okay.

    But I think there may be people out there who are naturally liberally-minded, who have struggled to adjust their opinions on social issues to fit in with church teachings. So they are pro-life, and against gay marriage, possibly reluctantly, but they’ve sincerely adopted the Church’s opinion. But on the other hand, their real passion as a Christian is to help the poor. Or maybe they’re passionate about environmentalism, and they tie that in with good stewardship. We don’t have to agree with all of their ideas, but at least I’m willing to share a church with them, and I’ll respect them as brothers in Christ.

  4. Yes, I agree with you on that, Neil. However, it’s the emphasis they put on the environment and dubious social marxist causes which is the problem. In moderation and in their proper place, there’s no problem. When you start making it into an idol, there’s a problem.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Solve : *
21 ⁄ 7 =