Pell derides 'dissenter' complaint
Heh heh heh. A group of Australian theologians sent a letter to the CDF in Rome accusing Archbishop Pell of dissenting opinions.
His crime? Denying the supremacy of conscience.
Pell's response? He laughed.
Now some might jump at this, as Catholic tradition has always upheld the "supremacy" of conscience in the sense that we have the faculties of right judgment. But Pell has argued that conscience must be subordiante to truth - a supremacy within truth as opposed to a supremacy beyond truth.
Pell is not new with this approach. The Council of Trent started down this road as a response to Martin Luther in the mid-16th century.
What is new is how the dissenters are squealing about it.
There are of course two ways to go. Firstly, one can argue that conscience will always act on what it knows to be true, and therefore we have an obligation to act upon that. Secondly, there is the traditional argument that decisions of conscience dictate what is and what is not true, e.g. war, birth control, racism, or other relativistic arguments.
The former argument was specifically rejected by the Council of Trent. The latter on the other hand saw a rejuvenation with the Second Vatican Council, proceeding from Pius IX's "invincible ignorance" commentaries in the mid-19th century. Does conscience truly have supremacy not just in perceived truth, but Actual Truth? And what if the two conflict?
The dissenters in Australia have chosen a rather interesting path, of which there can be three solutions:
(1) Pell is reprimanded.
(2) Pell is affirmed.
(3) The issue is placed up for debate, in which case the rubric of "dissent" is set up (which is probably what the Australian professors are hoping for in the end).
Interesting strategy on the part of the dissenting theologians, but in the end I think Archbishop Pell is mostly right. Interesting as well as to how deeply - if at all - Rome will intervene. If they step back and allow the situation to resolve itself, then the dissenters get another token point, that intellectual freedom is a vital part of dissent and should be tolerated, even if coming from a cardinal so close to Rome. If they squash the dissenter's letter, then what do they do to the idea of intellectual freedom?
Even if it is dissenting?
|
 |
Megan 
12 Comments:
Humans pervert everything. Only God and his Word can be trusted.
All men are fallible, including the Pope.
He doesn't preserve humans from error or the offices that they hold.
The next thing you were going to say is that one "thing" God preserved from error was the Catholic church. Nice try.
I think it's obvious to everyone that the heirachy of the Catholic Church has made some major mistakes. No one can argue that point. Don't even ask for examles.
Shaun, I have met many wonderful catholic people, including you, but your church, just like mine has flaws in it.
The liberal wing of my church is now allowing practicing gay ministers and members.
You're saying that God can preserve certain things from error, yes?
I just wanted to know the answer to one question, man! :)
I'll leave well enough alone for now, other than to say that we all believe God can preserve things from error, and did in fact preserve His Word (though how and by what authority would be another question for another day - provided we could get an answer). ;)
I thought this blog was about religion and politics. What do you mean another day and time?
It's membership? Of course not.
It's teachings? Matthew 16:18-24, Matthew 28:19-20.
Back to topic though... have we settled on the idea that God can indeed keep certain things from error? We won't adress "what" or "whom" he kept from error, but only address that He indeed has the power to do so? If not, why not?
Who codified the Bible, and when was it codified?
The Old Testament has been fixed since the time of the Apostles, and included the deuterocanon (apocrypha).
The New Testament wasn't finalized until 382 AD by St. Jerome, but the canon was whole by 325 AD, with a few gnostic books hanging on such as the Apocalypse of Peter and such.
What is interesting to note though is that it is:
(a) Christianity flourished, surviving pagan Rome, for hundreds of years before the creation of the Bible,
(b) it was indeed the Catholic Church who compiled the Bible,
(c) it is only by the authority of the Church that we have a Bible.
You kinda have to "take our word for it" when it comes to the Bible, which is an interesting lever modern-day gnostics use against the Bible ("why should we take Catholicism's word for it) and as arguments for the Book of Thomas, etc.
Post a Comment
Home