It would be helpful, then, if you provided some concrete examples of responsible dissent to the bishops’ conference regarding the topic-at-hand, the so-called defective Senate version of health-care reform pushed by congressional leaders.

As I found when trying to figure out why people had such different opinions about what the legislation meant, it is all too common for mere assertions to be made about the effects of the legislation. But “well founded” requires that some kind of concrete foundation is supplied that supports the assertions. This often completely absent.

A very common problem I found would be that person X might say something like: “The legislation clearly means [such and such]. This has been shown by person Y.” Then on tracking down what person Y says, all I would find is an assertion, and an absence of foundation for that assertion.

Merely having a different opinion, and merely claiming that is well founded, does not mean that the opinion must therefore be responsible dissent.

Henry Karlson: “Cardinal Dulles makes it clear there are a time when one has not only a right but a duty to speak up”

Of course. But that still has to be subject to those three conditions for responsible dissent.

Henry Karlson: “Some would say it causes scandal to talk about the child abuse we have had, and it undermines the authority of Bishops to question their actions.”

No doubt some would. But not me, and not you.

Henry Karlson: “As Dulles pointed out, it is not good to just use authority to silence people. Which is what you are doing.”

Those three conditions that Dulles (and the Catholic bishops) have listed seem just fine to me. But I see a lot of dissent out there that doesn’t abide by the conditions.

Henry Karlson: “And you still say ‘but but but you must be silent.” NOT SO.”

You can put quotation marks around things I haven’t said. And you can raise your voice. It still remains that I’m calling for responsible dissent. In the same way that the Cardinal Dulles text does that — that you approve of.

“While individual bishops may be prudentially gifted or challenged, problems are multiplied when prudential judgments issue from the bureaucratic sausage-grinder of the bishops’ conference.

And, of course, the sex abuse crisis that broke open in January 2002 took its toll on the bishops’ credibility and self-confidence in issuing pronunciamentos on subjects beyond their self-evident competence. Catholics and others adopted a large and understandable measure of skepticism about what bishops had to say. If they had so gravely bungled the tasks that are unquestionably theirs—to teach, sanctify, and govern—why should people pay attention to what they say about matters beyond their ostensible competence? This is not to question but, on the contrary, to underscore episcopal competence on matters of faith and morals.

On most questions of domestic and foreign policy, it only compounds the problem to declare that they are “moral questions” and are therefore encompassed within episcopal charism and competence. Such overreach only invites critics to claim, putting it bluntly, that the bishops don’t know what they are talking about, or at least don’t know any more than is known by the well-informed citizen. Archbishop Dolan noted that, in recent years, the bishops in the conference have learned this lesson and have been focusing their attention ad intra rather than ad extra, concentrating on matters clearly within their competence and authority as teachers of the Church.” END of QUOTE from Aphorisms, Sartre, Bishops, and Prudential Judgment First Things | Sep 21, 2007

Fr. Neuhaus thus properly employed the distinctions, categories and defintions, which Henry & I are trying to elucidate. At the same time, I take a dim view of the way Neuhaus then (let me borrow phraseology from the Archbishop) “publically undercut the the teaching and leadership of [the] bishops” because that had the potential to “spread confusion, cause grave damage to the believing community and give the illusion of moral cover to” a WAR that was “not simply bad, but dangerous.” That, in my view, did not meet all the criteria of responsible dissent. In fact, I think I’ll search the First Things archives to see what Archbishop Chaput had to say about Fr. Neuhaus’ lapse.

Oh! Now I get it … ;)

All Christians must be aware of their own specific vocation within the political community. It is for them to give an example by their sense of responsibility and their service of the common good. In this way they are to demonstrate concretely how authority can be compatible with freedom, personal initiative with the solidarity of the whole social organism, and the advantages of unity with fruitful diversity. They must recognize the legitimacy of different opinions with regard to temporal solutions, and respect citizens, who, even as a group, defend their points of view by honest methods. Political parties, for their part, must promote those things which in their judgement are required for the common good; it is never allowable to give their interests priority over the common good.

—

The Church, by reason of her role and competence, is not identified in any way with the political community nor bound to any political system. She is at once a sign and a safeguard of the transcendent character of the human person.

The Church and the political community in their own fields are autonomous and independent from each other. Yet both, under different titles, are devoted to the personal and social vocation of the same men. The more that both foster sounder cooperation between themselves with due consideration for the circumstances of time and place, the more effective will their service be exercised for the good of all. For man’s horizons are not limited only to the temporal order; while living in the context of human history, he preserves intact his eternal vocation. The Church, for her part, founded on the love of the Redeemer, contributes toward the reign of justice and charity within the borders of a nation and between nations. By preaching the truths of the Gospel, and bringing to bear on all fields of human endeavor the light of her doctrine and of a Christian witness, she respects and fosters the political freedom and responsibility of citizens.

1) the reasons are well founded. Different interpretations of the bill
2) there will be some people who say any disagreement impugns the teaching authority of the Church. However, that is not the case. Indeed, that is the point. You are arguing #2 for any #1. That is the problem
3) scandal is a technical term; again, some can say #1 is always a scandal.

But you fail to note Cardinal Dulles makes it clear there are a time when one has not only a right but a duty to speak up. Some would say it causes scandal to talk about the child abuse we have had, and it undermines the authority of Bishops to question their actions. As Dulles pointed out, it is not good to just use authority to silence people. Which is what you are doing.

As for my knowledge on authority? I’ve done much work on it. Ecclesiology is one of my areas of theological study. I have worked with some of the leading theologians who have dealt with and deals with ecclesiology and questions of episcopal authority. I study these matters and take them seriously. If you would like to research it more, I would recommend Dulles’ Craft of the Theology and Sullivan’s Creative Fidelity as a good foundation.

The problem is, you are conflating many things, as is normal for you. I have explained many of the distinctions which you ignore. And you still say ‘but but but you must be silent.” NOT SO.

Huh??? I explicitly said that it was possible to disagree in some respects with the bishops. (To the question: “Is it permitted to have a different technical opinion of the contents of the legislation?” I gave the answer “It is”.)

I do notice that you seem to be making some very explicit claim about exactly how the charism works for Catholic bishops. Where did you get this knowledge from? From my point of view, I can see no reason whatsoever why the charism might not easily work, in part, by ensuring that the bishops form their opinion by directing their attention to good sources of information. Apparently you know definitively otherwise. How so?

Henry Karlson: “it does not undermine the Catholic witness, indeed your argument here undermines the Catholic witness because it rejects what a Catholic can do: http://www.vatican2voice.org/8conscience/dulles.htm”

If one were to read Dulles’ text (which refers back in part to the Catholic bishops’ earlier pastoral letter Human Life in Our Day) one would find that he lists three conditions for the exercising of responsible dissent:

(1) if the reasons are serious and well founded;
(2) if the manner of the dissent does not question or impugn the teaching authority of the Church;
(3) is such as not to give scandal.

All three of those conditions have been broken by numerous sources professing to be Catholic, and each one of those problems has thus worked to undermine the Catholic witness. Responsible dissent is indeed permitted — but an enormous amount of the current dissent offends against one or more of the listed conditions. Hence Chaput’s complaints.

You are wrong about authority — when the bishops rely upon outsiders who have no charism to interpret data, one can disagree with the bishops when they base their information with that data, and one can do so — it does not undermine the Catholic witness, indeed your argument here undermines the Catholic witness because it rejects what a Catholic can do: http://www.vatican2voice.org/8conscience/dulles.htm

Under Catholic teaching, support for abortion is not an empirical or prudential issue. MM understands that, and so does Chaput. The main issue with the proposed legislation is: does it support abortion? In that one particular way, it’s an empirical issue. So, what did the Catholic bishops do? They turned to experts to read the legislation and get their opinion on what the legislation said. Having done that, they thus decided that the legislation could indeed support abortion, and was hence fatally morally flawed. (If the opinions on the legislation had been divided, this would very likely have made no difference, because even unclear legislation in support of abortion can’t be tolerated.) So they insisted that the legislation had to modified.

Given that, several questions arise:

Is it permitted to have a different technical opinion of the contents of the legislation? It is. Though of course, one would have to be somewhat expert on the issue in question, and one would have to be extremely clear and very precise on what grounds you were disagreeing with other experts. (As I indicated, anything merely adding to the unclarity in the intent of the legislation would be unlikely to change the bishops’ decision.)

Is it permitted to publicize the grounds on which a different technical opinion is held? By itself, that is likely to be harmless. (Though, obviously, if you possess such expertise, the first people to promote it to are the bishops.)

Is it permitted, based on having a different technical opinion of the legislation, to thereby publicly oppose the bishops’ decision? No, because that undermines the Catholic witness. Like it nor not, the bishops have a role within the Catholic Church of not only teaching in general what is moral and what is not, but also of authoritatively deciding whether specific actions — particular actions in a particular context and at a particular historical time — are permitted or not.

Paul asks: “Does it remotely look like Bishop Chaput thinks that every Catholic is entirely free to form their own opinion of the legislation? All those other opinions are exactly what he is complaining about.”

He DOES seem to be leaving that impression? And that is what prompted my own questions probing whether or not he really intended to leave THAT impression, in which case he would be manifestly wrong because, as MM pointed out, these are empirical and prudential questions. I tease out these implications here:
Abortion & the Senate Healthcare Bill – a prudential judgment

Excellent post, MM.

At a certain point, someone’s “interpretation” isn’t reasonable *as something pro-life Catholics can accept*, especially when said interpretation just so happens to be consistent with their affiliation with party leaders and a President who are otherwise so thoroughly pro-abortion, and just so happens to be inconsistent not only with everything that pro-life people are saying but also with everything the non-partisan non-tunnel-vission Bishops’ conference and individual bishops are saying.