No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 May 2018
The concept of “dissent” is of recent coinage and narrow use in Catholic theology. However, since rereadings of Catholic tradition through the lens of cultural studies have revealed its constitutive plurality, we are faced with a profound tension between a critical description of ecclesial polyphony and the normative ideals of unity and consensus. This interdisciplinary reappraisal of tradition raises far-reaching theological questions: Do we necessarily have to refer to inner-ecclesial polyphony as “dissent”? Does “dissent” silently rely on (and thus reinforce) established hierarchies of authority in the church? What could be counterhegemonic frameworks that resist entrenched power/knowledge regimes in the church? In which ways could “dissent” be reconceived to allow for a constructive approach to inner-ecclesial plurality? Once we raise questions such as these, we begin to see that Catholic theology lacks adequate models for a reflection of ecclesial polyphony in its full complexity. This roundtable addresses this lacuna: it offers critical case studies of historical and contemporary forms of “dissent” within the church, and it engages the theological and ecclesiological issues at stake.
1 Pope Paul VI, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium), November 21, 1964, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html.
2 Second Vatican Council, Decree on Ecumenism (Unitatis Redintegratio), November 21, 1964, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html.
3 See Henn, William, “Hierarchy of Truths Twenty Years Later,” Theological Studies 48 (1987): 439–71Google Scholar.
4 Pope Paul VI, Encyclical, Humanae Vitae (On Regulation of Birth), July 25, 1968, http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html.
5 Charles E. Curran and Richard A. McCormick stated: “It is our conviction … that loyalty can coexist with dissent, indeed that there are times when loyalty inspires and demands the type of distancing and correction known as dissent”; and Curran wrote: “Yes, occasionally I have dissented from the official teaching on some aspect of specific issues, but this is within a more general and prevailing context of assent.” Curran, Charles E. and McCormick, Richard A., Dissent in the Church (New York and Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1988), 1, 365–66Google Scholar.
6 Hinze, Bradford E., “A Decade of Disciplining Theologians,” in When the Magisterium Intervenes: The Magisterium and Theologians in the Church Today, ed. Gaillardetz, Richard R. (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2012), 3–39Google Scholar.
7 Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction, Donum Veritatis (On the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian), May 24, 1990, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html.
8 The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification of the Lutheran Federation and the Pontifical Council for Christian Churches, 1999, §50, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html; cf. §40. On Differentiated Consensus, see Meyer, Harding, “Die Struktur ökumenischer Konsense,” in Versöhnte Verschiedenheit: Aufsätze zur ökumenischen Theologie (Frankfurt: Lembeck, 1998), 1:60–74, at 74Google Scholar; Wagner, Harold, ed., Einheit—aber wie? Zur Tragfähigkeit der ökumenischen Formel vom “differenzierten Konsens” (Freiburg, Basel, and Vienna: Herder, 2000)Google Scholar; Hietamäki, Minna, Agreeable Agreement: An Examination of the Quest for Consensus in Ecumenical Dialogue (London: T&T Clark, 2010)Google Scholar; Peter De Mey, “Die Hermeneutik des differenzierten/differenzierenden Konsensus: Einmaliges Zugeständnis oder breit einsetzbare ökumenische Methode für die römisch-katholische Kirche?” (forthcoming, in a book in honor of Theodor Dieter). Also see Rinderknecht, Jacob Karl, Mapping the Differentiated Consensus of the Joint Declaration (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2017)Google Scholar.
9 Dieter, Theodor, “Zu einigen Problem ökumenischer Hermeneutik,” Una Sancta 70 (2015): 163–70Google Scholar, at 167.
10 See Dyrberg, Torben Bech, Foucault on the Politics of Parrhesia (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014)Google Scholar; Butler, Judith, Notes toward a Performative Theory of Assembly (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2015)Google Scholar; Rancière, Jacques, Dissensus: On Politics and Aesthetics, ed. and trans. Corcoran, Steven (London: Bloomsbury, 2010)Google Scholar.