By BRIAN CLOWES
Part 2
(Editor’s Note: Brian Clowes has been director of research and training at Human Life International since 1995. For an electronic copy of the book Call to Action or Call to Apostasy, consisting of a detailed description of the current forms of dissent and how to fight them, e-mail him at bclowes@hli.org.)
+ + +
The Deadliness Of Dissenter Style “Dialogue”: One of the most lethal tactics used by dissenters is a warped and one-sided concept of “dialogue.” It is so pernicious because it admits of no objective truth, and yields no ground whatsoever on critical issues such as abortion and women’s ordination. Its only purposes are to blunt the resolve of orthodox Catholics, to advance a false ecumenism, and to serve as a modernist propaganda tool.
In the Call to Action version of “dialogue,” the ground rules require that truth be forced to concede that dissent is its equal. In this kind of dialogue, all parties begin with the assumption that nobody is necessarily right or wrong on the issues. Points of disagreement — even those involving fundamental Catholic dogma — are settled by democratic vote.
During these sessions, the parties are not trying to convince anyone of the morality or truth of their beliefs, but are instead trying to reach an agreement by which all can coexist peacefully while evil is being committed. There is no question, of course, that evil will continue to be committed. That is a given. So the very concept of apostolic action is eviscerated from the beginning.
“Dialogue” under such conditions can only lead to agreement on the “lowest common denominator,” that position allowing the most personal freedom. For instance, in the “common ground” conferences promoted by pro-abortionists and some misguided pro-life activists, the fundamental issues — the humanity of the preborn child, his or her soul, and the very issue of killing — are strictly off-limits, so the woman’s “right to choose” wins by default.
Pro-life and pro-Magisterium Catholics should quickly and decisively refuse all invitations to participate in “common ground” roundtables or conferences, because all of the benefits of such meetings go to the dissenters. As a writer for “Catholics” for [a Free] Choice explained:
“[Regarding ‘common ground’ meetings and ‘dialogue’] I believe pro-choice Catholics have more to gain; it is important for many to have the opportunity to speak about their dissent from the hierarchy and to be reaffirmed as members of the Catholic community . . . the affirmation that different views coexist within the church was both empowering to pro-choice Catholics and challenging to the hierarchy’s claim that there is only one right Catholic position on abortion.”
Eternal And Never-Ending Debate: Since CTA-style “dialogue” admits of no objective truth and carefully limits the scope of the debate to exclude the discussion of fundamental truths, it leads to eternal wrangling over such issues as the role of conscience, in which all participants are assumed to have an equally valid opinion.
And so, central issues such as women’s ordination and priestly celibacy are left unaddressed and unresolved, which gives the dissenters the “wiggle room” they need to continue their agitation. Such dialogue also gives them the additional benefit of being able to give the impression that even the orthodox Catholics who are talking to them believe that there is room for systematic dissent in the Church.
It also allows the dissenters to present the appearance of “reaching out” to their spiritual adversaries, and then later denouncing these same opponents as being “dogmatic, rigid, and inflexible” if they do not cave in to the dissenters’ demands.
And so, no authentic progress is ever made because the central issues are never resolved. The issues that were being addressed by “dialogue” back in 1976 are exactly the same issues that are being discussed today. In this manner, “dialogue” with dissenters is actually counterproductive because it insists upon debating questions that have already been decisively settled by the Magisterium. It is therefore a waste of time for orthodox Catholics who are involved.
This is why dialogue with hardened dissenters is antithetical to the Church’s apostolic mission. The dissenters know full well that no progress is being made — and this is exactly what they want!
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger highlighted this critical shortcoming when he explained that “the notion of dialogue . . . becomes both the quintessence of the relativist creed and the antithesis of conversion and the mission. . . . Only if I suppose in principle that the other can be as right, or more right than I, can an authentic dialogue take place.”
As far as the dissenters are concerned, as long as there is not unanimous consent on an issue, it can never be resolved. Sr. Fran Ferder once said that the issue of priestly celibacy “is still open. . . . Based on what Cardinal Martini of Milan said in his interview last year, the question is still open.” And Edwina Gateley asked at the 1996 CTA conference in Lincoln, Neb., “How can anything be final, be finished, be definitive, when scientists tell us that 90 percent of the cosmos is a mystery?”
This is an illogical and inconsistent position. Ferder, of course, would not agree that the question of racial equality is “still open,” despite the fact some racists believe that anyone who does not possess blue eyes and fair skin is inferior to themselves.
So why do the dissenters continue to push “dialogue” if they know that the fundamental issues will never be resolved?
Call to Action style “dialogue” is, quite simply, a subterfuge. Instead of promoting unity, it continually brings up settled questions and will continue to bring them up until they are finally settled to the dissenters’ satisfaction. At that point, of course, the concept of dialogue will be discarded because it will have served its purpose.
Many orthodox Catholics know from bitter experience that the most uncommunicative and authoritarian people of all are dissenters who have power — particularly in chancery offices in various parts of the country.
Is Authentic Dialogue With Dissenters Even Possible? Just because dissenters abuse and exploit a method of communication doesn’t mean it should be discarded out of hand. Authentic dialogue between parties with different beliefs is possible if it is understood that the purpose of the exercise is to seek truth, not accommodation, and progress, not compromise. All of those involved in dialogue must acknowledge that there are basic truths that are beyond debate and must be accepted by all parties.
As Bernard Cardinal Law once said, “The Church already has ‘common ground.’ It is found in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, and it is mediated to us through the authoritative and binding teaching of the Magisterium.”
It must also be understood that the ultimate objective of authentic dialogue is to make the Word of God and His truth more widely known. True dialogue cannot be based upon one’s personal opinions or experiences, or it degenerates into a contest of anecdotes and therefore produces nothing but uncertainty and confusion.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress