Loyalty and Dissent: After Vatican II

he problem of dissent in the church is usually discussed in terms of the re­lationship between superiors and sub­jects. When conflicts occur, authoritarian Christians generally put the blame on subordinates. If everyone would humbly submit to the highest pastors, they tell us, all would be well. Liberals, on the other hand, put the blame on superiors for being too re­strictive and conservative. If the pas­tors would be more permissive and responsive to the popular will, the liberals maintain, the problem of dis­sent would evanesce.

I do not myself believe that the problem of dissent in the church is primarily a structural or political one. The main difficulty is the profound cleavage that exists among the faithful themselves. When groups of Catholics are as divided about religious ques­tions as, say, the New York construc­tion workers and the college students are about the Vietnamese war, no ac­tion on the official level can achieve harmony. Whatever the pope and bish­ops do will seem wrong to many of the faithful. But inaction may not be any better; if the authorities do nothing the consensus may deteriorate still further.

To appreciate the dimensions of the problem one must start with an ec­clesiological orientation. If the church were simply an invisible kingdom em­bracing all who conscientiously re­spond to what they take to be the will of God, consensus would not be nec­essary. If the church were an amor­phous movement without dogmas, rites or hierarchy, consensus would be immaterial. But the church, at least as Catholics understand it, is a single, visibly organized communion.

While Catholic unity does not demand rigid uniformity in externals of speech and conduct, it does require that the various groups within the church should be in a position to rec­ognize each other as true believers and as followers of the same Christ. They must be able to join in common thanksgiving for the gifts of God to the whole church. If they had irreconcilably diverse views about what Christianity es­sentially means, they could scarcely be said to constitute one church. To that extent the reconciling ministry of Christ would have fallen short of its goal.

At various junctures in history the Christian consensus and the unity of the church have been disrupted by schism and heresy. Since the 16th cen­tury, however, Roman Catholicism has exhibited a remarkable cohesive­ness in all parts of the world. This inner unity was achieved by means of a high­ly centralized system of government, with the Roman See exercising strict vigilance over the canonical Scriptures, the formulas of faith, the norms of worship and ecclesiastical discipline. This system of controls successfully staved off major schisms and produced a sincere and vital consensus within the framework of officially approved norms. The achievements of the Coun­ter Reformation Church are undeni­ably impressive.

Vatican Council II, however, reversed this trend. It muted the tradi­tional Catholic emphasis on external unity and on subjection to legitimate authority. In many significant texts the Council invited Catholics to think for themselves and even, within limits, to depart from traditionally accepted views. The Council Fathers themselves, by their boldness in rejecting the Ro­man schemas initially presented to them, set a stirring example of Chris­tian independence. Their dissent, per­suasively argued, led to a new con­sensus, evidenced by the practical unanimity with which most of the con­ciliar documents were approved in the final voting.

It was evidently the hope of the Council Fathers that a similar process of free discussion, leading to a new consensus, could be extended after the Council to the Church at large. The Council may be said to have gambled that the Catholic Church, by taking on the features of a free society, would become a more effective sign and harbinger of that unity in freedom which Christ wills for all mankind.

The harmonious dialogue that was anticipated has scarcely come to pass. Many of the senior clergy, with the support of vocal traditionalists and perhaps a "silent majority" in the pews, continue to think and act ac­cording to preconciliar patterns. They still look upon consensus, too sim­plistically, as a matter of compliance with official directives. Confronted with this attitude, some of the younger clergy and laity, especially in the liberal democracies of the West, tend to absolutize the right to dissent. In sometimes strident tones, they demand a rapid and thoroughgoing revision of traditional styles of worship and ecclesiastical discipline, and intimate, at times, that they have little respect for traditional Catholic teaching on matters of faith and morals. Their new positions and attitudes diverge alarm­ingly from what many of their fellow Catholics recognize as authentically Christian. Thus the visible unity of the church is clearly imperiled.

The resulting crisis cannot be solved by an authoritarian backlash. Having lost control of the educational process through the inroads of secularization, pastors can no longer demand punc­tilious conformity with decisions des­cending from on high. Nor would it be desirable for them to do so if they could. The authoritarian style of gov­ernment appropriate to the beleaguered church of the Counter Reformation would not creatively engage the best talents available. In the present fluid situation, ample scope must be given to personal conscience and responsible freedom.

On the other hand, there are limits to the amount of dissent that the church, consistently with its nature, can admit. Innovators will have to make it clear--as not all of them do­--that they are profoundly committed to the church they wish to reform. Their dissent must be modest, loyal, kind and constructive; otherwise it would not even be Christian. The dissenter must admit his own fallibility and the over­riding claims of God’s revelation as it comes to expression, in a variety of styles, within the whole body of the church.

In the present atmosphere of bitter­ness, the moderate, who seeks to exer­cise a reconciling influence, is subject to abuse from both ends of the ideolog­ical spectrum. In the long run, how­ever, the moderates hold the key to the future. Neither the extreme tradition­alist nor the extreme modernist posi­tion can come through with a positive program that holds out any prospects of success in the long run. A restora­tion of consensus demands an enlarge­ment of the moderate center, which insists upon discipline and restraint but rejects blindness and rigidity.

Ours is not the first generation of Christians to face the problem of dis­sent. The infant church was almost torn apart by the cleavages between Judaizers and Hellenists. Paul found himself reluctantly compelled, on one occasion, to accuse Peter of hypocrisy in the presence of the whole commu­nity at Antioch (Gal. 2:14). The New Testament shows how the church was able to overcome dissension by prayer­ful attention to Christ, by docility to the Holy Spirit, by humility and mu­tual openness. Pastors are admonished not to lord it over their flock (1 Pet. S : 3). And the faithful are likewise warned: "Do nothing from selfishness or conceit, but in humility count others better than yourselves" (Phil 2: 3). If our contemporary authoritarians and libertarians would take these admoni­tions as addressed to themselves, the apparent impasse of polarization might be transcended.

The church was born at a time when communication had all but bro­ken down between Jew and Gentile, Greek and barbarian, slave and free. The gospel succeeded in welding these mutually opposed factions into a single community of faith and love. For all its internal problems, the church is still the one institution on earth equipped with the necessary resources to over­come the social and cultural rifts that divide the human family. By achieving a dynamic equilibrium between con­servation and innovation, authority and freedom, consensus and dissent, the church can pioneer the paths of unity for all mankind.