When Are We Allowed to Dissent from the Magisterium of the Catholic Church?

When are we allowed to dissent from the Magisterium of the Catholic Church?

Fortunately, the answer here is quite simple:

Never.

No Dissent

This follows logically from Catholic epistemology.  In the Catholic view, the Magisterium of the Church has been given authority from God to authentically and authoritatively interpret and apply the revelation of God to the Church and to humanity.  Therefore, we have no right to oppose their interpretation and application.

Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort. (7) 

But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, (8) has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, (9) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed. 

It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God's most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.  (Second Vatican Council, Dei Verbum, #10)

Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place.(39*) For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old,(164) making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock.(165) Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.  (Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, #25)

God gave us the Magisterium in order to ensure that we could find and follow the truth and not get hopelessly lost in a maze of confusion.  Therefore, if we follow the Church's guidance, we will do well; but if we dissent from her guidance, we will do badly.

888 Bishops, with priests as co-workers, have as their first task "to preach the Gospel of God to all men," in keeping with the Lord's command.415 They are "heralds of faith, who draw new disciples to Christ; they are authentic teachers" of the apostolic faith "endowed with the authority of Christ."416 

889 In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a "supernatural sense of faith" the People of God, under the guidance of the Church's living Magisterium, "unfailingly adheres to this faith."417 

890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium's task to preserve God's people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church's shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:  (The Catechism of the Catholic Church, #888-890)

The supreme authority of the Church is tacitly acknowledged even by Catholics who try to argue that it is OK sometimes to dissent from the Magisterium.  The conversation usually goes something like this:

Person A: The Pope said X, and he's wrong!  I refuse to listen to him.

Person B: But we're supposed to accept the teaching of the Pope.

Person A: Not always.  After all, the Church has said that not all her teachings are definitive, and that we are allowed sometimes to disagree with her.  Let me show you (proceeds to quote from various Church documents).

Do you see the irony here?  Person A is trying to use Church teachings to prove that it is sometimes right to disagree with the Church, and when it might be right to do so.  But this is like an argument between children about whether one must always listen to mother:

Child A: Mom told me to clean my room, but I don't have to.

Child B: But we're supposed to obey Mom.

Child A: Not necessarily always!  Why, just the other day, Mom told me (proceeds to appeal to Mom's authority to justify belief that one need not always follow Mom's authority)

If you only dissent from someone when you can show that they've given you permission to do so, is it really dissent?  No, it is obedience.  "I'll dissent from you only when you say I can.  If you say I can't, I won't."  How is this kind of "dissent" any different from "100% obedience"?

It is not surprising that those who wish to disagree with some aspect of what is being taught by the Church should try to justify that dissent by appeal to the authority of the Church.  Given Catholic epistemology, what else could one do?  How else could one possibly know whether or not one can dissent from the Church or when one can do so without deriving that knowledge from the teaching of the Church?  Consider those who say (wrongly) that we only have to agree with the teaching of the Pope when he is teaching ex cathedra - that is, when he is solemnly and definitively defining a doctrine to be held by the whole Church.  Those who argue for this will probably appeal to the definition of papal infallibility in the documents of Vatican I.  But how does the arguer know that Vatican I is right about papal infallibility?  "Well, Vatican I was an ecumenical council, and the Church teaches that ecumenical councils are infallible when defining doctrine."  But how do we know the Church got that right?  "Because the Church teaches it!"  In other words, the very starting assumption of the argument is that the Church is right in what she teaches and we should listen to her in whatever she says.  Without that starting assumption, we could never learn from Church teaching when the Church is speaking infallibly and when she isn't, for how would we know she was right in drawing the line where she does between infallible and fallible teaching unless we first trusted her general teaching?  Without that assumption, we could simply say the Church is wrong in thinking the Pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra, etc.  So, logically, given a basic Catholic worldview and epistemology, there must be the underlying assumption that the Church is to be believed and followed in whatever she teaches.

So can we disagree with what the bishops of the Church teach?  Can we disagree with papal teaching?  Only to the extent that they allow us to.  There can be no dissent.

Levels of Teaching

The Church has made clear that there are different levels of teaching.  Sometimes, the Church (that is, the bishops in communion with the Pope or the Pope directly) proposes a teaching as definitely true.  What do you think our duty as Catholics is in such a case?  Obviously, our duty is to accept the teaching as definitely true.  Sometimes the Church proposes a teaching without claiming it to be definitely true.  It is put forward as a claim of truth, but it is not made clear that it will be the last word on the subject, or if the claim might be subject to revision in the future based on new or corrected knowledge.  What is our duty in such a case?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (which Pope John Paul II, who promulgated it, called "a sure norm for teaching the faith"), #892, answers our question:

Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a "definitive manner," they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent"422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

In other words, no dissent.  If the Church teaches something as true, we are assent to it as true.  If the Church teaches something as definitive, we are to accept it as definitive.  If the Church teaches something as probable, we are to receive it as probable.  And so on.  And how do we know what the Church is trying to say?  We read the words, look at the context, consult previous teaching for further context, etc.  If we are baffled after all of that, we can ask the Church for clarification.  We have not just a dead page, but a living voice, guided by the Holy Spirit!  But what if the Church hasn't yet clarified something?  Then it is unclarified, and we won't be dogmatic about it.

The Church has made it clear over and over again that all her teaching must be adhered to.  She has many times addressed the loophole sought by Catholics who think they are free to ignore any teaching that is not "infallible" or "definitive" or "ex cathedra" or whatever.  Pope Pius XII, for example, addressed this in his encyclical Humani Generis, section 20:

Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me";[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.

In other words, if a Pope tells us we ought to believe something to be true in an encyclical letter, if we reject it, we are rejecting Christ.  "He who heareth you, heareth me."

The Church has reiterated this in her Code of Canon Law as well:

Can. 750 §1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them. 

§2. Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firm-ly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church. . . . 

Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it. . . . 

Can. 754 All the Christian faithful are obliged to observe the constitutions and decrees which the legitimate authority of the Church issues in order to propose doctrine and to proscribe erroneous opinions, particularly those which the Roman Pontiff or the college of bishops puts forth.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has published a handy guide to the different levels of Church teaching and the various levels of submission that are required of them.  Now, before we go any further, what is the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith?  Do I have to listen to them?  The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is an arm of the ordinary magisterium of the Pope assigned with various tasks, including defending and clarifying the doctrine of the Church.  You can read all about it here in the Church's official description of it.  And yes, we have to listen to it, because it is an arm of the ordinary magisterium of the Church.  The document I just mentioned says this:

Decisions issued by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith are doctrinal or disciplinary, depending on the nature of the case; and, because of their great importance, in some cases they must be approved by the Pope. Doctrinal documents, always approved by the Holy Father, participate therefore in the ordinary magisterium of the Supreme Pontiff.

Anyway, in that handy guide put out by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (and therefore official and authoritative for the Church), we find this comment on non-definitive teaching of the Church:

10. The third proposition of the Professio fidei states: "Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act." To this paragraph belong all those teachings­ on faith and morals - presented as true or at least as sure, even if they have not been defined with a solemn judgment or proposed as definitive by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. Such teachings are, however, an authentic expression of the ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff or of the College of Bishops and therefore require religious submission of will and intellect.18 They are set forth in order to arrive at a deeper understanding of revelation, or to recall the conformity of a teaching with the truths of faith, or lastly to warn against ideas incompatible with these truths or against dangerous opinions that can lead to error.19 

A proposition contrary to these doctrines can be qualified as erroneous or, in the case of teachings of the prudential order, as rash or dangerous and therefore 'tuto doceri non potest'.20 . . . 

As examples of doctrines belonging to the third paragraph, one can point in general to teachings set forth by the authentic ordinary Magisterium in a non-definitive way, which require degrees of adherence differentiated according to the mind and the will manifested; this is shown especially by the nature of the documents, by the frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or by the tenor of the verbal expression.38

So, again, the Church has made her position clear.  We are to assent to her teaching, whether she teaches definitively or non-definitively.  We are to believe it in our mind and follow it in our choices - to the degree and in the form that she requires it.

Some Nuances

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith put out in 1990 a document on the vocation of theologians (Donum Veritatis: On the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian).  This is an interesting document, because it deals with the question of situations where theologians might find themselves at odds with the Church's teaching and goes into some detail about how such a situation might be handled.

First of all, it makes clear that theologians are never permitted to disagree with what the Church has definitively defined as part of her doctrine of faith.  Then, it reiterates what we've seen above several times with regard to the submission required even for non-definitive teaching:

17. Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and in a particular way, to the Roman Pontiff as Pastor of the whole Church, when exercising their ordinary Magisterium, even should this not issue in an infallible definition or in a "definitive" pronouncement but in the proposal of some teaching which leads to a better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals and to moral directives derived from such teaching. 

One must therefore take into account the proper character of every exercise of the Magisterium, considering the extent to which its authority is engaged. It is also to be borne in mind that all acts of the Magisterium derive from the same source, that is, from Christ who desires that His People walk in the entire truth. For this same reason, magisterial decisions in matters of discipline, even if they are not guaranteed by the charism of infallibility, are not without divine assistance and call for the adherence of the faithful. (#17) 

When the Magisterium, not intending to act "definitively", teaches a doctrine to aid a better understanding of Revelation and make explicit its contents, or to recall how some teaching is in conformity with the truths of faith, or finally to guard against ideas that are incompatible with these truths, the response called for is that of the religious submission of will and intellect.(23) This kind of response cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary but must be understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith.  (#23)

It at this point that we find some Catholics attempting to find a loophole in order to dissent from certain non-definitive magisterial teachings.  Some Catholics interpret the assent required to non-definitive teaching not so much as assent but as something like "respectful consideration," as if the faithful are allowed to dissent from such teaching if, having passed it through the sifting of their own private judgment, they find it to be defective in some manner.  But the Church does not allow this kind of dissent.

33. Dissent has different aspects. In its most radical form, it aims at changing the Church following a model of protest which takes its inspiration from political society. More frequently, it is asserted that the theologian is not bound to adhere to any Magisterial teaching unless it is infallible. Thus a Kind of theological positivism is adopted, according to which, doctrines proposed without exercise of the charism of infallibility are said to have no obligatory character about them, leaving the individual completely at liberty to adhere to them or not. The theologian would accordingly be totally free to raise doubts or reject the non-infallible teaching of the Magisterium particularly in the case of specific moral norms. With such critical opposition, he would even be making a contribution to the development of doctrine.  (Donum Veritatis, #33)

There is a kernel of truth in this dissenting attitude, however.  It is true that there are various levels of authoritativeness in Church teaching.  Not everything the Pope or the bishops say is intended by them to be binding.  Sometimes aspects of what is said are intended as binding but other aspects are not.  There is certainly room for respectful criticism of the Pope and the bishops with regard to moral behavior, diligence in carrying out their callings, and even at times aspects of their teaching.  Donum Veritatis addresses this:

24. Finally, in order to serve the People of God as well as possible, in particular, by warning them of dangerous opinions which could lead to error, the Magisterium can intervene in questions under discussion which involve, in addition to solid principles, certain contingent and conjectural elements. It often only becomes possible with the passage of time to distinguish between what is necessary and what is contingent. 

The willingness to submit loyally to the teaching of the Magisterium on matters per se not irreformable must be the rule. It can happen, however, that a theologian may, according to the case, raise questions regarding the timeliness, the form, or even the contents of magisterial interventions. Here the theologian will need, first of all, to assess accurately the authoritativeness of the interventions which becomes clear from the nature of the documents, the insistence with which a teaching is repeated, and the very way in which it is expressed.(24) 

When it comes to the question of interventions in the prudential order, it could happen that some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies. Bishops and their advisors have not always taken into immediate consideration every aspect or the entire complexity of a question. But it would be contrary to the truth, if, proceeding from some particular cases, one were to conclude that the Church's Magisterium can be habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments, or that it does not enjoy divine assistance in the integral exercise of its mission. In fact, the theologian, who cannot pursue his discipline well without a certain competence in history, is aware of the filtering which occurs with the passage of time. This is not to be understood in the sense of a relativization of the tenets of the faith. The theologian knows that some judgments of the Magisterium could be justified at the time in which they were made, because while the pronouncements contained true assertions and others which were not sure, both types were inextricably connected. Only time has permitted discernment and, after deeper study, the attainment of true doctrinal progress. (Donum Veritatis, #24)

Such a disagreement could not be justified if it were based solely upon the fact that the validity of the given teaching is not evident or upon the opinion that the opposite position would be the more probable. Nor, furthermore, would the judgment of the subjective conscience of the theologian justify it because conscience does not constitute an autonomous and exclusive authority for deciding the truth of a doctrine. (#28)

It is crucial to notice here two things:  1. The rule is submission.  This means that, if we want to criticize or disagree with some magisterial teaching, the burden of proof is on us to prove that there is a just basis for such disagreement.  2. Criticism of or disagreement with expressions of the Magisterium can only go so far as the Magisterium itself allows.  "Here the theologian will need, first of all, to assess accurately the authoritativeness of the interventions which becomes clear from the nature of the documents, the insistence with which a teaching is repeated, and the very way in which it is expressed."  Donum Veritatis here reiterates what we've seen in other places:  Non-definitive magisterial teachings "require degrees of adherence differentiated according to the mind and the will manifested; this is shown especially by the nature of the documents, by the frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or by the tenor of the verbal expression" (Doctrinal Commentary #11).  We can indeed, at times, criticize and even disagree with some of things the bishops and the Pope say.  But the real question is, Who determines the degree and form of assent required in any particular case?  The erroneous dissenters make themselves and their own judgment the determining factor in deciding what they are required to assent to and to what degree they are required to assent.  But the Church teaches that it is the bishops and the Pope who make that determination.  We don't get to subject the teachings of the bishops and the Pope to our own judgment and decide, even against their intentions and requirements, what we will agree with and what we will disagree with.  We must assent to their teaching according to their manifest mind and will.  We must accept even non-definitive magisterial teaching as inherently reliable, so that we will not subject it to our judgment and disagree with it if the "validity of the given teaching is not evident or upon the opinion that the opposite position would be the more probable."  So while there can sometimes legitimately be disagreement with some things the Pope or bishops say, there can never be dissent from magisterial teaching--refusal to accept magisterial teaching to the extent that it is intended as binding.

As we saw above in section #24, Donum Veritatis acknowledges that, in the Church's prudential instruction, a distinction can sometimes be made between the solid doctrinal and moral principles of the Church and more conjectural assessments of how best to apply those principles within the particular circumstances of the world.  This passage is a bit obscurely worded (in my opinion), and could do with a few concrete examples illustrating what exactly it is talking about.  Perhaps a good example of what I think this passage is getting at might be the Crusades.  I'm not going to get into a big explanation of the Crusades now, but the short of it is that the Crusades were a project the Church took up in order to free holy sites from Muslim rule (they had earlier been Christian sites, but the Muslims conquered them) in order both to make those sites more accessible to Christian pilgrimage as well as to liberate the Christians who lived in those areas from Muslim rule.  Having read a reasonable amount about the Crusades, especially some of the earlier ones, my sense is that the Crusades were motivated by good intentions and solid moral principles, but were not necessarily pursued in the wisest manner possible (to put it mildly).  For example, the Popes called for Christians from all over Christendom to "take up the cross" and assist in the Crusades, but those who did so often ended up going in groups that were poorly organized, and a lot of the people who went brought along with them a good many "barbaric" tendencies, and so they often tended to loot towns and villages on the way and commit many other crimes, including eventually the famous sacking of Constantinople.  In hindsight, I think that Catholics are allowed to believe that the valid moral principles and concerns that underlay the Crusades might have been applied more wisely.  Also, on hindsight, although the Church would never, in principle, have supported unjust treatment of Muslims (and Jews), Church leaders were not sufficiently cognizant at the time of the negative effects the Crusades often had on both.  They were too short-sighted with regard to all the implications of what they were promoting.

To recognize such things about the Crusades is not to "dissent" against the Church, because the Church has never claimed that she always acts as wisely as she should in all her prudential actions.  She claims guidance in her doctrinal and moral teaching, but she also recognizes the principle of "doctrinal development," which can include a growth in awareness that can have a significant impact on her practical life and actions in the world.

Donum Veritatis goes on (in sections 24-31) to discuss what should be done if a theologian were to find himself intellectually unable to submit to some non-definitive teaching of the Church.  I won't quote the whole section, but the gist of it is that the theologian is required to submit to the Church's judgment as best he can.  If he has an intellectual problem with the Church's teaching, he is to dialogue with the Church, trying as hard as he can to understand the Church's point of view and to allow the Church to show him where he may be going wrong.  He is not to go out and promote his concerns in the mass media, putting himself in opposition to the Church.  He is not to present his "opinions or divergent hypotheses as though they were non-arguable conclusions" (#27).  He can criticize and disagree with the prudential judgments of the Church that don't involve matters of the doctrine of the faith to the extent that the Church allows him to do so (such as with the example of the Crusades mentioned above), but he is not to think that the Church's non-definitive teaching is "up for grabs."

It is acknowledged that there might be some situations where a theologian, trying as best he can, simply cannot bring himself intellectually to accept certain non-definitive teachings.  In such a case, the Church wants to show mercy to him and sympathizes with him, knowing that "such a situation can certainly prove a difficult trial. It can be a call to suffer for the truth, in silence and prayer, but with the certainty, that if the truth really is at stake, it will ultimately prevail" (#31).  In the meantime, he must remain humbly in dialogue with the Church, open to being corrected, and not make himself a public opponent of the Church's teaching or form some kind of movement of "dissent."

So does Donum Veritatis say that the Church gives permission to theologians to disagree with non-definitive teachings of the Church?  Hardly.  It is rather saying that they have a duty to submit intellectually and practically to the Church's non-definitive teaching as far as they are able to do so, but that the Church wants to be sympathetic and merciful to them if they find themselves stuck with regard to some point, provided they remain humble and open to correction and don't join or form a movement of "dissent."  But the teaching of the Church is still not "up for grabs."  We are not allowed to treat it as if it is merely the expression of an opinion which is not binding on us, as if we have the right to consider it and reject it if we find some other position more probable.

Conclusion

To reiterate the conclusion which has been stated repeatedly throughout this article, we are required to submit to all the teaching of the Church's Magisterium.  We are never allowed to dissent from the Church's teaching.  If the Church does not teach something as binding upon us, then it is not binding upon us.  If the Church says that something is binding upon us, then it is binding upon us.  This applies both to definitive teachings of the Church and non-definitive, reformable teachings.  The different levels of Church teaching form a spectrum, and there is also a spectrum in terms of the degrees and forms of assent that are required.  But the important thing is that it is the Church who defines that spectrum, not the private theologian or individual.  If one attempts to use the Church's own teaching as a justification for putting oneself in opposition to other teaching of the Church, then this is not acceptable.  If the Church tells you that you can't hold or promote a certain opinion, then you can't hold or promote it.  If you find yourself believing or defending or promoting or practicing ideas, and the Church is in the meantime telling you not to do that, then you are in unjustifiable dissent.  If you find yourself voicing opinions, and the Church has no problem with it, then you are not in unjustifiable dissent.  It is as simple as that.  Certainly, in some cases, it may be unclear what is required of us.  We may need to seek clarification.  But the fundamental principle under which we must operate is clear.

It is important to emphasize these things, because we see in the Catholic world today, particularly in the USA (I mention the USA both because I think the problem is particularly pronounced here and because I know more about the situation here, being an American), a situation in which many Catholics seem to feel themselves justified in making themselves opponents of the teaching of the Church.  Many of these individuals and groups try to justify their dissent, ironically, by appeal to the teaching of the Church (like a child who acts in utter defiance of his parents' commands based on his own private interpretation of other things his parents have said).  For example, we have the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), an entire dissident organization, claiming to be faithful to the Church and its Tradition and Magisterium while at the same time rejecting the teaching of the Second Vatican Council and much subsequent teaching, refusing to follow the instructions of the Magisterium and therefore remaining in a state of illegality according to the Church's rules.  We have a number of Catholics who refuse to accept that it is the infallible, definitive, and irreformable teaching of the Catholic Church that women cannot be priests, despite the Church's explicit and clear affirmations to the contrary.  We have Catholics who refuse to accept the Church's teaching opposing artificial contraception and who even continue to use it, despite clear and explicit teaching and instructions to the contrary (such as in Pope Paul VI's encyclical Humanae Vitae and in the Catechism of the Catholic Church).  We have Catholics who declare that they will never accept Pope Francis's teaching regarding the possibility of people in irregular unions receiving sacraments articulated in his Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (see here and here).  Most recently, we have Catholics who have put themselves into a condition of public and strident opposition to Church teaching regarding Pope Francis's recent teaching on the death penalty (see here, here, and here), teaching which he has inserted into the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is intended as a compendium of official Catholic teaching and which Pope John Paul II called "a sure norm for teaching the faith."  To quote a particularly strident example from LifeSiteNews,

With this move, Pope Francis has shown himself to be openly heretical on a point of major importance, teaching a pure and simple novelty—“the boldness of a personal opinion becoming a completely new and unprecedented ‘teaching’ of the Church,” as Rorate Caeli stated. “The current Pope has far exceeded his authority: his authority is to guard and protect the doctrine that was received from Christ and the Apostles, not to alter it according to his personal views.” . . . 

Whether Francis is a formal heretic—that is, fully aware that what he is teaching on capital punishment is contrary to Catholic doctrine, and proves pertinacious in maintaining his position in spite of rebuke—is a matter to be adjudicated by the College of Cardinals. No doubt exists, however, that orthodox bishops of the Catholic Church must oppose this doctrinal error and refuse to use the altered edition of the Catechism or any catechetical materials based on it.  ("Pope’s Change to Catechism Contradicts Natural Law and the Deposit of Faith," LifeSiteNews, August 2, 2018)

Now, as we saw earlier, there are situations where it may be permissible to dispute certain contingent aspects of the Church's non-definitive teaching, to the extent that the Church herself allows this.  But, at the very least, to say (and publicly!) of a teaching that the Pope has placed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church that it is "heretical" and that "orthodox bishops . . . must oppose this doctrinal error and refuse to use the altered edition of the Catechism" is certainly a far cry from the attitude of humble loyalty and submission required by the Church towards even her non-definitive teaching.  This is clearly a kind of "dissent" that the Church has warned against.  It is certainly permissible to wrestle with the recent teaching, to struggle to understand it better, to ask questions about it, to be in dialogue with the Church about it, voicing to the Church any concerns one might have in an attitude of humility and loyalty.  But it is not permissible to put oneself into a state of public opposition to the Church, to refuse to submit to what she requires, or to treat even her non-definitive teaching as if it were a mere non-binding opinion one is free to disagree with if one finds some alternative view more probable.

But the Church has always struggled with "dissent" in her ranks.  There have been many classic examples throughout history.  We can think of St. Cyprian's refusal to accept Pope St. Stephen's ruling on the baptism of heretics.  (Even the "saints" are not always perfect!)  We can think of the Jansenists, who refused to accept that Cornelius Jansen's book contained heresy even after the Church repeatedly proclaimed officially and formally that it did.  We can think of the Gallicans, who continued to insist that a General Council could contradict and correct a Pope despite centuries of Church and papal teaching to the contrary.  It is helpful to remember that issues we face today are seldom new, but have been present throughout history.  This can illuminate our understanding of our own times, and it can also illuminate our understanding of the past.  (For example, we can think of anti-Catholic apologists who use examples from the earlier days of the Church like that of St. Cyprian's opposition to Pope Stephen in order to support a claim that the early Fathers did not hold a view acknowledging the authority of the papacy, despite plenty of other evidence to the contrary.  They fail to note that even today, plenty of Catholics, such as those in the SSPX, who profess the high view of papal authority and infallibility articulated at Vatican I, are quite capable of inconsistently putting themselves in a position of opposition to the Pope and to the Church for various reasons.)

Let us strive by God's grace to humbly submit to the authority of the Church founded by Christ himself, to all her Magisterium, and to the Chair of St. Peter.

For more, see here.