Contemplating 'Dissent"

The root word of dissent comes from the Latin ‘dissentire’ (dis, sentire = feel) dis expresses negation. The closest meaning in English would be ‘feel not-the-same’. So, if it is true that the thought comes first and then the feeling, we have thought differently – in a particular instance. We can only engage with one thought at a time and therefore one feeling at a time, so I surmise that dissent means thinking differently from a specific thought or series of thoughts of another. The word does not, therefore, take on an antagonistic meaning for me - as in being negatively against some other thought, opinion, doctrine, whatever. This would be taking a very narrow view of the concept of dissent and what most people who are seen as dissenters are about. It would also mean being intolerant.

If we take the whole package of thinking resulting in doctrine, dogma etc of the historical church, we can see logically that thinking has changed. Today we describe this as fresh insights, specifically: new theological insights, or a growing consciousness taking place, evolving constantly and consistently. So if that is true, what is happening is a loyal dissent at some level of authority or another. It is loyal dissent because, at the same time, the dissenter is not rejecting basic creedal truths. The dissenter thinks differently, as a result of personal and collective experience, from conclusions reached previously. This clearly includes those of the historically formed institution we call Church, and involving various movements and doctrines.

This leads to defining ‘loyal dissent’. Loyalty is initially a commitment to a person, the initiator of a movement. Religious loyalty must be given primarily to the God of one’s understanding. Christian loyalty is given to the second person of the blessed Trinity. Humanly speaking that can only apply if we are gifted with Faith. All other loyalties as Christians must take secondary place to Jesus, the Christ and, I believe, grow out of this primary loyalty.

Dissenters love the Body of Christ passionately because they see themselves as belonging to that Body and nothing except a personal act of free will can separate them from that Body. Always a good example of ‘loyal dissent’ is St Francis of Assisi. He even forbade his followers to become priests! Why? So much has been written about him (more even than Jesus) that I leave it to anyone interested to find the answer themselves!

For me being dissident is a becoming, a journey into becoming who I am in God. Awareness dawns and develops that not one single human being can be defined by anyone or anything outside of Self created in the image of God. The dissent begins by allowing Wisdom to show that you cannot conform unthinkingly to the views, opinions, expectations about who you should be that come from outside. The more authentic you become, the more authentically you are living, and parallel to this grows the knowing who you are in God – which is endless.

The freedom of will which is such a precious gift from God – given to all mortal beings - allows me also to question everything. God did not make robots to be programmed with someone else’s truth coming from a level of consciousness that is developing. This is why, paradoxically, I believe in absolute Truth, but at the same time – bearing in mind the evolvement of consciousness – our, the Church included, expression of absolute Truth changes, grows, develops. The mystics seem to understand this as: absolute truth resides in an ineffable, unknowable, apophatic mystery that we label God!

Legalists want dissidents to conform to authoritarian thinking and obey blindly.

We have to look at the institutional Church, even as earthly Body of Christ, as being in a state of continuous development and change. The Apostles and disciples of the first two centuries would be completely unfamiliar with the Church today. The Church two centuries from now will be different in many respects from the Church we know today. As with any individual this process of growth entails a process of selection, assimilation, and rejection. If it were not capable of change, development, and transformation, the Church could never be the Body of Christ; it would be a robot. (This paragraph is paraphrased from the book by John Harriot, SJ: Fields of Praise, chapter headed Tolerance.)

So I look at this word ‘obey’, in order to see where it fits in with dissidence. (No one answered the question posed by Lynette Paterson in a letter to the Southern Cross: Are obedience and loyalty selective?)

In doing so I conclude that we cannot obey without first understanding. The word ‘obey’ is rooted in the Latin ‘obed‘ from ‘obedire’: Ob: prefix meaning towards or against (paradoxical) and ‘audire’ = ‘hear’. In English literally meaning “towards hearing” or “against hearing” but comprehensively ‘obey’ is a recommendation to understand a rule, command etc. etc. thereafter follows acquiescence (or not). With understanding a clearer choice follows as to what we should or should not do. God always asks for a free response, a free choice.

What has to take place before understanding is achieved?

If we blindly follow the precepts of official Church leadership - yes even the Magisterium - without questioning, we are not exercising God-given free will and intellect. We would then be in the situation of sinful obedience because we have not done what we ought to do first and ‘hear’ the edict. If we obey blindly we are nothing more than formula Catholics formed by the whim of authority (Robots).

I think what I am also saying is that we are then telling the Holy Spirit: You have no place in me, neither in my mind nor in my heart - a disastrous state to be in, not so?

Now I can almost hear the loud question: So where is my belief in the Holy Spirit in all this? Simply, the Holy Spirit blows where she will, in me as much as in anyone including those with great authority or gigantic knowledge. By reason of our baptism the Spirit of Christ is within. Out of this comes an informed conscience.