George Weigel has written an excellent article titled, The “Truce of 1968,” Once Again.
Weigel introduces the article with the following explanation:
In 1968, Cardinal Patrick O’Boyle of Washington, D.C., disciplined nineteen priests who had publicly dissented from Pope Paul VI’s teaching in the encyclical Humanae Vitae. Three years later, the Vatican’s Congregation for the Clergy decreed that Cardinal O’Boyle should lift canonical penalties against those priests who informed the cardinal privately that they agreed that the Church’s teaching on “the objective evil of contraception” was “an authentic expression of (the) magisterium.”
Weigel contends that although there was already a widespread rejection of Humanae Vitae among Catholics, "The Truce of 1968 taught theologians, priests, and other Church professionals that dissent from authoritative teaching was, essentially, cost-free."
He also suggests the decision made it "far harder for those prepared to explain and defend the Church’s teaching to do so."
What do you think? Was this truce a demonstration of wisdom, or did it open the door for further dissent on Humanae Vitae and other Church teachings?
We all know that the Church has been reluctant to discipline dissenters, so this article is not really a surprise. The question is, why? To prevent schism? In what way is a de facto schism better than an open one? It seems to me that an open schism is to be preferred, because then the lines are clear and those who want to remain faithful to Christ know to stay in His Church.
Now, things aren't so clear. Those who don't know the truth are more easily deceived into believing false doctrines disguised as Catholicism because the ones spreading the error claim to be Catholic.
Posted by: john chrysostom | Sunday, April 30, 2006 at 02:50 PM
My guess is that, given the nature of the 60's and the post-Vatican II dynamism, Huamanae Vitae would have had the same reaction and post-reaction with or without the truce of 68.
I am the lector for the first reading on May 21 which is the controversial baptism of the Gentile Cornelius and his family. As I read it, I was reminded that controversy about Church doctrine and practices flares up now and then through history as we continue to fully discern the full revelation of Christ. Vatican II started the latest flare up. We are still in it, although I think the next status quo approaches in the next decade. The challenge and danger is to stay the course with truth as we add to our discernment. It's a tricky matter frought with danger. May God guide us.
Posted by: David | Tuesday, May 02, 2006 at 11:01 AM