What is the place of dissent in the church? (Catholic Family Feud).

Today the word dissent is usually employed as an accusation in the church. There is of clerical sexual abuse and its handling derives directly from a "culture of dissent." Others rail against dissenters who are disobedient to the magisterium or rebel against papal directives. By contrast, "liberals" love to point out the dissident nature of those "conservatives" who resist aspects of papal or episcopal social teachings.

Can we get some perspective about this highly charged word in current Catholic discourse? It would be well to begin with what ought to be obvious, namely, that criticism of certain forms of church discipline does not constitute dissent. Nor is it a matter of dissent if someone competent proposes some new approach to articulating church doctrine in a critical but loving fashion. Nor is it dissent to criticize certain statements coming from the Vatican when such statements do not possess the hallmarks of authoritative teaching.

All would agree that there can be no discussion when it comes to the creedal articulations of the church or defined doctrines of faith. The more central the doctrine, the less room there is for dissent. That is what the church means when it speaks of a hierarchy (or order) of truths. One may try to articulate better the statements of the creed--that is a theological task--but one cannot remain a Catholic and deny their truth.

A person may deny the trinitarian nature of God but one cannot make such a denial and be a Catholic. Similarly, there can be an advance in the church's moral understanding so that if one wishes to affirm the legitimacy of capital punishment to day one is dissenting from the clear direction of Catholic moral thought, notwithstanding the fact that the Papal States employed an executioner well into the 19th century. Not to put too fine a point on it: One needs to keep sharp the distinction between the desire to clarify doctrinal or moral formulations from open denials of well-defined articulations of faith and practice.

Second, there are patently moments when it is possible or even obligatory for people to dissent from certain church practices. It is perfectly legitimate for someone to say that clerical celibacy ought to be abolished for the diocesan priesthood and not be a dissenter. It may even be demanded to say that this or that bishop ought to resign for abuses of power in office as has happened in fact quite recently.

A gray area frequently occurs with respect to moral questions for which clarity is not immediately obtained as, for example, in current discussions about certain reproductive technologies. It is the wise policy of the church to allow these discussions to mature before making some official intervention.

With the word dissent thrown about with such abandon, it is well to remember that discussion is not dissent and critical thinking is not heresy. Likewise, there also comes a moment when all must stand together and profess the Creed--the Creed is not a discussion, it is both an act of faith and a communal prayer.

Finally, it does great harm to the church to make unwarranted charges of dissent or heresy when, in fact, persons may be exercising their right to raise questions or challenge ideas that do not touch on the core of the faith. There is far too much of that sort of disedifying behavior in the church today.

By LAWRENCE S. CUNNINGHAM, professor of theology at the University of Notre Dame.