MODELS - LINKS
MODELS: CREATIVE SAVING DIALOG
Note: We are looking for original sources for creating a "Least Harm" conversation and some guidelines and examples of how to do this. We do not need to do "tit for tat" here, trying to prove our point. SEND YOUR ENTRIES TO ME: firstname.lastname@example.org THANKS!
NOTE: THIS SECTION OBVIOUSLY WAS CREATED FOR WORKING WITHIN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. AS OF DECEMBER 2013, THIS IS NO LONGER A PLACE TO CARRY ON WORK WITHIN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ALONE. THE "OFFICIAL DOCTRINE" LOGGED HERE ORIGINALLY IS QUITE INTERESTING IF YOU ARE TALKING WITH CONVINCED CATHOLICS ABOUT DISSENT IN THE EARLY CHURCH. WE INVITE SUBMISSIONS ABOUT LOVING DIALOG BETWEEN ALL GROUPS.
LUMEN GENTIUM - DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH -
"The body of the faithful as a whole, anointed as they are by the Holy One, cannot err in matters of belief...thanks to a supernatural sense of faith which characterizes the people as a whole..." Ch.2.12ff "Christ, the great prophet...continually fulfills his prophetic office...not only through the hierarchy who teach in his name...but also through the laity." Ch. 4.35ff
GALATIANS 2:11-14 (Jerusalem Bible) "When Cephas came to Antioch, however, I opposed him to his face, since he was manifestly in the wrong. His custom had been to eat with the pagans, but after certain friends of James arrived he stopped doing this and kept away from them altogether for fear of the group that insisted on circumcisions. The other Jews joined him in this pretense, and even Barnabas felt himself obliged to copy their behaviour.
When I saw they were not respecting the true meaning of the Good News, I said to Cephas in front of everyone, 'In spite of being a Jew, you live like the pagans and not like the Jews, so you have no right to make the pagans copy Jewish ways.'"
NOTE by Tom: direct rather than silent/behind the back confrontation is what Paul used, calling out the error, a contradiction of Jesus' practice and Peter's own practices elsewhere. Could even be a charge of hypocrisy. Obviously this handling of dissent was not destructive but constructive and healing took place in the end. Neither seems to have used any violent methods of dissent that took over in the later millennia even until today with the threats of excommunication, job loss, silence. We should insist on dissenting openly but in love, doing "the least harm".
CANON LAW Book II, Title I, Sect. 212, par iii §3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they (the laity) have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.