Jeannine Gramick and associate adhere to an erroneous interpretation of the sensus fidelium

In an article for The Washington Post entitled "A Catholic case for same-sex marriage," Jeannine Gramick and Francis DeBernardo write, "As Catholics who are involved in lesbian and gay ministry and outreach, we are aware that many people, some of them Catholics, believe that Catholics cannot faithfully disobey the public policies of the church’s hierarchy. But this is not the case. The Catholic Church is not a democracy, but neither is it a dictatorship. Ideally, our bishops should strive to proclaim the sensus fidelium , the faith as it is understood by the whole church. At the moment, however, the bishops and the majority of the church are at odds. A survey published in September by the Public Religion Research Institute found that 52 percent of Catholics support marriage equality and 69 percent support civil unions..." (See full article here).

As Wikipedia relates, "After a review of her [Jeannine Gramick's] public activities on behalf of the Church that concluded in a finding of grave doctrinal error, the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) declared in 1999 that she should no longer be engaged in pastoral work with lesbian and gay persons. In 2000, her congregation, in an attempt to thwart further conflict with the Vatican, commanded her not to speak publicly about homosexuality. She responded by saying, "I choose not to collaborate in my own oppression by restricting a basic human right [to speak]. To me this is a matter of conscience."

So intelligent Catholics will take anything Gramick has to say cum grano salis.  What is most interesting is that Gramick, who could never be accused of being a scholar, first acknowledges that, "The Catholic Church is not a democracy" and then proceeds to assure us that, "a survey published..by the Public Religion Research Institute found that 52 percent of Catholics support marriage equality and 69 percent support civil unions."

What difference do these statistics make if the Catholic Church is not a democracy [and it is not]?  Gramick wants us to believe that the "sensus fidelium," "the faith as it is understood by the whole church," is calling for acceptance of homosexual unions.  But Gramick's understanding of the sensus fidelium is about as cogent as her understanding of Catholic moral teaching.

What does the Church mean by the sensus fidelium? We [those of us who are still sane] find an excellent explanation from the pen of Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J. In The Catholic Catechism - A Contemporary Catechism of the Teachings of the Catholic Church. Fr. Hardon explains that: "Those who believe, and insofar as they believe, are one community not only or mainly because they subjectively believe but because what they believe is objectively true, indeed is the Truth that became man and dwelled among us. Against this background, it is easier to see what universal agreement among the faithful must mean. They are faithful insofar as they are agreed on the truth, where the source of their agreement is not a semantic use of the name 'Christian' or 'Catholic,' but the deeply interior adherence to what God has revealed.

Consequently, whether they realize it or not, all who agree on the revealed truth, under the guidance of the sacred magisterium, belong to the faithful. Their agreement on the truth and allegiance to the magisterium gives them universality, i.e., spiritual unity. The truth interiorly possessed gives them consensus, and not the other way around, as though their consensus on some doctrine made it true." (pp. 226-227).

There are those within the Church, like the imbecilic Gramick, who would appeal to the sensus fidelium in an attempt to justify dissent. Their argument is that if a significant portion of those who identify themselves as Catholics hold or adhere to a dissenting opinion, the Holy Father and Bishops should submit their minds and wills to that group's opinion. In other words, such people would have us believe that the sensus fidelium is something independent of the Magisterium.  This is simply a back-door approach toward making the Church a democracy.

Such an attitude is in direct opposition to the teaching of Vatican II:

"The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One (cf. Jn 2:20, 27), cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the whole people's supernatural discernment in matters of faith when 'from the bishops down to the last of the lay faithful' they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals. That discernment in matters of faith is aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth. It is exercised under the guidance of the sacred teaching authority, in faithful and respectful obedience to which the People of God accepts that which is not just the word of men but truly the Word of God (cf. 1 Thes. 2:13). Through it, the People of God adheres unwaveringly to the faith given once and for all to the saints (cf. Jude 3), penetrates it more deeply with right thinking, and applies it more fully in its life." (Lumen Gentium, No. 12; citing St. Augustine, De Praed. Sanct. 14, 27:PL 44, 980).

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, had this to say: "Although theological faith as such then cannot err, the believer can still have erroneous opinions since all his thoughts do not spring from faith. Not all the ideas which circulate among the People of God are compatible with the faith. This is all the more so given that people can be swayed by a public opinion influenced by modern communications media" (No. 35).

Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria for 45 years, opposed emperors and a world in love with heresy by patiently presenting and defending the truth of Christ's divinity.  Such was his fortitude in opposing the multitudes who preached heresy that he was exiled five times and suffered intense persecution.  But because he remained faithful to Revelation, against what Jeannine Gramick would incorrectly term the "sensus fidelium," history has crowned him Athanasius Victor contra mundum: Athanasius Conqueror of the world of heretics.

No, Jeannine Gramick and associate fail to make a Catholic case for same-sex "marriage."  But they do make a strong case for the idea that some Catholics should be fitted for a straight-jacket.

The truth....but only in small doses

The history of the Church testifies to the truth that men have a natural inclination to divide Christ's Deposit of Faith and to choose only what they want to believe. For those who are Catholic in more than name (a much smaller group than most realize), all questions of faith or morals are answered in a Deposit of Faith (Depositum Fidei) which has been revealed by God and entrusted to a Custodian (the Church's Magisterium) established by God Himself which has been endowed with infallible protection against any change or error.

But for the Catholic in name only, the reason for belief is private judgment rather than the infallible teaching authority established by God. The issue, ultimately, is who speaks for the Church? Who has the authority to speak in the name of Christ and to settle disputes which may arise within the Mystical Body of Christ? Vatican II, in its Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, No. 10, teaches authoritatively that: "...the task of authentically interpreting the Word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, 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."

If one is to be faithful to Christ and His Church, one cannot assert that what the Magisterium teaches is false and that the faithful are free to reject this teaching and substitute it with their own opinions or those of theologians. But this is precisely what dissent entails. The dissident looks upon the moral teachings of the Magisterium as mere legalistic rules instead of seeing them for what they really are: beautiful truths intended to enable the People of God to live the Christ Life.

Dissent represents an act of violence directed against Christ's faithful. Pope John Paul II drove this point home in his Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor (No. 113) when he said, "Dissent, in the form of carefully orchestrated protests and polemics carried on in the media, is opposed to ecclesial communion and to a correct understanding of the hierarchical constitution of the People of God." Dissent represents an act of violence because it violates "the right of the faithful to receive Catholic doctrine in its purity and integrity.." (VS, 113).

If one is to remain faithful to Christ and His Church, one can expect to encounter opposition even within the Church. There are many who can only tolerate the truth in small doses. We may find ourselves very unpopular because we insist upon accepting everything in the Deposit of Faith and because we defend the same. We may find ourselves in a minority. Even alone. But the majority is not always right. A lynch mob is a majority. As Father Joseph Esper reminds us:

"We can also suffer unpopularity because of our honest efforts to serve God and oppose wickedness. This was the experience of the great fourth-century defender of the Faith St. Athanasius. He almost singlehandedly preserved the Church from the heresy of Arianism, which denied the divinity of Christ. Because many bishops and important laypeople (including some emperors) favored Arianism, Athanasius frequently found himself under attack and was exiled for many of his forty-six years as a bishop." (Saintly Solutions to Life's Common Problems," p. 333).

Athanasius found himself pretty much alone. He wa greatly outnumbered. He was opposed by the "important" people. But they were wrong. And he was right. Nothing will ever change that.

Are we prepared to be saints? If so, we must be prepared to stand "alone." Of course, we are not really alone. When God is with us, who can be against us? Being popular is over-rated. The crowd chose Barabbas. Did they choose wisely?