Sr. Margaret Farley and Dissent
July 9, 2012
R.R. Reno
The New York Times styled it a “denunciation.” The National Catholic Reporter saw it as part of the Vatican’s supposed “war on women.” The ever-reliable Paul Lakeland of Fairfield intoned that it was “a black day in the history of the Church.”
What triggered this outrage? In early June the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican bureaucracy responsible for weighing in on questions of faith and morals, put out a “Notification” that censured Just Love: A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics, a 2006 book about sexual ethics by Sr. Margaret Farley.
In her effort to formulate a substantive sexual ethic, Sr. Farley makes arguments for conclusions that contradict the established teaching of the Catholic Church. For example, she argues: in most cases masturbation is not a moral problem; divorce can sometimes be okay; homosexual acts can legitimately express human love; and support for gay marriage can be an important way of promoting social justice. By and large, in Just Love Sr. Farley presumes that the Church’s current teaching on sexual morality is unworkable, and in some cases unjust.
Rome’s conclusion therefore follows directly: “The Congregation warns the faithful that her book Just Love: A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics is not in conformity with the teaching of the Church. Consequently, it cannot be used as a valid expression of Catholic teaching, either in counseling and formation, or in ecumenical or interreligious dialogue.”
Is this an explosive revelation? When considering a book that contradicts the Church’s teaching, the Church says . . . it contradicts Church teaching. Sr. Farley says as much herself. “I do not dispute,” she wrote in response to the Vatican’s assessment of her book, “the judgment that some of the positions contained within it are not in accord with current official Catholic teaching.”
This forthrightness fits with what I know of Sr. Farley. She was one of my teachers in graduate school at Yale. There were no politically correct denunciations of the dead white men of the past. On the contrary, she taught a class on the history of Christian ethics that treated St. Augustine, St. Thomas, Martin Luther, and others with accuracy and sympathy. I was expected to know what the tradition taught.
But Sr. Farley disagrees with some of what the tradition has taught about sexual morality, and she says as much in her book. She doesn’t think it works very well, at least not with contemporary men and women. As she puts it: “Christians (and others) have achieved new knowledge and deeper understanding of human embodiment and sexuality.”
The sorts of people who go to Yale Divinity School think this way. Lots of people think this way, perhaps a supermajority in certain circles. And so she wrote a book for them, trying to develop “sexual ethics based on the discernment of what counts as wise, truthful, and recognizably just loves.”
Fine. It’s a good thing for them to have a moral discipline for their sexual lives. And Sr. Farley is certainly entitled to follow her conscience, which in this case led her to positions at odds with the Catholic Church, and for that matter at odds with the larger Christian tradition, as well as the testimony of many other religions.
The authority of conscience is something the Church affirms unequivocally. But this does not create the “right to dissent” insisted on by the Catholic Trade Union for Dissent, also known as the Catholic Theological Society of America. All baptized Catholics are responsible to the Church. This is all the more true of those who hold official roles as priest, teachers, and members of religious orders.
Sr. Farley is not only a scholar and teacher whom I came to admire as a student. She is not only a women of great integrity and personal warmth whose opinions I respect. (More than twenty years ago I refrained from publishing a paper on the death penalty that I had written because of her comments.) She is a nun, and a Catholic professor. Her dissent cannot be merely personal. It has a corporate dimension that entails a corporate responsibility.
Sr. Farley believes that her contradictions of Church teaching reflect a continuing loyalty to what she sees as the deeper truths affirmed by the tradition. That’s why she regards her dissent as loyal.
While I disagree with her ethical reasoning in Just Love and think the Vatican's censure entirely fitting, I agree that her dissent is loyal. As a teacher she never took the usual liberal Catholic approach, which imagines that arguing for conclusions contrary to the teachings of the Church reflects the only true and genuinely Catholic way of thinking. Think Fr. James F. Keenan. Nor has she tried to wage an all-out public relations campaign in the popular media. Think Fr. Charles Curran and many other clerics who have turned dissent into a professional identity. On the contrary, she has refused to lend her voice to the various efforts to turn the Vatican’s censure into a cause célebre.
The Church will always face dissent, which, properly governed by prudence, she rightly censures. That’s the Church’s spiritual responsibility as our teacher. Meanwhile, if our consciences draw us into dissent—and there is no guarantee that they won’t—we have a very different responsibility. Will our dissent, however wayward its arguments and false its conclusion, be ordered toward the service of the Church—or will our dissent serve our egos? I admire Sr. Farley for answering that question the way I hope I would.
R.R. Reno is Editor of First Things. He is the general editor of the Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible and author of the volume on Genesis. His previous “On the Square” articles can be found here.
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
7.9.2012 | 1:33am
Howard Kainz says:
This is a bit confusing. You agree with the Church in rejecting Sr. Farley's views on sexuality, but you defend her right to foster dissenting views on Catholic doctrine because she is more courteous and thoughtful than Fr. Curran, Daniel Maguire, and other dissenters. Many dissenting theologians are equally circumspect in what they say and how they say it, especially when they teach these same ideas in Catholic universities.
7.9.2012 | 12:26pm
Michael PS says:
Even in the case of the definitions of Popes and Councils (and very few of these deal with moral questions), Blessed John Henry Newman observes, “As to the condemnation of propositions all she tells us is, that the thesis condemned when taken as a whole, or, again, when viewed in its context, is heretical, or blasphemous, or impious, or whatever like epithet she affixes to it. We have only to trust her so far as to allow ourselves to be warned against the thesis, or the work containing it. Theologians employ themselves in determining what precisely it is that is condemned in that thesis or treatise; and doubtless in most cases they do so with success; but that determination is not de fide; all that is of faith is that there is in that thesis itself, which is noted, heresy or error, or other like peccant matter, as the case may be, such, that the censure is a peremptory command to theologians, preachers, students, and all other whom it concerns, to keep clear of it. But so light is this obligation, that instances frequently occur, when it is successfully maintained by some new writer, that the Pope's act does not imply what it has seemed to imply, and questions which seemed to be closed, are after a course of years re-opened. In discussions such as these, there is a real exercise of private judgment and an allowable one; the act of faith, which cannot be superseded or trifled with, being, I repeat, the unreserved acceptance that the thesis in question is heretical, or the like, as the Pope or the Church has spoken of it.”
7.9.2012 | 12:44pm
MacGabhann says:
"the judgment that some of the positions contained within it are not in accord with current official Catholic teaching.”
Surely she shows disloyalty in this weaseling use of words? What Catholic teaching is not official? And what does she wish to suggest by "current"? Was there EVER a time when these positions were not in accord with Catholic teaching?
“Christians (and others) have achieved new knowledge and deeper understanding of human embodiment and sexuality.”
How pompous? What "deeper understanding" does she presume to appropriate to herself "and others" over against the historical Church?
Surely she shows disloyalty in this weaseling use of words? What Catholic teaching is not official? And what does she wish to suggest by "current"? Was there EVER a time when these positions were not in accord with Catholic teaching?
“Christians (and others) have achieved new knowledge and deeper understanding of human embodiment and sexuality.”
How pompous? What "deeper understanding" does she presume to appropriate to herself "and others" over against the historical Church?
7.9.2012 | 1:25pm
Ed says:
Howard Kainz raises a valid point. In "The Antichrist", Vinect Miceli, S.J., stresses that antichrist will act with stealth.
7.9.2012 | 1:25pm
Paul Lakeland says:
A nicely nuanced piece, though I think a great deal of dissent is ordered to the service of the Church, at least in the perspective of the dissenter. Indeed, if it isn't then I don't know what the dissent is for. Very little dissent is inspired by ego and the kind of reception it gets is usually anything other than receptive or respectful. And thanks for calling me "ever-reliable." I guess you must know that I am a reliable long-time subscriber!
7.9.2012 | 1:26pm
David Novak says:
I appreciate Dr. Reno's honest treatment of Sr. Margaret Farley. And, from what he has written about her, it seems she might well appreciate how his integrity matches hers, which is one of the main points in his disagreement with her, one that distinguishes between ad rem and ad hominem criticism. Like Reno, I also agree with the Vatican's opposition to her views on sexual morality. Unlike Reno, though, it is not because I am a loyal Catholic, but rather for two other reasons: (1) The Church's views on sexual morality (with the exception of her views on celibacy) all come from the Church's decision to remain faithful to the scripturally based Jewish Tradition (my tradition) on this (and other) question(s). (2) The teaching of he Church-cum-Jewish Tradition on the questions Sr. Margaret disputes are rationally evident, i.e., natural law (which the Jewish Tradition acknowledges, albeit often by other names).
7.9.2012 | 2:59pm
Pete says:
This is good article. I was a student at YDS some years ago and similarly found Sr. Farley to be a woman of great character, even tho I disagreed with her views on certain topics. I agree with Kainz that this does not mean that Farley has a right to teach at a Catholic university, but I don't think Reno's article is saying that she has such a right. Indeed, I doubt that she would claim for herself such a right. (In contrast to Curran, who filed a lawsuit claiming a contractual right to teach Catholic theology at CUA.) In any case, Farley spent her whole career at Yale Divinity School, which is not a Catholic institution.
7.9.2012 | 3:18pm
TradCathPhilProf says:
I had thought better of you than this Dr. Reno. While there are better and worse ways to dissent, Sr. Farley is substantively wrong on a magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church. Conscience is not some unattached soverign power; like everything else it is subject to the authority of God and His Church. In this case, there can be no doubt that she has a duty to conform, not only her actions, but her thinking to that authority. If she persists in her present path, as by all accounts she is doing, she is simply a heretic, and holding the position she does, shes is also quite likely to cause scandal and lead others into heresy.
7.9.2012 | 4:17pm
David Nickol says:
This is one of the better commentaries I have read about Sr. Farley. One can wrestle endlessly with the issue of what a Catholic theologian's duties are when he or she disagrees with the Church. Must Catholic theologians toe the line even when they disagree? Must they keep silent? Publish anonymously? Could there ever be "development of doctrine" if all Catholics were duty bound to only repeat what the last generation said? I don't know that there are any definitive answers to those questions. But the situation with Sr. Farley is not a hypothetical situation. All the debates in the world won't unpublish her works. And she is highly regarded both personally and professionally. She wrote what she wrote. The CDF spoke. She responded. In many ways, it's over. No doubt theologians find scrutiny by the CDF even less enjoyable than taxpayers find being audited by the IRS, but she has not been silenced. She has not been disciplined. One can now choose to read her work or avoid it. The controversy resulted in a lot of copies of Just Love being sold, but I suspect not all of them will be read. Life goes on.
7.9.2012 | 7:15pm
Gil says:
"She wrote what she wrote. The CDF spoke. She responded. In many ways, it's over."
Not really. Catholics involved in promoting, especially among youth, the principles of the sexual liberation movement, have some new heavy artillery in decimating the lives of those youth.
I believe that when a nun or a priest conclude that the magisterium is wrong on the Church’s teaching on faith and morals, especially teachings that involve the decimation of human lives, they should leave religious life or the priesthood and begin their rebellion, no matter how good mannered they might be in their rebellion. Tradition has been more tolerant of lay theologians exercising a conscience clause because they do not possess assigned magisterial authority in the minds of the faithful, especially youth, when speaking the mind of the Church. I suppose vows of obedience to the magisterium by those possessing authority is becoming a thing of the past, but this will only lead to more extensive damage.
Not really. Catholics involved in promoting, especially among youth, the principles of the sexual liberation movement, have some new heavy artillery in decimating the lives of those youth.
I believe that when a nun or a priest conclude that the magisterium is wrong on the Church’s teaching on faith and morals, especially teachings that involve the decimation of human lives, they should leave religious life or the priesthood and begin their rebellion, no matter how good mannered they might be in their rebellion. Tradition has been more tolerant of lay theologians exercising a conscience clause because they do not possess assigned magisterial authority in the minds of the faithful, especially youth, when speaking the mind of the Church. I suppose vows of obedience to the magisterium by those possessing authority is becoming a thing of the past, but this will only lead to more extensive damage.
7.9.2012 | 8:17pm
Kathy Trossbach says:
Margaret Farley gave a lucid and logical treatment to the ethical approach to love, I thought. Much that is known today about mental & physical health, culture, and well being was not known in other times & places. Rules benefit from updating.
7.9.2012 | 8:33pm
Justin Legault says:
This is more than a bit confusing; it proposes an incoherent criterion of loyalty in dissent. According to Mr. Reno, Sr. Farley rightly regards her dissent as loyal because although she contradicts some truths of the Catholic faith, she is loyal to "what she sees as deeper truths affirmed by the tradition."
But if individuals can choose on the authority of their own conscience which teachings to accept and which to reject, how is it possible for them ever to be disloyal? Suppose I insist that Christ's humanity is the deepest truth affirmed by tradition, and then argue against his divinity. By Sr. Farley's standards, I am loyal to the Catholic tradition. In fact, so long as I accept any one teaching proposed by tradition, I can reject all others, and remain loyal. This criterion renders null and void all the anathemas ever pronounced at any ecumenical council.
Furthermore, the distinctions Mr. Reno tries to make between Sr. Farley's behaviour and that of Keenan, Curran, and company cannot stand scrutiny. Sr. Farley is supposedly loyal because, unlike Curran, she has not "tried to wage an all-out public relations campaign in the popular media." She hasn't needed to, since others are doing so on her behalf (for example, in the New York Times and The Guardian). Moreover, Sr. Farley has conspicuously failed to repudiate their efforts. Far from publicly defending the magisterium's right to censure her, far from refusing "to lend her voice to the various efforts to turn the Vatican’s censure into a cause célebre," she has instead publicly characterized that censure as an attempt to use power to settle questions of truth, and questioned whether any such attempt can be consistent with the Catholic tradition. How is such questioning any different from "the usual liberal Catholic approach"? And please note where she publicly repudiated her censure: at a special hour long session of the CTSA devoted to discussing the Vatican's critique--the same Catholic Theological Society of America that Mr. Reno himself calls "the Catholic Trade Union of Dissent." And the CTSA greeted Sr. Farley's comments with a standing ovation. Were the theologians present, like Mr. Reno, applauding her loyalty to the magisterium? Absurd, absurd, absurd.
Christ taught with authority. He settled questions of truth and justice, not by debate or argument, but on his own say-so, and confirmed his authority with acts of power. The Catholic tradition has always been that Christ gave his Church the authority to bind and loose in his name. There can be no loyalty to the Catholic tradition, and on the traditional view, no loyalty to Christ, when one rejects, as Sr. Farley clearly does, the Church's authority to settle questions of truth, or when one claims, as Sr. Farley also does, to know more about human beings and the universe than was revealed by Christ in the first century.
But if individuals can choose on the authority of their own conscience which teachings to accept and which to reject, how is it possible for them ever to be disloyal? Suppose I insist that Christ's humanity is the deepest truth affirmed by tradition, and then argue against his divinity. By Sr. Farley's standards, I am loyal to the Catholic tradition. In fact, so long as I accept any one teaching proposed by tradition, I can reject all others, and remain loyal. This criterion renders null and void all the anathemas ever pronounced at any ecumenical council.
Furthermore, the distinctions Mr. Reno tries to make between Sr. Farley's behaviour and that of Keenan, Curran, and company cannot stand scrutiny. Sr. Farley is supposedly loyal because, unlike Curran, she has not "tried to wage an all-out public relations campaign in the popular media." She hasn't needed to, since others are doing so on her behalf (for example, in the New York Times and The Guardian). Moreover, Sr. Farley has conspicuously failed to repudiate their efforts. Far from publicly defending the magisterium's right to censure her, far from refusing "to lend her voice to the various efforts to turn the Vatican’s censure into a cause célebre," she has instead publicly characterized that censure as an attempt to use power to settle questions of truth, and questioned whether any such attempt can be consistent with the Catholic tradition. How is such questioning any different from "the usual liberal Catholic approach"? And please note where she publicly repudiated her censure: at a special hour long session of the CTSA devoted to discussing the Vatican's critique--the same Catholic Theological Society of America that Mr. Reno himself calls "the Catholic Trade Union of Dissent." And the CTSA greeted Sr. Farley's comments with a standing ovation. Were the theologians present, like Mr. Reno, applauding her loyalty to the magisterium? Absurd, absurd, absurd.
Christ taught with authority. He settled questions of truth and justice, not by debate or argument, but on his own say-so, and confirmed his authority with acts of power. The Catholic tradition has always been that Christ gave his Church the authority to bind and loose in his name. There can be no loyalty to the Catholic tradition, and on the traditional view, no loyalty to Christ, when one rejects, as Sr. Farley clearly does, the Church's authority to settle questions of truth, or when one claims, as Sr. Farley also does, to know more about human beings and the universe than was revealed by Christ in the first century.
7.9.2012 | 9:32pm
G says:
David Novak writes: “The teaching of the Church-cum-Jewish Tradition on the questions Sr. Margaret disputes are rationally evident, i.e., natural law (which the Jewish Tradition acknowledges, albeit often by other names).”
I am, however, very wary of attributing the idea of natural law to ‘the Jewish tradition’ – at least with regard to the Torah laws regarding sexual practice. After all, the Jewish tradition is and always has been a very diverse mix of positions. Thus, it is not true that all Jewish authorities – ancient or modern – take the Torah’s ruling on sexual practice to be matters which are rationally evident.
The early rabbinic commentary, the Sifra, classes the laws regarding forbidden sexual relationships as Divine ‘decrees’ (as opposed to rational ethical laws) which should be classed along with the other non-rational decrees such as the laws forbidding Jews to eat certain foods, and the law forbidding Jews to wear clothes which mix wool and linen (Sifra, Kedoshim, 20:26). Thus it does not take the Torah’s laws regarding sexual practice to be matters of rational natural morality. Later, for example, the great medieval commentator, legalist, and mystic, Nachmanides, said the same thing: “Behold, the [laws regarding] forbidden sexual partners fall under the category of decrees; they are matters decreed by the King. A decree is something that is decided at the King's discretion, for He is wise in the rule of His kingdom and He knows the need for and purpose of the mitzvah that He is commanding, but He does not tell it to the nation, only to the wisest of His advisors” (commentary on Leviticus 18:6).
Thus – contrary to Novaks implication – there is a strong canonical tradition within Judaism which does not accept that many of the Torah’s laws of sexual practice are in any way rationally derivable from a natural morality.
I am, however, very wary of attributing the idea of natural law to ‘the Jewish tradition’ – at least with regard to the Torah laws regarding sexual practice. After all, the Jewish tradition is and always has been a very diverse mix of positions. Thus, it is not true that all Jewish authorities – ancient or modern – take the Torah’s ruling on sexual practice to be matters which are rationally evident.
The early rabbinic commentary, the Sifra, classes the laws regarding forbidden sexual relationships as Divine ‘decrees’ (as opposed to rational ethical laws) which should be classed along with the other non-rational decrees such as the laws forbidding Jews to eat certain foods, and the law forbidding Jews to wear clothes which mix wool and linen (Sifra, Kedoshim, 20:26). Thus it does not take the Torah’s laws regarding sexual practice to be matters of rational natural morality. Later, for example, the great medieval commentator, legalist, and mystic, Nachmanides, said the same thing: “Behold, the [laws regarding] forbidden sexual partners fall under the category of decrees; they are matters decreed by the King. A decree is something that is decided at the King's discretion, for He is wise in the rule of His kingdom and He knows the need for and purpose of the mitzvah that He is commanding, but He does not tell it to the nation, only to the wisest of His advisors” (commentary on Leviticus 18:6).
Thus – contrary to Novaks implication – there is a strong canonical tradition within Judaism which does not accept that many of the Torah’s laws of sexual practice are in any way rationally derivable from a natural morality.
7.10.2012 | 12:48am
Grant Kaplan says:
What is interesting about this piece is that, through personal contact, Dr. Reno came to admire and respect Sr. Farley, his teacher, whom he came to discover was not a typical liberal. Then ad homines are hurled at Charles Curren, James Keenan, and the CTSA (granted, it's not a person, but it has a will).
The kind of thing that those of the "not-numerous center" desperately hope for is a Church where the kind of interaction between a generous Reno and a generous Farley help whittle away at the us vs. them dynamic so destructive to the Body of Christ. Although I've been bitterly disappointed at times in some of my own liberal professors and colleagues, as well as my conservative colleagues, the experience has been much more prevalent, in my nearly twenty years of wading through this mess, of coming to know the deep integrity, honesty, and faithfulness of my intellectual interlocutors.
What people look for far too regularly in the blogosphere is just ugly attacks that make themselves feel better by demonizing the "other." We've all experienced this. It's just not the gospel, unfortunately. And it saddens me deeply that Dr. Reno's generous assessment of Sr. Farley has received such scorn in the comments above.
Let's operate with a hermeneutic of generosity and assume that Sr. Farley is a deeply faithful Catholic who gets no joy whatsoever about dissenting from the Church. Before committing another "mental murder" why don't we try praying for her and for ourselves.
The kind of thing that those of the "not-numerous center" desperately hope for is a Church where the kind of interaction between a generous Reno and a generous Farley help whittle away at the us vs. them dynamic so destructive to the Body of Christ. Although I've been bitterly disappointed at times in some of my own liberal professors and colleagues, as well as my conservative colleagues, the experience has been much more prevalent, in my nearly twenty years of wading through this mess, of coming to know the deep integrity, honesty, and faithfulness of my intellectual interlocutors.
What people look for far too regularly in the blogosphere is just ugly attacks that make themselves feel better by demonizing the "other." We've all experienced this. It's just not the gospel, unfortunately. And it saddens me deeply that Dr. Reno's generous assessment of Sr. Farley has received such scorn in the comments above.
Let's operate with a hermeneutic of generosity and assume that Sr. Farley is a deeply faithful Catholic who gets no joy whatsoever about dissenting from the Church. Before committing another "mental murder" why don't we try praying for her and for ourselves.
7.10.2012 | 2:59am
edmond says:
Sorry Mr. Reno, I need to disagree with your agreement with Sr. Farley. In my own struggle with my own realization of where I need to be in the catholic faith, I know that there is nothing that gets you out of confusion clearer than being anchored in church teaching. I have met my own share of Sr. Farleys who claim to belong to progressive nuns and priest teaching theology in catholic schools. It is out of convenience mostly that they try to develop their own theologies. This person I speak of taught theology in a catholic school for two years until they pulled the plug on her. You just need to put your foot down and put them in their place, which the school administration did by banning her from the campus. There is no room for ambiguity when it comes to dogma. There is no other interpretation of church teaching except from those with a secure mastery of church interpretation.
7.10.2012 | 4:59am
Michael PS says:
David Nickol makes a very important point, when he notes that the CDF has censured a work, "Just Love." It has not censured its author. That seems to me a most important distinction.
Moreover, when we examine the terms of that censure itself,the CDF did not see fit to single out and condemn any particular propositions as "heretical," "false," "scandalous," "pernicious in practice," or any of the other condemnations so frequent in pronouncements of the Magisterium. That is significant.
Much as TradCathPhilProf or Gil might have preferred something along the lines of Unigenitus, complete with anathemata and subscription of the clergy, the CDF plainly does not want to create a storm in a teacup. They probably recall the débâcle of Lamentabili and Pascendi and have no wish to repeat it.
Moreover, when we examine the terms of that censure itself,the CDF did not see fit to single out and condemn any particular propositions as "heretical," "false," "scandalous," "pernicious in practice," or any of the other condemnations so frequent in pronouncements of the Magisterium. That is significant.
Much as TradCathPhilProf or Gil might have preferred something along the lines of Unigenitus, complete with anathemata and subscription of the clergy, the CDF plainly does not want to create a storm in a teacup. They probably recall the débâcle of Lamentabili and Pascendi and have no wish to repeat it.
7.10.2012 | 1:34pm
Noel S. McFerran says:
I think that I am correct in saying that Sister Margaret Farley is not a nun. The Sisters of Mercy take simple vows and are properly called sisters. Nuns are members of orders who take solemn vows.
7.10.2012 | 4:07pm
Gil says:
Michael PS,
Regarding your belief that I would have "preferred something along the lines of Unigenitus, complete with anathemata and subscription of the clergy...": that is not my preference. My preference is that faithful Catholics not dig as deep as they can to find some way to make this incident a merely subjective experience that Sr. Farley is having and for us not to carry that over into an objective realm of discussing how her rebellion will have the inevitable outcome of a direct participation in the destruction of human lives, especially the lives of youth, a mistake we are still making since the publication of Humanae Vitae. For example, although we know that children do not have fully developed frontal lobes and therefore cannot be held responsible for the waywardness of masturbation as a mortal sin, it is incumbent upon faithful adults to acknowledge and teach youth and adults that this act is a powerful force in fixing persons in narcissistic self-absorption in a culture that is already rabidly narcissistic, and how the dynamics of masturbation is directly linked to porn addiction, which is directly linked to turning a romantic other into a sex object where intimacy becomes as elusive as depicted in Michelangelo Antonioni’s masterpiece, “L’avventura”. I mention Antonioni because later in life as a genius artist, atheist and gifted intellectual he sought an answer to this dilemma of the inability of couples to arrive as true intimacy outside of Church magisterial wisdom and failed miserably.
I don’t know Sr. Farley, but from what I have read from Dr. Reno, I’m certain she is one of the finer persons one could meet in life. One of my closest friends is an atheist who is also one of the finest persons I have ever met. I also believe there are persons working for Planned Parenthood who are some of the finest persons anyone could meet. Do we become less critical of their dangerous ideas because of that truth?
Regarding your belief that I would have "preferred something along the lines of Unigenitus, complete with anathemata and subscription of the clergy...": that is not my preference. My preference is that faithful Catholics not dig as deep as they can to find some way to make this incident a merely subjective experience that Sr. Farley is having and for us not to carry that over into an objective realm of discussing how her rebellion will have the inevitable outcome of a direct participation in the destruction of human lives, especially the lives of youth, a mistake we are still making since the publication of Humanae Vitae. For example, although we know that children do not have fully developed frontal lobes and therefore cannot be held responsible for the waywardness of masturbation as a mortal sin, it is incumbent upon faithful adults to acknowledge and teach youth and adults that this act is a powerful force in fixing persons in narcissistic self-absorption in a culture that is already rabidly narcissistic, and how the dynamics of masturbation is directly linked to porn addiction, which is directly linked to turning a romantic other into a sex object where intimacy becomes as elusive as depicted in Michelangelo Antonioni’s masterpiece, “L’avventura”. I mention Antonioni because later in life as a genius artist, atheist and gifted intellectual he sought an answer to this dilemma of the inability of couples to arrive as true intimacy outside of Church magisterial wisdom and failed miserably.
I don’t know Sr. Farley, but from what I have read from Dr. Reno, I’m certain she is one of the finer persons one could meet in life. One of my closest friends is an atheist who is also one of the finest persons I have ever met. I also believe there are persons working for Planned Parenthood who are some of the finest persons anyone could meet. Do we become less critical of their dangerous ideas because of that truth?
7.10.2012 | 6:04pm
Jack Swan says:
No doubt Sr. Farley is a very fine person, with great integrity, and no doubt is a fine and respected professor and scholar.
However, it must be noted that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its commentary on the Profession of Faith, says that "Whoever denies these truths [i.e., all those teachings belonging to the dogmatic or moral area, which are necessary for faithfully keeping and expounding the deposit of faith, even if they have not been proposed by the Magisterium of the Church as formally revealed] would be in a position of rejecting a truth of Catholic doctrine and would therefore no longer be in full communion with the Catholic Church."
There is no doubt that Sr. Farley does so -- in her book, she repeatedly states that she disagrees with definitive moral teachings of the Church, not just in terms of scholarly speculation, but as a matter of her personal position.
She is therefore no longer in full communion with the Catholic Church. To speak of her otherwise is a disservice to the truth. One should pray for her reconciliation with the truth.
However, it must be noted that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its commentary on the Profession of Faith, says that "Whoever denies these truths [i.e., all those teachings belonging to the dogmatic or moral area, which are necessary for faithfully keeping and expounding the deposit of faith, even if they have not been proposed by the Magisterium of the Church as formally revealed] would be in a position of rejecting a truth of Catholic doctrine and would therefore no longer be in full communion with the Catholic Church."
There is no doubt that Sr. Farley does so -- in her book, she repeatedly states that she disagrees with definitive moral teachings of the Church, not just in terms of scholarly speculation, but as a matter of her personal position.
She is therefore no longer in full communion with the Catholic Church. To speak of her otherwise is a disservice to the truth. One should pray for her reconciliation with the truth.
7.10.2012 | 7:15pm
Philip B says:
In his clear and comprehensive 2007 book, Magisterium, Avery Dulles addresses the question of loyal dissent. A theologian who makes a good faith effort to respond to a non-definitive teaching of the Church "under the impulse of obedience to the faith" (CDF, Donum Veritatis, 1990) might in good conscience disagree with the teaching. One possible response mentioned in Donum Veritatis is for the theologian "to suffer for the truth, in silence and prayer, but with the certainty that if the truth is really at stake it will ultimately prevail." Dulles notes that Donum Veritatis also allows for private discussion with other theologians about one's difficulties with the teaching, adding that such discussions could contribute to a development of doctrine. Public dissent, however, harms the Church because, in "correcting the divinely constituted Magisterium" (Dulles, p. 98), the dissent fosters confusion and division.
Sr. Farley's statement in response to the CDF's notification refers to her book as "a proposal that might be in service of, not against, the church and its faithful people." The first problem mentioned in the CDF's notification is that Sr. Farley often ignores the Magisterium's teaching and occasionally presents it as "one opinion among others." A theologian who seeks to be in service of the Church would do well to take seriously the Magisterium's teaching, and present the strongest arguments available in defense of that teaching, even if disagreeing. As Cardinal Dulles argues, such a theologian should avoid public dissent, which harms the Church.
In an interview with John Allen at the National Catholic Reporter, Cardinal Levada (former prefect of the CDF) said that the CDF began investigating Sr. Farley's writings after she gave an interview in Ireland and said that Ireland should approve same-sex marriage. This is not loyal dissent. I don't claim that Sr. Farley's response to the Notification is serving her ego, but by failing to recognize (or even address the question of) the correct role of the Magisterium, it is not serving the Church.
Sr. Farley's statement in response to the CDF's notification refers to her book as "a proposal that might be in service of, not against, the church and its faithful people." The first problem mentioned in the CDF's notification is that Sr. Farley often ignores the Magisterium's teaching and occasionally presents it as "one opinion among others." A theologian who seeks to be in service of the Church would do well to take seriously the Magisterium's teaching, and present the strongest arguments available in defense of that teaching, even if disagreeing. As Cardinal Dulles argues, such a theologian should avoid public dissent, which harms the Church.
In an interview with John Allen at the National Catholic Reporter, Cardinal Levada (former prefect of the CDF) said that the CDF began investigating Sr. Farley's writings after she gave an interview in Ireland and said that Ireland should approve same-sex marriage. This is not loyal dissent. I don't claim that Sr. Farley's response to the Notification is serving her ego, but by failing to recognize (or even address the question of) the correct role of the Magisterium, it is not serving the Church.
7.10.2012 | 9:01pm
Richard says:
Richard
It seems to me that Sr. Farley is a very public and persistent heretic and heretics, particularly informed ones, are disloyal to the church.
Best,
Richard
It seems to me that Sr. Farley is a very public and persistent heretic and heretics, particularly informed ones, are disloyal to the church.
Best,
Richard
7.10.2012 | 10:31pm
Mark VA says:
Public dissent from the Magisterium, however genteel and nuanced, is still public, it is still dissent, and it may put others on the wide and comfortable road.
I'm of the opinion that for dissent to have any chance to be "ordered toward the service of the Church" it should remain private, between the dissenter, confessor, and possibly the spiritual director. For this reason, I don't share the writer's conclusion regarding this affair.
I'm of the opinion that for dissent to have any chance to be "ordered toward the service of the Church" it should remain private, between the dissenter, confessor, and possibly the spiritual director. For this reason, I don't share the writer's conclusion regarding this affair.
7.11.2012 | 7:30am
Michael PS says:
G
I think we would all agree that not all the commandments concerning forbidden sexual partners are rationally evident. Thus, the Council of Trent defines (Sess XXIV c 3) "If any one saith, that those degrees only of consanguinity and affinity, which are set down in Leviticus, can hinder matrimony from being contracted, and dissolve it when contracted; and that the Church cannot dispense in some of those degrees, or establish that others may hinder and dissolve it ; let him be anathema." Now, if the Church can dispense from some of the Levitical prohibitions, it follows that those are not part of the Natural Law. Is Nachmanides claiming more than that?
I think we would all agree that not all the commandments concerning forbidden sexual partners are rationally evident. Thus, the Council of Trent defines (Sess XXIV c 3) "If any one saith, that those degrees only of consanguinity and affinity, which are set down in Leviticus, can hinder matrimony from being contracted, and dissolve it when contracted; and that the Church cannot dispense in some of those degrees, or establish that others may hinder and dissolve it ; let him be anathema." Now, if the Church can dispense from some of the Levitical prohibitions, it follows that those are not part of the Natural Law. Is Nachmanides claiming more than that?
7.11.2012 | 8:54am
Joe DeVet says:
One of the weak points of the article is the statement about the Church's position on conscience. Yes, we are to follow our conscience, but each person has an a priori duty to form his conscience in truth.
Too often in our day and age, conscience is reduced to one's own opinion. Other commenters have alluded to this problem.
I commend for your reading the encyclical of JP II "Veritatis Splendor." In particular, section 62, and several sections prior and following.
Too often in our day and age, conscience is reduced to one's own opinion. Other commenters have alluded to this problem.
I commend for your reading the encyclical of JP II "Veritatis Splendor." In particular, section 62, and several sections prior and following.
7.11.2012 | 12:48pm
bill bannon says:
Mark VA,
I remember in the old moral theology tomes how dissent as regards the not clearly infallible should be by an "expert" and should be private. Ludwig Ott repeats that in the Intro to his " Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma". In the 1990's, Germain Grisez, conservative enough to hold contraception condemned in the universal ordinary magisterium and conservative enough to be recently backed by the Vatican in a marriage debate at "Theological Studies", drops the "expert" out of the equation in the first volume of "The Way of the Lord Jesus" on page 854 when discussing dissent from the non infallible ( the area concerning which LG 25 seems to leave no leeway...cf Yves Congar: Councils don't always give complete concepts).
But I don't recall if he maintains the privacy requirement.
The Church by her actions is the "weak" link in this privacy matter. Frs. Karl Rahner and Bernard Haring dissented from Humanae Vitae publicly, advised laity and no Pope brought ecclesiastical censure against them in the ensuing decades.
The Church sends messages even when the actors involved don't face that. The message there was...one need not stay private on that issue. John Paul II may have not intended that message but ruler silence in the face of a new liberalization by nature signals affirmation.
If Sr. Farley's book, given the years since the first edition, is sitting in Catholic colleges and book stores and the CDF is not requiring by emailing regional Cardinals
that all copies be pulled, again this inaction sends a message of non emergency regardless of whether the ruling body...the CDF...intended that message.
Frankly, I think Popes and CDF people have redefined themselves as thinkers only with no administrative responsibilities to pull books from Catholic libraries or censure strongly or look harsh in the media by their choices. Some of this weakness comes from Popes being more liberal than they let on...over here on violence rather than over there on sex. Read "Verbum Domini" sect. 42 on the "dark" passages of the Bible in which Benedict sees the massacres and ruses of the Old Testament as sins and he urges that the passages be handled by those with training in cultural context. The Bible says repeatedly that God ordered the dooms of certain tribes. Benedict doesn't accept that. He wants them to be projections of the Jewish
psyche. But that sure brings dozens of OT passages into question. Did God really choose Jehu to destroy the house of Ahab? Did God really praise Jehu after he did so in a bloody mess? John Paul had a similar view of the OT death penalties not coming from God really despite the literal text...cf sect.40 Evangelium Vitae.
Both men were/ are biblical liberals on violence topics. Would such men be prone to dramatic actions against sexual liberals beyond statements from the CDF? Ten thousand Catholic conservatives fainted when Benedict's condom/ HIV statement hit the media. Then the same conservatives worked their way to what it really meant.
Few noticed that days after the drama, Benedict repeated its parameters for women too through his spokesman. Conservative Popes who are liberal with biblical texts on war etc. simply are not as conservative on sex as their avid admirerers would be if they were Pope. What Catholic library has been told to pull Farley's book? I'm sensing none.
I remember in the old moral theology tomes how dissent as regards the not clearly infallible should be by an "expert" and should be private. Ludwig Ott repeats that in the Intro to his " Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma". In the 1990's, Germain Grisez, conservative enough to hold contraception condemned in the universal ordinary magisterium and conservative enough to be recently backed by the Vatican in a marriage debate at "Theological Studies", drops the "expert" out of the equation in the first volume of "The Way of the Lord Jesus" on page 854 when discussing dissent from the non infallible ( the area concerning which LG 25 seems to leave no leeway...cf Yves Congar: Councils don't always give complete concepts).
But I don't recall if he maintains the privacy requirement.
The Church by her actions is the "weak" link in this privacy matter. Frs. Karl Rahner and Bernard Haring dissented from Humanae Vitae publicly, advised laity and no Pope brought ecclesiastical censure against them in the ensuing decades.
The Church sends messages even when the actors involved don't face that. The message there was...one need not stay private on that issue. John Paul II may have not intended that message but ruler silence in the face of a new liberalization by nature signals affirmation.
If Sr. Farley's book, given the years since the first edition, is sitting in Catholic colleges and book stores and the CDF is not requiring by emailing regional Cardinals
that all copies be pulled, again this inaction sends a message of non emergency regardless of whether the ruling body...the CDF...intended that message.
Frankly, I think Popes and CDF people have redefined themselves as thinkers only with no administrative responsibilities to pull books from Catholic libraries or censure strongly or look harsh in the media by their choices. Some of this weakness comes from Popes being more liberal than they let on...over here on violence rather than over there on sex. Read "Verbum Domini" sect. 42 on the "dark" passages of the Bible in which Benedict sees the massacres and ruses of the Old Testament as sins and he urges that the passages be handled by those with training in cultural context. The Bible says repeatedly that God ordered the dooms of certain tribes. Benedict doesn't accept that. He wants them to be projections of the Jewish
psyche. But that sure brings dozens of OT passages into question. Did God really choose Jehu to destroy the house of Ahab? Did God really praise Jehu after he did so in a bloody mess? John Paul had a similar view of the OT death penalties not coming from God really despite the literal text...cf sect.40 Evangelium Vitae.
Both men were/ are biblical liberals on violence topics. Would such men be prone to dramatic actions against sexual liberals beyond statements from the CDF? Ten thousand Catholic conservatives fainted when Benedict's condom/ HIV statement hit the media. Then the same conservatives worked their way to what it really meant.
Few noticed that days after the drama, Benedict repeated its parameters for women too through his spokesman. Conservative Popes who are liberal with biblical texts on war etc. simply are not as conservative on sex as their avid admirerers would be if they were Pope. What Catholic library has been told to pull Farley's book? I'm sensing none.
7.11.2012 | 3:00pm
Gil says:
Michael PS writes, "I think we would all agree that not all the commandments concerning forbidden sexual partners are rationally evident."
There is no question in my mind that John Paul II's book, "Theology of the Body", is a fairly comprehensive text on the Church’s teaching concerning human sexuality that shines enormous rational light on the subject, and when reading Dr. Reno’s piece and the comments that follow, I can't help but ask myself, "Did Sr. Farley, who considers herself a Church expert of sorts in the realm of human sexuality, give this book a fair reading? Did she read it at all? And if she did, how could she so easily have dismissed its salient points?" These questions came to mind because I am convinced that never in Christian history has the Church's teaching on human sexuality been so rationally conveyed within the endless and ultimately unfathomable mystery of God creating us as beings destined for fulfillment within the nuptial mystery of life, and that every alternative route, whether in masturbation, same-sex union, divorce or other sex-liberationist proposal, is simply doomed to fail, many of those failures resulting in the destruction of human life. It is my contention that anyone who truly desires to participate in the mind of the Church and truly desires to understand the Church's teaching on human sexuality, will not at the end of a thorough reading of this book end up as a spokesperson for sex liberationists.
It seems many want us to confine our understanding of what Sr. Farley is involved in as simply another thought-provoking dissent, but without knowing her intentions, it is certain that she is aligned publicly with those most intent on destroying the Church’s understanding of human sexuality. And how can we escape recognizing that she defies Our Lord on what he tells us about marriage? Isn’t it clear that this teaching goes so deep into the nuptial mystery that even his closest followers were dumbfounded when he uttered it. Too bad Sr. Farley wasn’t there to explain to Jesus how he got it wrong. It would have saved Paul and many others down the centuries from having to dig deep into their dumbfoundedness.
There is no question in my mind that John Paul II's book, "Theology of the Body", is a fairly comprehensive text on the Church’s teaching concerning human sexuality that shines enormous rational light on the subject, and when reading Dr. Reno’s piece and the comments that follow, I can't help but ask myself, "Did Sr. Farley, who considers herself a Church expert of sorts in the realm of human sexuality, give this book a fair reading? Did she read it at all? And if she did, how could she so easily have dismissed its salient points?" These questions came to mind because I am convinced that never in Christian history has the Church's teaching on human sexuality been so rationally conveyed within the endless and ultimately unfathomable mystery of God creating us as beings destined for fulfillment within the nuptial mystery of life, and that every alternative route, whether in masturbation, same-sex union, divorce or other sex-liberationist proposal, is simply doomed to fail, many of those failures resulting in the destruction of human life. It is my contention that anyone who truly desires to participate in the mind of the Church and truly desires to understand the Church's teaching on human sexuality, will not at the end of a thorough reading of this book end up as a spokesperson for sex liberationists.
It seems many want us to confine our understanding of what Sr. Farley is involved in as simply another thought-provoking dissent, but without knowing her intentions, it is certain that she is aligned publicly with those most intent on destroying the Church’s understanding of human sexuality. And how can we escape recognizing that she defies Our Lord on what he tells us about marriage? Isn’t it clear that this teaching goes so deep into the nuptial mystery that even his closest followers were dumbfounded when he uttered it. Too bad Sr. Farley wasn’t there to explain to Jesus how he got it wrong. It would have saved Paul and many others down the centuries from having to dig deep into their dumbfoundedness.
7.11.2012 | 3:55pm
Sarah says:
There's a site that's holding a vote on this issue, you should vote - you don't have to sign up. I checked on wikipedia to see if they're legit and they are. Here's the link:
www.equibbly.com/disputes/sex-and-masturbation-is-a-sin-or-is-it
www.equibbly.com/disputes/sex-and-masturbation-is-a-sin-or-is-it
7.11.2012 | 10:55pm
Gil says:
John Paul II's "Theology of the Body" for me is an exploration of this:
Matthew 19:3-8
New International Version (NIV)
Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”
“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
“Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
Is not Sr. Farley, among other things, trying to encourage adultery? Or is she attempting a theology on the goodness of, or a post-modern resignedness to, a hardened heart?
Matthew 19:3-8
New International Version (NIV)
Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”
“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
“Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
Is not Sr. Farley, among other things, trying to encourage adultery? Or is she attempting a theology on the goodness of, or a post-modern resignedness to, a hardened heart?
7.12.2012 | 10:55am
bill bannon says:
Gil,
She is de-anchored from Scripture but so was John Paul II on the death penalty...calling it "cruel" in 1999 in St. Louis while God gives it to Gentiles and Jews in Genesis 9:6 when God is about to start the first kingdom under Nimrod in chapter 10. The problem is bigger than sex. The problem is varying ideas as to what constitutes inspiration in the Bible. Sr. Farley must have read your passage and Romans 1 on gay acts being against nature in se. She read it then told herself that was Paul's context limited outlook at that time in history. She read your passage and took "except for immorality" and she ran with that phrase like Lebron James running with a ball he just stole from the other team. Until a great Pope appears who settles the inspiration-hermeneutical chaos that is in Farley and in the Popes on their pet issue violence, the blogs will report ongoing chaos for some time to come.
She is de-anchored from Scripture but so was John Paul II on the death penalty...calling it "cruel" in 1999 in St. Louis while God gives it to Gentiles and Jews in Genesis 9:6 when God is about to start the first kingdom under Nimrod in chapter 10. The problem is bigger than sex. The problem is varying ideas as to what constitutes inspiration in the Bible. Sr. Farley must have read your passage and Romans 1 on gay acts being against nature in se. She read it then told herself that was Paul's context limited outlook at that time in history. She read your passage and took "except for immorality" and she ran with that phrase like Lebron James running with a ball he just stole from the other team. Until a great Pope appears who settles the inspiration-hermeneutical chaos that is in Farley and in the Popes on their pet issue violence, the blogs will report ongoing chaos for some time to come.
7.12.2012 | 11:23am
bill bannon says:
Gil,
Here is Matt.19:9 in the Catholic NAB at the Bishops site: " I say to you,* whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.”
Here is the Vulgate (official Catholic worldwide arbiter source) as to the exception clause: "nisi ob fornicationem"....unless for fornication.
The NAB phrasing is as wide as the annullment stats because it has moved the annullment criteria into the Bible, ignored Jerome's Vulgate, and thus allows
remarriage in a passage in which most of us for 2000 years saw Christ talking about separation not remarriage. Lol...if I had some Malbec handy, I'd take a swig. The NAB is off the wall in this sentence.
Here is Matt.19:9 in the Catholic NAB at the Bishops site: " I say to you,* whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.”
Here is the Vulgate (official Catholic worldwide arbiter source) as to the exception clause: "nisi ob fornicationem"....unless for fornication.
The NAB phrasing is as wide as the annullment stats because it has moved the annullment criteria into the Bible, ignored Jerome's Vulgate, and thus allows
remarriage in a passage in which most of us for 2000 years saw Christ talking about separation not remarriage. Lol...if I had some Malbec handy, I'd take a swig. The NAB is off the wall in this sentence.
7.12.2012 | 11:33am
Michael PS says:
Gil
"I think we would all agree that not all the commandments concerning forbidden sexual partners are rationally evident."
My point, on which I quoted Trent, was that no one could plausibly maintain that all the prohibited degrees of marriage contained in Leviticus XVIII are "rationally evident."
From 1567 to 1986, these were incorporated into the law of Scotland, both to specify the prohibited degrees of marriage and to define the crime of incest. Its interpretation in cases to which the old law applied were still giving the courts trouble in 2008. In the 19th century, wagon-loads of polemical tracts were devoted to the question of whether Leviticus forbade marriage with a deceased wife's sister. Jewish and Christian commentators differed on whether marriage with a niece was forbidden and so on, without end
"I think we would all agree that not all the commandments concerning forbidden sexual partners are rationally evident."
My point, on which I quoted Trent, was that no one could plausibly maintain that all the prohibited degrees of marriage contained in Leviticus XVIII are "rationally evident."
From 1567 to 1986, these were incorporated into the law of Scotland, both to specify the prohibited degrees of marriage and to define the crime of incest. Its interpretation in cases to which the old law applied were still giving the courts trouble in 2008. In the 19th century, wagon-loads of polemical tracts were devoted to the question of whether Leviticus forbade marriage with a deceased wife's sister. Jewish and Christian commentators differed on whether marriage with a niece was forbidden and so on, without end
7.12.2012 | 4:26pm
Gil says:
Michael PS,
I understand your point, and the basic point I am making concerning marriage is that it should be easy enough for Christians to know when Our Lord is speaking definitively, and it boggles my mind how persons claiming an in-depth and prayerful exploration of the life of Christ can so easily dance around what he is making definitively clear. This is why the church in her wisdom, through an in-depth prayerful discernment, arrived at the process of annulment, which is basically a process of discerning if a couple were in fact ever married to begin with. In other words, because a couple vow all the things they vow as their commitment to marriage, there are certainly instances where the couple never really discerned what that commitment meant, and if they had never really committed to marriage, then there was no marriage in fact. And being honest about it, during my 65 years of walking around in this age of high abstraction and the greatest rebellion against God in all of Christian history, it is rare for me to find a married couple who are in fact married! Mostly through no fault of their own: there has been a radical failure in catechesis and preparing couples for the married life, especially in the life of what we call Christian community, which is no community at all. So it is that the question, for Catholics at least—and Sr. Farley not only calls herself a Catholic, but claims to be an expert in the field of Christian sexuality—is not when we will permit divorce, but discerning when a marriage is in fact not a marriage. Do you see the important and crucial difference? The Church has provided a way for us not to violate Our Lord’s clear command not to divorce.
I understand your point, and the basic point I am making concerning marriage is that it should be easy enough for Christians to know when Our Lord is speaking definitively, and it boggles my mind how persons claiming an in-depth and prayerful exploration of the life of Christ can so easily dance around what he is making definitively clear. This is why the church in her wisdom, through an in-depth prayerful discernment, arrived at the process of annulment, which is basically a process of discerning if a couple were in fact ever married to begin with. In other words, because a couple vow all the things they vow as their commitment to marriage, there are certainly instances where the couple never really discerned what that commitment meant, and if they had never really committed to marriage, then there was no marriage in fact. And being honest about it, during my 65 years of walking around in this age of high abstraction and the greatest rebellion against God in all of Christian history, it is rare for me to find a married couple who are in fact married! Mostly through no fault of their own: there has been a radical failure in catechesis and preparing couples for the married life, especially in the life of what we call Christian community, which is no community at all. So it is that the question, for Catholics at least—and Sr. Farley not only calls herself a Catholic, but claims to be an expert in the field of Christian sexuality—is not when we will permit divorce, but discerning when a marriage is in fact not a marriage. Do you see the important and crucial difference? The Church has provided a way for us not to violate Our Lord’s clear command not to divorce.
7.12.2012 | 5:09pm
Gil says:
bill bannon,
First of all, it is persons like you who saved me from the swamp of lukewarmness within the Church after my return at age 38 (I left at age 11), and so my gratitude for persons like you goes deep, is everlasting and resides in the sacred heart of Our Lord.
But we disagree on some points. I think we might have had a disagreement in the past on the death penalty, and I always reference Cardinal Avery Dulles' excellent take on it, published in First Things, and what speaks my mind on the issue: http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/08/catholicism-amp-capital-punishment-21
I believe I had also mentioned that I was facing the death penalty in 1968, and that I had prepared myself to accept that just sentence (electrocution), telling the attorneys assigned to defend me that I wasn't interested in their defense. Being spared the death sentence was truly a miraculous event. I wasn't religious then, and never got religion during my ten years in the worst prison in America (according to Karl Menninger). I returned to the faith after my daughter was born 8 years after my release from prison.
Yes, the death penalty IS JUST, and those who argue against it being just are in my view doing more harm to the victim’s family members, assaulting them with a self-righteous “we know better than you because we have a deeper understanding of justice” attitude that is not an appropriate Christian response to say the least. For me the only appropriate Christian response in opposition to the death penalty is to acknowledge that God is all-merciful. To execute a person who has murdered an innocent person is just in the realm of God’s Justice revealed to us in Scriptures and affirmed by the angelic doctor, pure and simple. But the question remains: what of God’s transcendent justice, what we are incapable of understanding, this thing called God’s mercy—should we be conduits of that higher justice beyond our reach, what we can rely on as another mystery of revelation? I believe John Paul II argued that we can. Christians have that seemingly impossible task of loving their enemies. A mother who loves her son dearly, a son that is being executed for a heinous act of murder, knows God’s mercy in her heart, and her mercy falls far short of God’s. The question is, can we be conduits of God’s mercy? That is a question each Christian must ask in their heart of hearts.
First of all, it is persons like you who saved me from the swamp of lukewarmness within the Church after my return at age 38 (I left at age 11), and so my gratitude for persons like you goes deep, is everlasting and resides in the sacred heart of Our Lord.
But we disagree on some points. I think we might have had a disagreement in the past on the death penalty, and I always reference Cardinal Avery Dulles' excellent take on it, published in First Things, and what speaks my mind on the issue: http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/08/catholicism-amp-capital-punishment-21
I believe I had also mentioned that I was facing the death penalty in 1968, and that I had prepared myself to accept that just sentence (electrocution), telling the attorneys assigned to defend me that I wasn't interested in their defense. Being spared the death sentence was truly a miraculous event. I wasn't religious then, and never got religion during my ten years in the worst prison in America (according to Karl Menninger). I returned to the faith after my daughter was born 8 years after my release from prison.
Yes, the death penalty IS JUST, and those who argue against it being just are in my view doing more harm to the victim’s family members, assaulting them with a self-righteous “we know better than you because we have a deeper understanding of justice” attitude that is not an appropriate Christian response to say the least. For me the only appropriate Christian response in opposition to the death penalty is to acknowledge that God is all-merciful. To execute a person who has murdered an innocent person is just in the realm of God’s Justice revealed to us in Scriptures and affirmed by the angelic doctor, pure and simple. But the question remains: what of God’s transcendent justice, what we are incapable of understanding, this thing called God’s mercy—should we be conduits of that higher justice beyond our reach, what we can rely on as another mystery of revelation? I believe John Paul II argued that we can. Christians have that seemingly impossible task of loving their enemies. A mother who loves her son dearly, a son that is being executed for a heinous act of murder, knows God’s mercy in her heart, and her mercy falls far short of God’s. The question is, can we be conduits of God’s mercy? That is a question each Christian must ask in their heart of hearts.
7.12.2012 | 6:39pm
bill bannon says:
Gil,
Just be careful of idolizing each Pope. John Paul II called the death penalty "cruel". That's way different from the goal of transcending justice with mercy. Watch God. He kills Herod in Acts 12 and Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5. That's post sermon on the mount. He inspired Romans 13:4. That's post the Ascension.
His three main choices of men in the Bible were all capable of violence: Moses ( an ex murderer); Peter (an attempted murderer in Gethsemane); Elijah (slew 450 prophets of Baal, burned two groups of 51 men who sought him). Inside their violence, God saw the will to protect. He then had both Moses and Peter kill not with their power but by word and his power: Moses thus killed Dathan and Abiram, Peter thus killed Ananias and Sapphira.
You may have been spared by God because He saw in you....the will to protect society... from you. He did have mercy in your case. Then He gave you a daughter to protect. As you know, not all murderers repent and in no death penalty states, some continue killing in prison. Jeffrey Dahmer and Fr. Geoghan were killed by lifers in non death penalty states...where it's a free kill.
I jumped a ghetto guy on the street who robbed my house and I retrieved a lethal weapon he had taken inter alia. He hinted he'd return with a pistol. If he does at night, I'm deputed by N.J. law to kill him with my tactical shotgun after several words if he keeps the gun in his hand...and he has a split second with me to drop it. I will kill him and I pray for him each week since the initial encounter. You can love an enemy and shoot him for sure. Ask the vets in your clan. Hate has nothing to do with such contexts. Read John Paul II. If you know your bible by memory, he makes no sense on the topic. God spared Cain from private revenge; there was no government at Cain's time. God shortly later gives the death penalty when Nimrod begins the first kingdom. John Paul never noticed the confluence of
Gen.9:6 and Nimrod in chapter 10. Read him first. Compare him to the bible. He can't punish. That's why many boys got raped by priests while he was writing
books. Moses and Peter killed after becoming leaders. These last two Popes couldn't even punish Cardinal Law and a thousand like him.
Peace.
Just be careful of idolizing each Pope. John Paul II called the death penalty "cruel". That's way different from the goal of transcending justice with mercy. Watch God. He kills Herod in Acts 12 and Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5. That's post sermon on the mount. He inspired Romans 13:4. That's post the Ascension.
His three main choices of men in the Bible were all capable of violence: Moses ( an ex murderer); Peter (an attempted murderer in Gethsemane); Elijah (slew 450 prophets of Baal, burned two groups of 51 men who sought him). Inside their violence, God saw the will to protect. He then had both Moses and Peter kill not with their power but by word and his power: Moses thus killed Dathan and Abiram, Peter thus killed Ananias and Sapphira.
You may have been spared by God because He saw in you....the will to protect society... from you. He did have mercy in your case. Then He gave you a daughter to protect. As you know, not all murderers repent and in no death penalty states, some continue killing in prison. Jeffrey Dahmer and Fr. Geoghan were killed by lifers in non death penalty states...where it's a free kill.
I jumped a ghetto guy on the street who robbed my house and I retrieved a lethal weapon he had taken inter alia. He hinted he'd return with a pistol. If he does at night, I'm deputed by N.J. law to kill him with my tactical shotgun after several words if he keeps the gun in his hand...and he has a split second with me to drop it. I will kill him and I pray for him each week since the initial encounter. You can love an enemy and shoot him for sure. Ask the vets in your clan. Hate has nothing to do with such contexts. Read John Paul II. If you know your bible by memory, he makes no sense on the topic. God spared Cain from private revenge; there was no government at Cain's time. God shortly later gives the death penalty when Nimrod begins the first kingdom. John Paul never noticed the confluence of
Gen.9:6 and Nimrod in chapter 10. Read him first. Compare him to the bible. He can't punish. That's why many boys got raped by priests while he was writing
books. Moses and Peter killed after becoming leaders. These last two Popes couldn't even punish Cardinal Law and a thousand like him.
Peace.
7.18.2012 | 8:15am
steve says:
If you take yourself to be referring to the Christian Bible with "a bunch of stories," I see it as much more discussion of truths of God and man than as stories. Of course there are some stories there but I don't find them to be the central import so much as is the discourse on themes that are not stories.
Actually, I think you would be hard pressed to find stories in "the teaching of the Church."
Actually, I think you would be hard pressed to find stories in "the teaching of the Church."
