"The Sexual Person"

I asked some serious questions over over a year ago about this book, which I own and have read - twice - thoroughly. What I'm looking for are some equally serious answers. Any takers?

Submitted by Mark Andrews (not verified) on Feb. 26, 2009.

[Julie Hanlon] Rubio (in words that sound like a quote from the book jacket) says the authors, Todd Salzman and Michael Lawler, are "squarely in the Catholic tradition." Its more accurate to say the book is "squarely in a Catholic tradition - that of the authors."

Presuming the good intentions of Salzman and Lawler, their arguments raise a number of questions, if not problems. In no particular order:

1. Epistemology is not so socially and culturally conditioned that humans cannot gain real, reliable of our real existence in the real world. If "it is impossible to gain pure knowledge of nature. We can only reflect on our limited human experience of nature, acknowledging that it is always partial, evolving and in need of application" then how is possible to know enough about the world to survive within it, much less engage in an intelligible exchange of meaning-laden symbols about that world?

2. The replacement of what I'll call "traditional" complementarity with a so-called "holistic" complementarity appears (as the authors claim) take a wider, more realistic view of actual human relational behavior, and what constitutes "human relational flourishing." Missing from their analysis is:

a. Full incorporation of Kinsey's landmark work of observational zoology with respect to the very wide array of human sexual behavior. To appeal to "sexual orientation" as commonly defined - heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual (which the authors do not address in their book) - fails to to see these as mere labels for what is, according to Kinsey, an exceeding wide array of stable sexual behaviors and orientations, most of which lack labels and cannot be easily collapsed into straight, gay or bi.

b. Looking at the ACTUAL wide array of ACTUAL human behavior, who is to say that some other relationship, say a "group marriage," might or might not support "human relational flourishing?" No where do the authors make this argument - and nowhere do they rule it out. It can't be done using the authors "flourishing" criteria.

c. Who is to decide what constitutes authentic "flourishing?" An appeal to some abstract, external notion of virtue, say the cardinal and theological virtues? Why privilege those virtues over any others humans may construct or find? If appeal to some external authority is desirable then why privilege a "theological" magisterium over the pastors of the Church? If the ultimate authority is internal, when why address the topic of virtue at all, if, in the end, I and/or my partner(s) are the final arbiters of what constitutes virtuous, flourishing behavior?

d. The hundreds, if not thousands of years of Catholic pastoral experience, in which the Church recognizes itself (or not) in the wide array of human behavior is ignored by the authors in favor something subjective. The real danger here is that people can justify any behavior, no matter how self-serving, as virtuous, flourishing, loving, just, moral, unitive and pro-creative.

The pro-creative aspect is particularly important, as the actual actions of an actual woman and man to bring an actual human living human being into actual existence - in and of themselves without reference to any form of assisted reproduction - trumps any abstract notions of virtuous, flourishing, loving, justice, unity and pro-creativity. Secular marriage and the Christian sacrament are merely recognition of this fundamental cell of human society, within which human beings love their children into being and create an environment in which those children flourish.

I challenge anyone to deny or doubt this. Look yourself in the mirror and ask how you got here. Last time I checked, no amount of non-reproductive sex, no matter how virtuous, flourishing, loving, just or moral, ever brought new life into this world. Its no stretch to use the involuntarily infertile marriage of a man and a woman as an icon for and of the fertile variety. For Christians to say otherwise renders all the nuptial imagery of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures powerless and only loosely metaphorical.

A final thought is the attempt to Catholicize the decoupling of biological sex, gender identification, marriage, reproduction, children and the family seems to have more in common with a transhumanist agenda than a Catholic one. Beware.

You didn't actually read the bishops' statement, did you?

Guess what? It shows.

The 'proof' offered in much of this book is baseless, as to make their case, they assume the very conclusion in their arguments that they seek to prove.

"But these attempts to shut down serious discussion of issues by the hierarchy are misguided"
- The statement issued by the bishops simply state that the book is in conflict with the authoritative teachings of the Church, and then show the authors' arguments to be baseless. I don't see anyone calling for it to be banned. It is the Bishops' JOB, as shepherds of the Church, to alert people when literary wolves come prowling about the farm wearing the skin of 'Catholic'.

So long as the very traditional members of the hierarchy in the Church make their decisions relative to human sexuality on the basis of 3rd century theology of the subject, and deems all other thinking and studies to be heretical, there can never be a rational discussion.

My contention is that it is this extremely unrealistic position that is causing such a leakage of members of the Church. It has nothing to do with secularism or relativism. It has to do with a theology based on very out-dated knowledge.

I agree with Saint Robert Bellarmine, and I paraphrase: "If theology and science are found to be in conflict, theology must reevaluate its position." It is time for theologians to reevaluate the theology of sexuality with the information and knowledge we now have for the 21 Century.

Why do fornicators need a special rite?

There already IS a special rite.... it's called "marriage" (which then has the nice side-effect of not making them fornicators any more!)

And if they are NOT ready to commit publicly to a lifetime of life-giving unity in love, then should they be having sex?

Or is this just too simple?

When I read the Bishop's statement, I did not see it at all your way Pete. It seems when the Bishops want to criticize a theologian, philosopher or scientist that they use the term relativism. It seems that it is OK for the Pope or the Bishops to change their mind or use relativistic statements doctrines and theories but it is not OK for other scholars. -- A simple for instance because their are two types of sin mortal and venial, then sin can be relatively more or less serious! We see relativism about the sexual scandels nearly every time the Pope makes a statement.

Former Bishop Curtis acusess these scholars of using circular argumentation when his arguments are extremely circular. He states that, "“the argument depends on an equivocal use of the term "natural." Salzman and Lawler are correct that the scriptural writers regard heterosexuality as natural and homosexual acts as unnatural. For the scriptural writers, "natural" refers to what is consistent with the natural order established by God, in which man and woman were made for each other and the intrinsic purpose of human sexuality is fulfilled only in the marriage bond of man and woman. Salzman and Lawler's critique of the scriptural writers' position, however, presumes a different meaning of "natural." They speak of the homosexual orientation as "natural" in a more general sense as something that is not chosen (see 65, 89, 150-51, 217, 233). What they fail to acknowledge is that an inclination to homosexual acts can be "natural" in the way that they use the term and still "unnatural" from the perspective of the scriptural writers and the tradition of Catholic moral theology. The argument of Salzman and Lawler conceals the difference between their position and that of the scriptural writers.”

In other words what is natural is solely defined not by natural scientists but by the omniscient understanding of the Bishops. I could go on and on but it is futile to try to argue with authoritarian thinkers

The big question is as this type of authoritarianism continues to raise its ugly head, what will the academic Institutions such as Creighton do. They can not remain Institutions of higher learning in philosophy, theology or science if they bow to these types of condemnations that forces many of their better scholars to leave for more tolerant institutions.

I think I see the day when these Institutions will or must begin to advertise of Institutions steeped in centuries of Catholic thought but fearless to progress into a real present and hypothesize about the future. if these institutions do not make some sort of break from the authoritarianism of these clerics, they can only be understood as catechetical centers not interested in pursuing the present revelations of the Holy Spirit or not willing to tolerate hypotheses that are in need of working and re working. There thus could be no scientific method or careful theological consideration for progress. No reevaluation of thinking!!.

I just read the whole of the bishops' statement. I don't see it as "attempting to shut down serious discussion". Quite the contrary, in fact - the tone of their statement is entirely that of serious philosophical discussion. I don't agree with their conclusions, but I do think they deserve a serious and reasoned reply from the authors and from other commentators.

This criticism by the USCCB of the "The Sexual Person" is, of course, their right in our free society. However, one ought to fairly ask what the USCCB was doing about US pedophile priests before the scandal hit the fan in a huge manner under Bishop Wilton Gregory's leadership of USCCB. What did they know and when did they know it prior to Gregory? And if they did not know it (not credible to me), why didn't they? And how is Cardinal Law enjoying his sabbatical in Italian luxury? So, USCCB, keep on in your lecturing about homosexuality, pre-marital sex, contraception, and artificial insemination, as are specifically decried as against Natural Law in your criticism. That is OK since this is a free country. But you have a huge amount of house cleaning to do before you have much credibility or support from the laity. You also have their low respect for your positions and performance.

Pre-marital sex was the topic that drew my attention to this thread. Very interesting article in the US Catholic. It reminded me of past events in my parish.

A young couple - he a cradle but non-practising Catholic and she an abandoned wife and mother but converting to Catholicism - went at the pp's request to a Pre-marriage Encounter day. Twelve couples there, ten of whom were already living together while just two were "Waiting." OK.

The day was run by a married couple in their 50s and was really on the ball about different ways of knowing your future spouse. Including an assessment about "How well do you actually know the views and desires of your "intended." Hardly surprising that the co-habitees scored much higher than those deferring sexual commitment until after marriage. It discouraged the latter quite considerably to discover they didn't, in fact, know each other nearly as well as they thought they did.

Our pp, a thoughtful Catholic, used to encourage Catholics who were providing a joint address to go to Confession on the eve of the Church wedding. And then urge them to "hold off" for that one night following. Fair enough? I think so.

Some time ago I read about couples 'marrying' in the wilderness of centuries past. The couples would live together, probably even have children; then when the priest came around every year or two, they would have their marriage blessed.

It appears this arrangement fully recognizes that couples themselves perform the marriage ceremony; the priest is only a witness for the Church. It seems living together before marriage today may be a "modern" adaptation of this centuries old practice.

Perhaps we should be more accepting, more tolerant and definitely more knowledgeable about past practices before we make judgements?

For 30 years I have been asking why it is that Catholic sexual morality is based on Natural Law according to the order of nature while all other aspects of Catholic morality (e.g. social teaching) is based on Natural Law according to the order of reason. I've researched, asked priests, professors, bishops and theologians alike, and never received any kind of reasonable reply. I have to conclude there is NO reason. If Catholic sexual morality, too, were to be based on Natural Law according to the order of reason, the conclusions reached may often be quite different than the moral norms we are used to hearing (which are arrived at via the fairly mechanistic [not personalistic] order of nature approach), but these different conclusions are actually still quite "traditional" in that they, too, are based on Natural Law (and Virtue) ethics.