The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionUS bishops rebuke Creighton theologians
Sep. 24, 2010
Todd A. Salzman (CNS/Courtesy of Creighton University)
Two theologians at Creighton University, a Jesuit-run school in Omaha, Neb., have been sharply rebuked by the Committee on Doctrine of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops for defending the moral legitimacy of homosexuality, contraception, premarital sex, and other hot-button issues in sexual ethics.
The theologians, Michael Lawler and Todd Salzman, had been previously censured in 2007 by Omaha’s then-archbishop, Elden Curtiss, for articles that, according to Curtiss, expressed “serious error ... [that] cannot be considered authentic Catholic teaching.” The Sept. 15 statement from the doctrine committee reaches the same conclusion about a 2008 book by Lawler and Salzman titled The Sexual Person: Toward a Renewed Catholic Anthropology.
“The book proposes ways of living a Christian life that do not accord with the teaching of the church and the Christian tradition,” the statement says.
Salzman is the chair of Creighton’s theology department, while Lawler is now an emeritus professor.
In the Catholic theological guild, their work has often drawn sympathetic reviews. In a 2009 essay for the National Catholic Reporter, Julie Hanlon Rubio of the Jesuits’ St. Louis University said that The Sexual Person is “among the most important works in Catholic sexual ethics to emerge in the last two decades,” and that the authors “stand firmly within the Catholic tradition even as they argue for significant change.”
The Sexual Person also earned first-place honors in the books in theology category from the Catholic Press Association.
The doctrine committee does not impose disciplinary measures, and the current archbishop of Omaha, George Lucas, has expressed “confidence” that Creighton will handle the situation “in a manner consistent with the mission of a Catholic university.” A statement from the university said Creighton is committed to both Catholic doctrine and academic freedom, and thanked Lucas for fostering a “positive working relationship.”
A university spokesperson said she had no other information about what steps Creighton might take, and Salzman declined a request for comment.
The Committee on Doctrine is currently chaired by Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington. In its 24-page statement, the committee faulted Lawler and Salzman for their treatment both of scripture and of natural law. Their approach, it said, represents “a radical departure from the Catholic theological tradition.”
Preview NCR's Family Life Issue
Watch this video from NCR Editor Dennis Coday for highlights from our annual Family Life special section.
You won't find these articles on our website. Subscribe now to receive all the content from each biweekly issue.
Published by Georgetown University Press, The Sexual Person argues for more accepting positions on a wide range of controversial issues. The broad aim is to offer a “person-centered” morality that the authors contrast with a more physical approach grounded in traditional understandings of natural law.
With regard to scripture, the doctrinal committee statement accuses Lawler and Salzman of falling into “historical relativism” by suggesting that biblical injunctions on sexuality reflect the particular socio-historical assumptions of the authors.
By insisting that “nature” is also socially constructed, the doctrine committee statement asserts, the only thing Lawler and Salzman leave intact about natural law is the name.
“The root of the problem here is philosophical, an epistemology distorted by skepticism,” the statement says.
Issues of sexual morality, according to the statement, “should be thoroughly studied and discussed by theologians as part of their service to the church and to society,” but those efforts “can only bear fruit if they are in fact carried on within a hermeneutic of continuity and in the framework provided by the Catholic theological tradition and the teaching of the church.”
As of Sept. 23, it was not clear whether Lawler and Salzman might be subject to a review from the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. In recent years, the congregation has preferred that corrections of theologians on issues where the Vatican has already spoken about the underlying principles come from the local bishop or from the national bishops’ conference.
Editor's Note: NCR reviewed The Sexual Person in February 2009. The book review is online here.
The bishops of the US having
The bishops of the US having settled for protecting their own, are hardly in a position to teach anything about human sexuality with authority. They may be the successors of the Apostles but they have been covering their rear ends at horrendous expense to others for at least three generations. They're just blowing smoke at us.
The bishops in union withe
The bishops in union withe the pope have ALL authority to teach about issues of human sexuality. While those INDIVIDUALS made GRIEVOUS incorrect choices, the teaching Magisterium of the Church is always without error in matters of faith and morals. The authors of this book would do well to learn that, especially as they profess to uphold the teachings of the Holy Catholic Church.
"While those INDIVIDUALS made
"While those INDIVIDUALS made GRIEVOUS incorrect choices, the teaching Magisterium of the Church is always without error in matters of faith and morals."
Yeah, we should follow the teaching of the guys who looked between their legs and 'discerned" that they should use their genitals on little children, I suppose to gather empirical data!!!
Your statement is incorrect:
The Church's role in moral reflection has limits----
1) we should be aware of the fact that the Church has never issued an
infallible pronouncement on a moral question
2) a second limit is that of the danger of incompleteness----Morality has to
do with contingent things, things liable to variety and to multiplicity
3) the third limit is the possibility of inadequacy---persons are temporal
beings subject over time to evolution and change. It is distinctly
possible that what was once good, truly helpful to persons, truly serving
their humanization and spiritualization, may someday become the
opposite.
Principles for a Catholic Morality, pages 115 & 116
Cheers,
When I read the Bishop's
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!!.
Dr. Porch, your comments make
Dr. Porch, your comments make complete sense to me. As an educator with over 40 years experience, I can see no other approach to the advancement of knowledge than that which you profess. If someone is interested in a superstitious and anti-intellectual perspective of reality, then let them stay with the Catholic Church. Faith in the teachings of Jesus NEVER requires the anesthesia of the mind. When your intelligence is asked to be sacrificed for membership in a church, it is time to re-examine your choice of spirituality. Personally, I think the current Catholic Church is insulting to everything Jesus professed for his followers. These brave theologians at Creighton have had the courage to challenge the brain dead mindset of the hierarchy, just as Jesus did in his day. Kudos to them!
"All authority"...well,
"All authority"...well, however you might wish to define 'All' you might have an argument...yet 'All' might be more inclusive than you concede. There, in any intellectual argument, is room for diversity of thought, otherewise subject yourself to autocracy. So the main issue is not 'all authority', but credibility; there the bishops have little. There must be room for theologians to delve into thought and analysis free from restraint and reprisal and recrimination. No wonder the Church is being left to those who prefer to check their brains on the mantel. The 'teaching magisterium of the Church' has never been historically free from errors even in faith and morals. It is the mandate of theologians to keep this in check, to head the magisterium back onto the highway of righteousness with its constant quest, the search and requirement to seek the truth where the truth lies, not where the bishops wish to place it.
"While those INDIVIDUALS made
"While those INDIVIDUALS made GRIEVOUS incorrect choices, the teaching Magisterium of the Church is always without error in matters of faith and morals".
Only compliant serfs living like bridge trolls without a speck of curiousity would accept this nonsense.
It is time for the 'teaching
It is time for the 'teaching magisterium' be from the bottom up, rather than the top down. It is time to return the Church to the 'ecclesia', gathering of Xtians with Xt in their midst. It is time for the Church membership to elect their bishops, who would be truly representative of its diocese. It is time to stop the pope from stacking the college of cardinals with think alike robots. It is time to have confidence in Divine Providence and then and only then might the Holy Spirit take heed...it is time to notice cardinals in conclave thinking and believing that the Holy Spirit can be demanded to guide them, when the cardinals are all politically appointed, and acknowledge only he who selected them. It is time to respect the theologians, allow honest discussion and rightful dissent; without which there can never be change. It is Time.
God doesn’t play the game of
God doesn’t play the game of chance, people do. As chance’s possibilities are in the dice, life’s possibilities are in the genes. What’s different about genes is that their possibilities are “justified” in the test of time, what is “intelligent design,” whereas, with dice there’s no intelligence — only chance.
The wisdom of divinity is the justified test of time — we are individual players in Wisdom’s Divinity Game. The free choices are ours to make, we roll the dice and ours is the responsibility to choose options of “justified living.” The business of “choice” (heresy) belongs to every person — to personal conscience — no matter how earnestly bishops loath "heresies."
Personal conscience is the agency of “justified living;” for it has the benefit of the track-record of time-testing, of knowing outcomes of choices and choosing wellbeing. Here’s where the “method of evolution” comes into play. Thought and thinking help us play intelligently the "roll of the dice," the "hand we are dealt;" the way of wisdom is the "possible" way of evolution, by way of perfecting thoughts and thinking, personally, individually.
The way of perfecting thoughts and thinking is the way of trimorphic resonance — trustful communication, informed consciousness and committed conscience, whose venue is the individual person in whom INTELLIGENCE IS A CHOICE, cogitata perficiendo, cogitando sic perfecta. [google: trimorphic resonance method of evolution; www.justifiedliving.gather.com/religion; cogitata perficendo]
"The SEXUAL person"!
"The SEXUAL person"! OOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!! Tittilating!!!!!!!
Is this an accurate description of the human person? There are some persons who go through life without exercising the sexual function, so it really isn't necessary to sustain one's life. But how about eating? We all need to eat to survive. If we don't we die. Most of us like to eat meat but have you ever heard of a book titled "The Carnivorous person? I haven't!
Now obviously sexuality is an important aspect of the human person & it runs deep into the psyche. But still I think it is more properly called an aspect of human personality. Sexuality really doesn't define the person; it is an aspect of the person. It reminds me of JPII talking about the nuptial meaning of the body. No, dear pontiff, you may speak of a nuptial aspect of the body, its physical sexuality, but this is not the meaning of the body for a Christian.
We are really spiritual beings for the simple reason that we have an eternal destiny. Once the soul leaves the body it says goodbye to its sexuality. The only thing left of sexuality in the mind is the way the person was formed when he or she had a body. This is not to downplay the body. The body is not a container for the soul; it is an integral part of the human person. If you want to come up with a meaning for the body, not just an aspect like sexuality, it would be work. And as St Benedict said, "To work is to pray."
Do you believe in "the
Do you believe in "the resurrection of the body", my friend? And if the body is an "integral part" of the human person, how can the whole person enjoy his or her eternal destiny unless he or she has some sort of bodily component to his or her exisitence?
paulte on Sep. 24, 2010. You
paulte on Sep. 24, 2010.
You stated:
("The SEXUAL person"! OOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!! Tittilating!!!!!!!
Is this an accurate description of the human person? There are some persons who go through life without exercising the sexual function, so it really isn't necessary to sustain one's life. But how about eating? We all need to eat to survive. If we don't we die. Most of us like to eat meat but have you ever heard of a book titled "The Carnivorous person? I haven't!
Now obviously sexuality is an important aspect of the human person & it runs deep into the psyche. But still I think it is more properly called an aspect of human personality. Sexuality really doesn't define the person; it is an aspect of the person. It reminds me of JPII talking about the nuptial meaning of the body. No, dear pontiff, you may speak of a nuptial aspect of the body, its physical sexuality, but this is not the meaning of the body for a Christian.
We are really spiritual beings for the simple reason that we have an eternal destiny. Once the soul leaves the body it says goodbye to its sexuality. The only thing left of sexuality in the mind is the way the person was formed when he or she had a body. This is not to downplay the body. The body is not a container for the soul; it is an integral part of the human person. If you want to come up with a meaning for the body, not just an aspect like sexuality, it would be work. And as St Benedict said, "To work is to pray.")
----------------------------------------------
Sexuality is far, far more than a just a physical dimension of humanity. If we are made in the image and likeness of God---our sexuality, runs more deeply than skin. It reflects God, who is androgynous. As humans, we are a two-one unit. If God wanted us to be purely spiritual beings---we would be angels. Our bodies are essential elements of our existence, as you have correctly stated. At the end of time, we will be re-united with our physical bodies. What that will be like---is something for which we will have to wait.
It was by God's design that intimacy, sexuality, and love are united. It is not by mistake, that the great mystics like Catherine of Siena and Teresa of Avila describe the heights of union with Christ (ecstasy) in sexual terms.
But at the same time---the curtains of understanding about sexuality, must be pushed back beyond the narrow definitions that the Church has marked off. Rebuking and condemning the work of theologians, who are expanding our understanding of human sexuality---is a great wrong. Our bishops are not called to be ecclesiastical police, although a number of them fancy themselves as such.
I beg to differ. God is a
I beg to differ. God is a pure spirit who like the angels has no sexuality. Sexuality is only relevant to humans while they exist on the earth. I admit that sexuality runs deep into the human psyche but without a body there is no sexuality. Essentially sexuality is something related to the earth. It is good because God created it but it can be abused & most all humans abuse their sexuality in one way or another resulting in venial or mortal sins.
We are in a sense liberated from our sexuality at the time of death. At that time we are simply our souls. At the end time we will be united with our glorified bodies but these bodies will not experience any carnal pleasure.
"God is a pure spirit who
"God is a pure spirit who like the angels has no sexuality."
But, you call God, God the Father...a father with no sexuality. God is a 'pure spirit', then heaven must not be a bodily place after all; wherein then would there be a need for the resurrection of the body. God and angels according to latest reportings have no need of a body; the universe is eventually to die out...so is the resurrection of the body a needless repetition of indoctrination from years preceding scientific inquiry.
Unfortunately, you, like many
Unfortunately, you, like many others, mistake sexuality for genital sex...
And so, on the sixth day God
And so, on the sixth day God created human beings, making them to be like himself . . . and he looked at everything he had made, and he was very pleased. . . . Except for one little thing. God accidentally created a human being with a perfect soul and imperfect body that is capable of being sexually aroused, sexually motivated, sexually attracted to another human being, etc., etc., For heaven’s sake why did God put such a terrible temptation into humankind? Sex must be from the devil! The Devil, not God, must have put these features in humans so we would be constantly tempted. What a clever devise to distract humans from becoming holy? No sex for me tonight I’m just going to mentally masturbate my soul. Well, maybe. Just one more time back into the body just for pro-creation . . . just ignore any pleasure it brings to you and your loving partner. If you want to be a real honest to goodness celibate Christian – just like those other bad habits of yours like smoking - give it up! Just learn to do without it! But if it continues to distract you . . . take cold showers, invest in haircloth clothing, or practise some honest to goodness mortification of the flesh, just like those holy people from Opus Dei and apparently even Pope John Paul II. Such diligent efforts are bound to please God and frustrate the Devil. You may not have learned this in Sunday school but God wants us suffer from our sexual temptations. But if you are still secretly enjoying ‘it’ – you’d better confess ASAP. It’s a sin - Augustine said so, and the Church made him a Saint for it.
My dear Paulte. You may want
My dear Paulte. You may want to take a look at what the philosopher/theologian Peter Kreeft says about sex in heaven.
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/sex-in-heaven.htm
But as to your answer---Christians actually believe in the "resurrection of the body"--and there'll be no good-byes.
The resurrected body is in a
The resurrected body is in a glorified state. There is no physical sex in heaven. Kreeft goes through a whole lot of nonsense defining sex as something spiritual to finally end up with the conclusion that well no there is no sexual intercourse in heaven.
I mean Christ told us that there is no marriage in heaven so even the kind of intimacy that exists between husband & wife does not exist in heaven. All the souls in heaven have love for all the other souls as befits the celibate state, not the married state.
What kind of nonsense is it to talk of the purest kind of love, that which exists between the Father & the Son as sexual? Please! This is blasphemy & stupidity in my book & Kreeft who I thought had some credibility is anathema to me now! It doesn't take much to incur a paulte excommunication!
Granted sexuality on the earth does have a spiritual dimension but only because we are spiritual beings. However, sex is not something spiritual in its essence. Sex is purely & simply something of the earth, the most earthy thing as it were!
The bottom line in sexuality on the earth is the orgasm which every adult knows. Wake up & smell the coffee, Kreeft! All of this spiritual talk of sexuality is just so much baloney. Without the intense pleasure of the orgasm, nobody on the earth would be bothered with sex & without sex the human race would die out! The Creator knew what He was doing!
What a critique! Now that we
What a critique! Now that we know your reaction to the title of the book, we'
re filled with anticipation to find out what you have to say when you actually read it.
Han't Paulte ever heard of
Han't Paulte ever heard of the "resurrection of the body..."? Last I heard it was still in the Apostles' Creed. Personally I intend to be around when Christ returns and we are raised from the dead to live in new everlasting bodies and heaven and earth become one. Yes, I think my body is very important. My "soul"? What is that? It's just some kind of an idea from Greek philosophy, that has no bearing on biblical faith or creed.
"resurrection of the body" Is
"resurrection of the body"
Is heaven a physical place, does God have a body...what in the world (or outside the world) would one need a body. This whole planet will one day be consumed by the sun as the sun dies, becoming a giant red star engulfing one planet after another. The 'resurrection' of the body is a device from unknowings and repeated through the ages with no notion or thought to the physical world. That is the reason I prefer science to religion; science has not tried to bamboozle me.
Of course paulte has heard of
Of course paulte has heard of the concept of the ressurection of the body & believes in same. But the ressurected body is in a glorified state unencumbered by earthly desires. Heaven is a spiritual place & everything that occurs in heaven is spiritual including the love. There is no sexual love in heaven as Kreeft maintains.
As Bishop Sheen has taught us, love is something pure & is not to be confused with sex which is legitimate only in marriage. The two can coexist in marriage but the two are separate things which cannot be mingled.
"Sexuality really doesn't
"Sexuality really doesn't define the person"
=====================================================
Oh yes it does.
You really believe that
You really believe that sexuality defines the person? I think that we are much, much more than our sexuality. If I thought otherwise, I wouldn't be able to appreciate the breadth of God's creation within each one of us.
"Grace supposes nature." The
"Grace supposes nature." The breadth of God's creation is divine grace naturally endowed in the human person, in God's immage, male/female.
" We all need to eat to
" We all need to eat to survive. If we don't we die. Most of us like to eat meat but have you ever heard of a book titled "The Carnivorous person? I haven't!"
Have you heard of Michael Pollan or Wendell Berry?
"In Defense of Food"
"The Omnivore's Dilemma"
"The Pleasures of Eating"
Can you provide hyperlinks to
Can you provide hyperlinks to some of the other reviews of the book?
See http://www.press.georgeto
See
http://www.press.georgetown.edu/detail.html?id=9781589012080
or
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1748-0922.2010.01403.x/full
I would note that I used this
I would note that I used this book as a major reference in a graduate level course. I received an 'A' after receiving assurances that I would not be punished for questiong some church teachings. The faculty adviser? A priest.
"Issues of sexual morality,"
"Issues of sexual morality," according to the statement .............. "can only bear fruit if they are in fact carried on within a hermeneutic of continuity and in the framework provided by the Catholic theological tradition and the teaching of the church.”
**********************
In other words, in the intellectual life of the Catholic Church, there is NO room for creative, original thinking and progressive development based on scientific facts of the modern world. All intellectual thought is stagnant and unchanging when the Catholic Church declares it so, regardless of new facts and discoveries. This is just another re-phrasing of "Rome has spoken, end of discussion!"
What theologian or thinking person would want to be associated with such a mindset! This retarded and perverted intellectual attitude makes no sense at all to a thinking individual. No wonder the Catholic Church is unable to move beyond the Middle Ages in scholarly pursuits.
Kudos to Mike Lawler and Todd Salzman! Keep up the good fight in trying to bring this backward church into at least the 20th Century. Even for this small move, you generate flack from the deadwood who are imprisoned in stagnant complacency and intellectual turpitude. Thank you for your courage and intellectual discipline in the pursuit of truth when fighting against such formidable odds.
Affirmation: Bravo! JR
Affirmation:
Bravo!
JR
In the context of
In the context of understanding sexual morality, WHAT IS “METAGENESIS?”
“Metagenesis” is the Second Trilogy of “Eden’s Lifework Poetree”
1. “Becoming Conscious”
2. The Ground of Hope”
3. “Reflective Symbiosis”
http://www.evolution101.org/Physical%20Metaphysical.pdf
Briefly, biology defines what Metagenesis is, does: "the sporophyte is born as a parasite on the archegonium of the gametophyte" — the sexual strategy of purpose in the Evolution of Symbiosis, in Eucharistic Altruism. http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978546227
This reminds me of the words
This reminds me of the words attributed to Saint Thomas More when he was asked by a "friend" to sign the paper declaring the King head of the Church in England in the movie "A Man for All Seasons": "Sign for fellowships sake? For fellowships sake would you go with me to hell?" There are certain truths that transcend time and cultures; those two "theologians" were wrong. To hell is where these ideas ultimately lead a person and his soul. I wouldn't be surprised if hell is no longer believed by these two or those that defend their heretical positions. after all "scientific fact" cannot prove its existance. And yes, Rome has spoken, so has St Paul and incidentally so has Jesus the Christ! So, in the final analysis, you don't really have an axe to grind with Rome but with Jesus. Think about it! While you are at it - read the Bible and the Cathecism. It will do a soul good!
The bishops' committee
The bishops' committee critiqued this work for methodological errors. No mention was made of heresy. Unless and until a canonical procedure formally tries and convicts the authors of such, it is improper-- indeed slanderous of you to call these authors "heretics."
So Luis SFO, If you are going
So Luis SFO,
If you are going to suggest reading the scriptures literally like that ......do you own slaves? Paul "said" to treat them well (he didn't say not to own them just treat them well. He also suggested that certain people should castrate themselves! How nice!....but it is in the Bible! and how is it going with only one eye and one hand? I mean Jesus "spoke"--if your hand or eye cause you to sin cut it off and pluck it out! Paul "spoke" in Romans that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God---so I suspect that your hand and eye, at some point caused you to sin, yes? So if you haven't done either of these commandments from Jesus I wonder why? Is it that you don't like the verses that can be applied to yourself? It is much easier to take a verse out of context and use it to exclude, judge other folks--oh yeah, that's right, an "in" group and an "out" group with you in the "in" group---a little group of saved people!
As far as Rome having spoken (yeah, you used that incident out of context as well) I don't believe it has EVER been wrong---I mean the Crusades were a good thing, right? The Inquisition, that was a holy thing,too, right? They must be since Rome "spoke"!
Cheers,
I agree, Javier. It is both
I agree, Javier. It is both irrational and irresponsible to just pick and choose which Biblical quotations we want. As a language arts educator for over 35 years and a non-canonical Jesuit for that same period of time, it is obvious to me that the Scriptural Jesus is only concerned with love and wants nothing to do with dogma or legalism!
An individual must take a literary work in its entirety to comprehend the purpose and message. If one would just spend some time in meditation with the Word, it would be clear that Jesus was telling us to love God and one another. The only anger he ever demonstrated was directed at legalists and dogmatists [Scribes and Pharisees]. Whenever he interacted with common people, it was always in a loving and inclusive manner. But for the hierarchs, he only showed disgust and contempt; this should tell us something.
All the stories he told, all of his actions with people, and finally his own words all spoke: "I do not want your rituals and your sacrifices; I want your hearts!" Love is the answer; how to be Christian is the question. We should never confuse the Roman Catholic Church with Christianity. All of history and specifically recent history, demand the thinking person re-examine everything that the Roman Catholic Church drilled into us! Set yourself free, and be with Christ!
The bishops have yet to be
The bishops have yet to be able to discriminate between catechetics and theology; between official teachings and a book written by scholars.
Until they do, every true theologian will be in line for accusations from bishops whose main purpose seems to be to toe the line that Rome puts out...when will bishops live with and in community with the faithful?
As usual, we all rush to
As usual, we all rush to blame the bishops, but in reality, Rachel, the bishops are not the only ones who make mistakes. One of the problems is that dissidents in the Church, like some that we find here at NCR, some we find at Catholic universities, high schools and colleges, even some that we find at the USCCB, use the work of theologians in catechesis.
There are some dissidents in theology departments who will use this book in class, to teach students, without informing them first, that it is a book of speculative theology and does not reflect current Catholic doctrine. The students will then believe that this speculative theological work actually belongs to the Deposit of the Faith, and thus will go forth ignorant of the truth of the Faith.
Theologians and bishops each have roles to play in doctrinal matters. Theologians push the boundaries of what it means to be Catholic while the bishops seek to pull those boundaries back. In this tension, this crucible, the truth is found and expounded. But too many forget this necessary tension today.
Perhaps the bishops are too quick to condemn speculative theology, but in a like vein, those who dissent from Church doctrine are also too quick to latch on to works of speculative theology to prove their dubious points of view. Both groups would likely benefit from taking a deep breath, taking a stand back and the bishops realizing that the role of theology is to push the boundaries and the dissidents to realize that the more they push, the more the bishops will resist any attempt to advance doctrine.
I don't believe the authors
I don't believe the authors requested an imprimatur...there being none, then it is a simple matter of theology, not official church teaching.
Please pick up this book, and
Please pick up this book, and similar ones, and you will be surprised by the balanced way it presents so-called official teaching and next enters into discussion by providing arguments. The positions of Salzman and Lawler are not based on speculation but on research and thereby they are at the core of the catholic tradition. It is those who don't know nor understand tradition, and are not hampered by their lack of knowledge, who come down with judgements about continuity, authentic teaching, etc.
Consider as a case of 'development' and even 'change' within ‘official teaching’ what the Catechism of the Catholic Church is NOT using in its discussion of homosexuality: for those who take the effort of reading this part, they find out that Leviticus 20:13 – the ‘standard’ biblical condemnation including capital punishment for this issue – is absent… Just try to ask yourself: why?
In any event bishops will not
In any event bishops will not critique theology that is truly in line with Catholic teaching. There is room for development of doctrine, speculation about things theological, possible nuancing of teachings on the books, clarifications about complex doctrines, new philosophies that put things in a different light.
I'm sure these two theologians would have gotten a pass if they simply questioned natural law theory in certain ways. But when the Church says something is white & a theologian says no, it's black, then the bishops have a right to comment & critique.
Let us not forget that the Church basically teaches that all sexual activity outside of marriage is immoral & always at least the matter for mortal sin. So when someone comes along & says no, some forms of sex outside of marriage are okay then they are saying black when the Church says white. So in that case the Church must speak out to clarify.
"when will bishops live with
"when will bishops live with and in community with the faithful"? They are imports from a foreign power, Rome, with it's own agenda. They never were part of the community.
First, you have to start taking your bishops from the commmunity and ordained with the community's approval.
What the Committee on
What the Committee on Doctrine of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, question is often one of the best recommendations that a book can receive. The book must have something important to say...............................
These academics should be
These academics should be honest and give up the notion that they are "Catholic". It is very troubling that such erroneous "teaching" can be considered consistent with the tenents of the faith and Church.
Further, if this book was endorsed by the NCR, then I can see why the bishop has a problem.
Perhaps You might consider
Perhaps You might consider that human's have a brain for a reason and not to use it is against the natural law. You are too much a clone and not a fully functional human. Do some thinking of your own before you can not...
I don't believe baptism as a
I don't believe baptism as a Catholic requires one to give up their God-given intellect...no matter what Rome says.
YOu are just unfamiliar with
YOu are just unfamiliar with Theology and its long evolving tradition. So sorry for the likes of you.
Teilhard de Chardin does not
Teilhard de Chardin does not yet have the approval of church or even of his fellow Jesuits. Why should these authors expect any better? Infallibilism still trumps conciliarism; as with church hierarchy so with the Jesuits who are sworn to defend papal/ church infallibilism.
Perhaps the most appalling
Perhaps the most appalling thing about the Doctrine Committee's response is the objection to the notion that "nature" is socially constructed. Classic natural law theory is derived from an analysis of human nature which itself is part of philosophical/theological anthropology -- the theory of human nature -- which is by its very nature a construct of theologians and philosophers from scripture, reason, tradition and experience. I could go on and on, but I actually found the book tediously "Catholic" at points; to say that the authors are not proceeding from faith and seeking understanding as the paper from the commission states is a falsehood. They may get things wrong, but such an ad hominem attach is not merely unwarranted.
"Nature" as "social
"Nature" as "social construct"? Try jumping from a 10th floor window to the sidewalk below and "socially constructing" yourself to a soft land. Should prove interesting.
One would find the bidt dead.
One would find the bidt dead. That proves nothing save that the law of gravity prevails. You are confusing physical laws of nature with the philosophical and theological constructs called "human nature." There is much, much not understood, and ever more incorrectly understood about human nature. Left handedness was never understood. People born with both male and female organs are not understood, etc.
Exactly.
Exactly.
"Classic natural law theory"
"Classic natural law theory" is the best that could be done at the time. The time was the entire period preceding the 'scientific method'. A time when 'reason' alone was the determinant of all this side of 'revelation'. Now we leave 'natural law' to the mystics, opus dei, and Church hierarchy...and parents admonishing their youth.
Don't put mystics in the same
Don't put mystics in the same company as "opus dei, and Church hierarchy...and parents admonishing their youth." with regard to natural law.
Mystical thought that I've studied shouldn't be held in such a bad light!
Oops, sorry about that, my
Oops, sorry about that, my mistake with the 'mystics' entry.
I certainly agree with your
I certainly agree with your assessment. There are many presumptions about human nature and human sexuality in Chapter Four that do not meet experience. While the authors cite Rahner and reason that he did not go beyond his position based on other aspects of human nature, perhaps Rahner got it right. Until we know more, this is as far as human beings should be bound by magisterial teaching. Certainly, the biological purpose of homosexual orientation is not understood, and there are solid bases to believe that orientation has natural purpose. Is that purpose a mirror image of heterosexual oreientation. Lived lives suggest it may well not be. And what of bisexuals, and those who are gender alienated? Chimeras pose yet a deeper problem as well as those born with both genitals. Enough already. Focus on love and justice until we understand.
"Issues of sexual morality,
"Issues of sexual morality, according to the statement, “should be thoroughly studied and discussed by theologians as part of their service to the church and to society,” but those efforts “can only bear fruit if they are in fact carried on within a hermeneutic of continuity and in the framework provided by the Catholic theological tradition and the teaching of the church.” "
In other words, hew to the party line, don't dare to suggest another viewpoint or, gasp, that the Church should revise its thinking. Meanwhile, Catholics continue to ignore the Church regarding sex and "sexual morality".
It's great that these issues
It's great that these issues are being discussed openly and sometimes supported by theologians. At least these guys are not encouraging pedophelia which the bishops have done a wonderful job of covering up.
The constant referrals to the
The constant referrals to the issue of sexual abuse by clerics and the dubious role bishops may have played in covering up that abuse is tedious. It is an ad hominum attack at its base, leading to the conclusion that you must stoop to such attacks because you have nothing else to say, nothing intellgent to add to the discussion/debate.
You might consider that in future posts and you might also consider, as so many need to, that this particular situation has been effectively dealt with in the United States. Continuing to bring this up is akin to continuing to call a recovering alcoholic "a drunk". It is neither constructive nor pertinent to the discussion at hand.
24 September 2010 Open Letter
24 September 2010
Open Letter to Archbishop Jerome Hanus, Dubuque (Iowa) Archdiocese
Dear Archbishop Hanus
Relying on the Constitutions of The Second Vatican Council, the People of God now understand that conscience supposes consciousness, as faith supposes reason, as grace supposes nature.
It is right and proper to fear consequences of culpable misbehavior. The sensitive conscience of the moral person rightly fears and laments consequences of personal wrongdoing and expresses guilt and remorse. Collective conscience should equally lament and repent collective wrongdoing. It is inappropriate for institutional culture to use guilt and fear emotions for purposes of subjecting public conscience to dated persuasions.
Culture and theology are worldview-dependent. To the extent that worldview is rightly informed so can be cultural/ theological extrapolations on it. Rightly informed culture enables right conformation of moral relationships and authenticates moral understandings of people and institutions. Theology like culture presumes and expresses worldview convictions.
Underlying the redirection of Church is Vatican II’s express acknowledgement of a globally changed (evolutionary) worldview. In view thereof, new “analysis and synthesis” of faith/ reason correlations are matters “as important as can be” for the authentic redirection of Church and humankind. [Const. IV Introduction, 5]
Earth-cosmic evolution is quantum-electrically bonded. Quantum relativity is no respecter of pick-and-choose relativism in the dependent relationships of conscience, faith and nature. Ignorance fixated in old worldview consciousness becomes culpable in the consciousness of essential relationships in evolving relativity. http://www.secondenlightenment.org/The%20Deep%20Nature%20of%20Sex.pdf
Human (institutional) guilt for nature’s desperately degraded condition should make people and institutions fearful for complicity in wrongdoing. Especially unsettling is institutional persistence in culpable disregard for the egalitarian nature of every person in matters of "Nature’s Covenant—God’s Covenant."
A pressing moral issue of the moment is about bonded relationships of people and same-sex unions. The unanimous decision of the Iowa Supreme Court regarding openness to vowed relationships of same-sex persons shouldn’t be lightly dismissed. The moral prejudice of an old worldview that is dismissive of the morality of the prevailing worldview and insensitive to global conditions does not help institutional credibility or serve common wellbeing.
My motive in addressing this matter is not to inflame or polarize but to enlighten. I pray that my good faith purposes are considered on their merit. Thank you.
Respectfully,
Sylvester L. Steffen
Steffen, Many thanks for this
Steffen,
Many thanks for this post.
I've left it up to to others to do some/much of my thinking for me, despite my three university degrees. Shame on me and my use/waste of my God given brain! Blessed instrument that it is, one surely for the betterment of mankind, God's creation. So now I am finally going to read about Vatican II. Probably, Fr. Mark Massa's writing would be a great starting point. I'll have to do it before the Religious Right squash thought under the threat of the eternal loss of my eternal soul to the eternal flames of eternal hell.
Does he really have that power. I thought only God had that power! So okay, I give up, I'll vote for Sarah "gift from God, no abortion Palin, or Jeb Bush or Newt Gingrich!!! I really think that will end our democracy and very possibly some/much of world.
I have been terrorized, scandalized and radicalized by the Repub party and their friends in the Vatican. Surely, the party of death for profits. Surely, the party of Calvin and Rushdooney. I REALLY am stunned by how much Calvinism has invaded and taken over our Catholic religion!!! The anger and complete sense of betrayal has been awakened in me, due to the worship of St. Reagan, money, power, profits and the GWB/Cheney/GOP killing for oil profits/Wall St. administration. And, the killing of Muslims again, ala the Crusades.
I know! I KNOW! The pope will say he has to be the leader of the world. I say: one is the leader of nothing when what one does is a repudiation of the laws of God(Ten Commandments) and the teachings of Jesus Christ-- whose core teachings STILL ARE peace, love, tolerance and "Do unto others....
When our leaders fail us we are once again totally reminded that we ONLY worship God! Could that be the true and final lesson??? Now, in these diabolical times of viciousness and endless hatred, methinks that is the only lesson/anchor of any lasting import.
And now Pipedreams with Michael Barone is on my radio. And the horses are near the barn, whinnying for their supper. And Friday night High School football is on the radio. Ursuline, Farrell(my dads team) are playing tonight. Cardinal Mooney(my team) is playing tomorrow. So thankfully, some things remain the same, familiar and understandable, for now at least.
AMEN!!!
Are you saying since human
Are you saying since human nature continues to deteriorate, that the Church should accompany this and have a sort of easier, dumbed down spirituality? It may be true that the Church shines a light too bright for people to see in it, that they must gradually introduce the light for men to see. However, their total message and obedience to Christ must remain the same. Simply, I reject this relativism and find it uninteresting. Please stop holding your cognitive relativism so objectively; it screams contradiction.
Nature does "continue to
Nature does "continue to deteriorate." We are morally culpable when we refuse to change behavior that hastens the mortal deterioration of web ecology. No one less than Pope Benedict XVI speaks to the matter of our common conscionable obligation to desist from violence against nature, and to overcome our personal habits of (religious) complacency in ignorance.
The title of the committee's
The title of the committee's response is "INADEQUACIES IN THE THEOLOGICAL METHODOLOGY AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE SEXUAL PERSON: TOWARD A RENEWED CATHOLIC ANTHROPOLOGY" by Todd A. Salzman and Michael G. Lawler.
The bishops are within their rights to respond and criticize as they see fit. It opens up a necessary debate among church thinkers. Let's hope that the debate can move forward without the kind of authoritarian displays of condemnation that we have seen from the Vatican in the past.
Toward that interest, it might help to refrain from framing their response as a "rebuke" which is the language of authoritarians, but is not, by my reading, a word that is used in the USCCB document.
Let's try to keep the dialog open.
"Let's hope that the debate
"Let's hope that the debate can move forward without the kind of authoritarian displays of condemnation that we have seen from the Vatican in the past."
Mah51,
You also still believe in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus? :) Condemnation is the only mode the Vatican understands when it has anything to do with sexuality!
Cheers,
Now this makes me want to buy
Now this makes me want to buy the book. Bless them for an indepth insight into the sacredness of human sexuality instead of the rigid, guilt and shame ridden teachings I grew up with that, I think, stunted many of us spiritually.
Guilt acts to change a person
Guilt acts to change a person through pain to the good. Some will do this; others will reject the source of the guilt. Unfortunately for you, it seems you have proceeded with the latter.
PS. For my own curiosity, you are male correct?
Guilt is a healthy response
Guilt is a healthy response to one's behavior. Shame, on the other hand, is a pathology that often stems from dysfunctional families of origin. Unfortunately, the two terms are often used interchangeably. Given the sick clerical culture of the Church of Rome (a culture that, by definition, has historically elevated the ordained and subordinated the laity), it should not be surprising that official Vatican teaching on human sexuality has promoted and sustained shame within the larger Catholic family.
Very sad. Who will be left in
Very sad. Who will be left in the Church?
Dear Anonymous, Very sad! But
Dear Anonymous, Very sad! But who will be left in the Church? You and me, I hope Des
Post new comment