The Inquisition Is Alive, But Is It Well?
The inquisition continues to this day, albeit under a different name and with different methods. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), formerly called the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition, has made news lately with its investigation of women religious and most recently with its Notification severely critiquing the book Just Love: A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics by Yale Divinity School professor Sr. Margaret A. Farley, R.S.M. for its departure from the Vatican’s official line on sexual morality.
The Notifica
tion warns the faithful that the book is not in conformity with Church teaching and that it “cannot be used as a valid expression of Catholic teaching, either in counseling and formation, or in ecumenical and interreligious dialogue.”
What “official” consequences this will have for Sr. Farley is not yet clear, but the CDF has given her book an unintended but very foreseeable Colbert Bump. Its Amazon.com rating jumped from 147,982 to…wait for it…14! That’s right: far from keeping the obedient faithful away from Sr. Farley’s heretical ideas, the Vatican has turned her offending book into a best seller. Not of a few of her new readers will entertain the notion Catholic sexual ethics could conceivably change despite the protestations of the Church’s teaching authority. Andrew Sullivan will rejoice.
How did this happen, you ask. Examining the text of the Notification, which as a friend of mine remarked reads like it was largely copied and pasted from other notifications, I was struck by the way it avoids detailed analysis and nuanced argumentation. Not surprise there; that’s how these critiques are written, but because of its simple and straightforward assertiveness and reliance on assertions, it lends itself to going viral in the age of the Internet. Little work is required to pull quotes in context. Boom! There it is. The Vatican’s condemned a book by a nun who’s a well-respected theologian. The news story writes itself. Commentary comes easily. And Sr. Farley becomes a name in both religious and secular press.
Few Catholics take CDF statements seriously, of course. Few Catholics assent to the authority of the Church as the Church understands that authority. Consequently, arguments from authority, such as this Notification, simply aren’t going to work for it any longer, and they’re likely to backfire. The Vatican has too many critics with a voice, both inside and outside the church, for it to fall back on the “we’re the experts in humanity” line.
Follow Kyle on Facebook, Twitter, and at Journeys in Alterity.
Comments are closed.
Thanks for this Kyle.
Some random observations and thoughts… One is that I was working on a project about Teresa of Avila for school over the past couple of weeks. Immersing myself in her work was balm for these events. Can you imagine how she would be treated today? Probably like she was treated in her own day, but fortunately for her – and for us – a day without internet access. So she was able to carry on in the face of it all, even if her library was requisitioned by the Inquisition. We have scanners and google – she had a great memory, so she prevailed.
I am heartened because we do not remember the names of her detractors but we do remember her, we honor her as a Doctor of the Church. This gives me hope, but it does little to address patience.
On other fronts, I can’t help but see things through the lens of Luke 15, due to another project I was working on. The prodigal son comes home and no actual change is made or demanded of him. Of course we can’t know what went on behind the scenes, but it seems to me that he was simply welcomed with great love and without question.
This is not to imply that Margaret Farley (or Elizabeth Johnson or the LCWR) are wayward, but they are seen that way by so many. Who waits on the crest of the hill, to embrace them? Margaret Farley was on the hill, with tremendous graciousness towards her detractors. Perhaps that is the Gospel lesson there?
We are “apart” if not wayward, because of a seemingly ever larger disconnect between Rome and the world. I am not that well known here, so for the record, I am if anything, a moderate. My own personal focus is on unity, but how can we be one when the CDF operates with a shoot-first approach.
As for obedience and adherence to teachings, I might start with some of the US bishops themselves, There is a very distorted message about a mashup of nationalism and faith going on that is really disturbing to the spirit. Ah, that pesky hermeneutic of subtraction at work, no doubt.
Off to check out best selling books and banned ones…
We are “apart” if not wayward, because of a seemingly ever larger disconnect between Rome and the world.
This is a good description, Fran.
There has been a lengthy and heated discussion of the CDF’s action and the book over on Commonweal, and imagining myself as still the Catholic I would be based on my Catholic education and much of my reading, I see the CDF’s point quite clearly. First, a disclaimer: Almost all of us are basing our opinions on what the CDF chose to excerpt from the book, supplemented by peeks at Just Love on Google Books or Amazon.com. This is perhaps inadequate and possibly entirely misleading. But what I have seen so far leads me to believe it is not. The CDF quotation on masturbation, for example, is as follows:
The entire section on masturbation is brief enough to read on Google Books, and that quote is an accurate reflection as the section as a whole. One the one hand, as someone who disagrees with the Catholic Church’s approach to sexuality, I say hooray for someone who makes a plausible case that sex can be viewed from a completely different angle. However, as someone who at least thinks he understands the Catholic position on masturbation, contraception, and homosexuality, it appears to me Sr. Farley has totally rejected Catholic teaching. If you accept the statement that “masturbation… usually does not raise any moral questions at all,” basically every Catholic teaching on sexuality goes right out the window (or under the bus).
Now, the manner in which the CDF has commented on the book, and the timing, are entirely different matters. But the substance of what they say—the book doesn’t reflect Catholic teaching—is something that even Sr. Farley acknowledges. She says it wasn’t meant to.
Yes, the fact that CDF has problems with this book should come as no surprise.
I can feel the ground moving under my feet, but I find myself in complete agreement with David Nickol here.
David,
I skimmed through the discussion on Commonweal, and I commend you on your attempt at a thoughtful discussion in the face of the sniping — it’s interesting seeing you defending Catholicism from the left, as you describe it.
I read Sr. Farley’s response to the Notification, and I found it quite interesting. I thought she sounded quite gracious and pleasant in response to the CDF, which gave me a favorable impression of her (even though I disagree with her positions that conflict with Church teaching). It also seemed to me that Sr. Farley basically agreed with the Notification: she agrees with the CDF’s conclusion that some of her positions are contrary to current Church teaching and she says that the book is “not intended to be an expression of current official Catholic teaching.” Now Sr. Farley does conveys a little disappointment and fear that the Notification might detract from her purpose in the book, which seems to be to explore “the possibility of development in sexual ethics.” But I think the Notification’s purpose is to inform the faithful that portions of the book are contrary to teaching and that the book therefore shouldn’t be used as a “valid expression of Catholic teaching, either in counseling and formation, or in ecumenical and interreligious dialogue” — and I get the impression that Sr. Farley wouldn’t disagree with any of this.
Which brings us to the more important question: If we assume that the Notification only has the purpose of informing the faithful, we still have to acknowledge, obviously, that it’s very good for the Church and her theologians to explore new ideas, to develop doctrine, to respond to challenges to doctrine, to contemplate and probe Catholic teaching more and more. So I think there’s a place for people like Sr. Farley and her book in this theological wrestling with the Truths of the Church. But what exactly is that place, especially for a theologian who considers himself or herself a Catholic and faithful member of the Church? That’s a tough question to which I don’t have any good short answer.
David,
I should add that I know that my last question is along the lines of what you were trying to get at in your Commonweal discussion, although I don’t think I saw any real engagement with it.
David N. said, “If you accept the statement that “masturbation… usually does not raise any moral questions at all,” basically every Catholic teaching on sexuality goes right out the window (or under the bus).”
What if we didn’t throw Catholic moral teaching about sexuality under the bus, but tried to arrive at a more nuanced understanding of it based on what we have learned from science and psychology? I haven’t read the book, so I don’t know if the author attempts to do this or not. But official Church teaching has tended to be very black and white with regard to sexuality; basically every offense is pretty much a mortal sin.
What if, for instance, masturbation, was downgraded to a venial sin? It strains credibility to believe that it is on the same level as adultery or rape; but it is not hard to understand that it is not a moral good. It seems that teaching on sexuality differs from every other moral issue, in not allowing for any gray area. For instance, most people would agree that lying is bad. But everyone recognizes the difference between calling in sick for work when you’re not, and lying under oath, or a lie which seriously harms someone’s reputation. It is really, really hard to have an honest discussion of the shades of gray in sexual morality without being accused of trying to undermine the Church’s teaching. It seems to me that honesty in this area would serve to enhance moral teaching rather than undermine it.
“Self-pleasuring” is a revealing term for the intrinsic narcissism of masturbation. Does anyone else find her positivity toward it (at least as reflected in this quote) disturbing in its implication that sexual pleasure is primarily about personal pleasure rather than relationship, let alone mutual self-giving in the sacramental union of the marriage covenant?
Re: What if, for instance, masturbation, was downgraded to a venial sin?
I personally believe that masturbation is a sin, but I’d generally put it more in the venial catgory. (For what it’s worth, I’m Anglican, not Catholic, though I’m an interested observer of the Catholic Church). Having said that, my general understanding is that Catholic teaching nowadays takes more account of circumstances and interior disposition, beyond just the intrinsic nature of the sin, in terms of deciding whether something is a mortal vs. venial sin. I’ve seen a conservative Catholic on another blog express the opinion that most people nowadays are effectively addicted (in some sense) to masturbation, and that their culpability is lessened to the extent that the culpability of a drug addict or an alcoholic is lessened, which might make theire sin (in the sense of personal guilt) only venial.
I’m pretty sure that lying for any self-interested purpose (as opposed to jocose or officious lies) is considered a mortal sin, too. If you habitually claim you were sick or stuck in traffic when you arrive late at work, and don’t feel at all guilty about it, that could be indicative of a serious disorder of the soul. In general, I don’t like the mortal vs. venial terminology so much, as I think circumstances, mitigating vs. aggravating factors, and subjective dispositiion can make a big difference in determining how much damage a sin does to one’s soul.
I basically agree with David above: I disagree with some elements of Catholic teachings about sex, but then, I’m not a Catholic. I have no issue with Sister Farley making a presentation of her own views, and if that’s what she believes than she should stand by her beliefs, but she should make it clear the degree to which she is dissenting from the teaching of her church, and that what she’s arguing isn’t Catholicism.
Consequently, arguments from authority, such as this Notification, simply aren’t going to work for it any longer, and they’re likely to backfire.
That’s exactly what I said. I’m not one to automatically dismiss the possibility that the CDF may have some valid concerns, at least some of the time, but they need to find a better way to raise them, one that is more pastoral and more likely to be heard. Its current modus operandi only entrenches those who are already its staunch defenders and alienates just about everyone else. And those of us who are trying to hold onto the center are getting exhausted.
My bad, Julia. I should have given you credit.
Are we certain that the CDF’s concerns hadn’t already been raised in a more pastoral manner, perhaps through Sr. Margaret’s order, or through the archdiocese of Hartford, or even through CTSA channels? At a certain point, doesn’t the CDF have to draw a bright circle around a work like this and announce formally that it does not reflect Catholic teaching? Isn’t that true, and isn’t that their job?
Good point.
Kyle: my turn to apologize. I meant to identify with what you said, not to accuse you of stealing my thunder, although in retrospect I can see how my comment could be read as the latter.
Mark: in answer to your first question, no, I’m not at all certain, in fact I have no idea what else the CDF has said or done about this. I’m open to giving them the benefit of the doubt, and yes, they have a legitimate role in pointing out what does or doesn’t reflect Catholic teaching, but what seems to be missing in this sort of statement is a reasoned explanation of why that is the case, beyond mere appeals to magisterial authority as such. As it is, the tone and content of their argumentation sounds like little more than “because I said so”, which too easily gives the impression of hostility.
On the other side of it, charges of hostility raised against the CDF, and the magisterium in general, often take a bitter or even hostile tone themselves and/or use language (such as “attack” or “assault”) that is too inflammatory to be helpful. I guess my point is that there is too little diplomacy all around; it’s too readily thrown out the window in the name of either prophetic critique or defense of truth.
You do raise an interesting question. What is the Notification – as you say, an “argument from authority” – supposed to do?
Obviously, it could have been meant to correct those who
a) read the book
b) mistakenly thought that it was an expression of (or reconcilable with) current official Catholic teaching
c) would accept correction through a Notification from the CDF
Now, we might assume that this population is rather small. Even if the book were assigned in introductory religious studies or ethics classes, I think that the combination of a, b, and c is highly unlikely.
However, the Notification might still be meant to accomplish other things – political things. It can dissuade those who
a) want to intensively study Farley (or with Farley) and pursue clerical careers. (Note the apparent newsworthiness of the connection between Bishop Gerhard Ludwig Muller, a possible candidate for the prefect job at the CDF, and Fr Gustavo Gutierrez.)
b) study or teach at conservative Catholic colleges and seminaries and want to write on Farley (except to explicitly rebut her) or put on conferences or symposiums on her work.
c) want to work in any sort of official Catholic role and incorporate Farley’s work in a pastoral setting (e.g., a Lenten talk or a bishop’s pastoral letter)
This is speculative, but if I’m correct, it could be unfortunate. As others have written, even if one disagrees with some of Sister Farley’s conclusions, it should be noted that she does discuss issues such as rape in war and domestic violence that are usually not treated in the context of sexual ethics. Hopefully, the Notification doesn’t sideline (or “chill”) the ethical discussion of those issues.
Thanks.
Interesting speculations, Neil. I hadn’t considered all of those. Would the Notification really have done much for those, though? I would think that Sr. Farley’s work would be controversial in those political circles with or without a Notification.
Yes, but a Notification still raises some of the costs of engaging with her work, even in the absence of sanctions. I think that it can thus be effective in shaping the discourse at seminaries, pontifical universities, etc., while being generally ineffective, as you note in the last paragraph of your post.
For most of us, the general ineffectiveness – the bad media attention, the improved Amazon rankings – are much more noticeable. But for a more ecclesiastical creature, controlling the discourse at seminaries might seem more important for the Church. There is a different – perhaps to us, skewed – calculus.
Just a guess. Thanks.
Another good point!
Examining the text of the Notification, which as a friend of mine remarked reads like it was largely copied and pasted from other notifications…
I’m not sure that I see that. The Notification is not generic in any way: it relates the specific background history, then cites specific problems with the book while quoting particular passages, and then offers succinct responses to the specific problems.
…I was struck by the way it avoids detailed analysis and nuanced argumentation
There is more merit in that criticism, but I guess I disagree. I’m supposing that the Notice is meant to be a straightforward “notice” to Catholics that the book states positions in contradiction to Church teaching and explaining why. A lengthy scholarly treatise wouldn’t do the trick because that would be more prone to confusion and misinterpretation. Instead, I’m thinking the the Notice is meant to directly identify the passages in contradiction with Church teaching and then give a succinct and clear response. Note that each response to the specific problem has footnotes pointing to the Catechism, encyclicals, etc. so if the reader wants more information, he knows where to go.
But I’m with you that there is a place for detailed analysis and nuanced argumentation in evangelization efforts, and I’m with you in wondering how to better convey and educate Catholics on the nuances of Catholic sexual ethics.
The responses (and format) are what’s largely generic.
Another thought: Kyle asks whether this Notification works or will backfire. Speaking only for myself, personally, as a member of the Church I find this Notice useful: I don’t have the time or leisure to review this book, but I find it useful to know that the Church has taken the time to review it and determined that there are concerns with the book, if ever I encounter the it in the future.
Those who look to Vatican warnings for what theological works to read also find it useful.
I think I’m missing the point. What’s the problem with getting a warning from the Vatican about what book to read?
In itself, nothing. The problem is that the warning, for very foreseeable reasons, went viral and became more of a cause for people to read the book than a cause to shun it.
Cool, thanks.
“[F]ar from keeping the obedient faithful away from Sr. Farley’s heretical ideas, the Vatican has turned her offending book into a best seller.”
In that case they’re hardly “obedient faithful”, are they?
“Consequently, arguments from authority, such as this Notification, simply aren’t going to work for it any longer, and they’re likely to backfire.”
They will work for those who are obedient. For those who are already disobedient, I don’t see how they will do any harm. So it’s hard to understand what your point is: That the CDF shouldn’t warn obedient Catholics about harmful books because disobedient Catholics will buy them anyway?
It reminds me of the argument that the Church’s prohibition of condom use is abetting the spread of AIDS. But those who would obey the Church’s teachings on condom use would also obey the Church’s teachings on fornication and adultery, and therefore would not contribute to the spread of AIDS through “unprotected sex” — whereas someone defying the Church in the act of fornicating isn’t going to have scruples about using condoms.
I doubt it’s the obedient faithful who are buying the book right now, but anyhow, the problem is not with the CDF warning Catholics that some book or other fails to conform to Catholic teaching. Rather, the problem is with the methods (and with the timing). The Vatican has, in effect, encouraged views on human sexuality to which it is opposed. And not just views, but a line of theological thinking that challenges their authority.
The Vatican has, in effect, encouraged views on human sexuality to which it is opposed. And not just views, but a line of theological thinking that challenges their authority.
I might be misunderstanding, but do you mean “discouraged” instead of “encouraged”?
No. “Condemning” the book has, shall we say, inspired lots of people to read it.
“The Vatican has, in effect, encouraged views on human sexuality to which it is opposed. And not just views, but a line of theological thinking that challenges their authority.”
If your point is that warning people against something bad has resulted in people doing that bad thing, therefore it’s better not to warn them, I can’t go along with that. The Church can only bear witness to the truth. It knows in advance that the world will reject its message, but must proclaim it anyway.
I suspect that’s not quite what you mean; you may just be saying that there are better ways of warning people. But the CDF studied the book; contacted the author; reviewed the author’s response; replied to the author’s response; allowed the author to respond yet again; reviewed the second response; and issued a summary of its findings. I just don’t see anything wrong with this mode of procedure. If you’re saying the effect of it shows that it was wrong, I disagree. The effect just shows how many people reject the Church’s teaching authority; but again, we already knew that.
If the point of the church proclaiming its message is to persuade people and convert them to the true faith, then, hell yeah, the method of proclaiming the truth matters. And it matters that a Notification meant to warn the faithful against a book has inspired others to go out and read it, especially since it looks as though more people will read it than avoid it because of this Notification. This occurrence is only a sign of a larger problem the Vatican faces: as much at it hates the idea that’s it’s just one voice among many, for all practical purposes it is just one voice among many, and to top it off a voice with little moral authority speaking to a largely hostile audience that can respond through channels of mass and social media. The Vatican has a long road ahead, and to get on its way, it will need to rethink its approach to “the defense of doctrine” so that it can be an effective voice that engaged the world and leads it to Christ.
So you’re saying that the Vatican is “in effect” guilty of leading people to a position contrary to Church teaching — because when it says “this book is contrary to Church teaching,” more people will read it and some will be persuaded to a position contrary to Church teaching, despite the fact that they know that the Church says it’s contrary to Church teaching.
But if the Church didn’t say anything at all, what about those people who read the book and who aren’t aware that it is contrary to Church teaching, and who are persuaded to a position contrary to Church teaching in part because the Church hasn’t said anything about the book? Isn’t the Church culpable for those people going astray?
That looks like a damned if you do, damned if you don’t. And so I fall on Agellius’s side: “The Church can only bear witness to the truth. It knows in advance that the world will reject its message, but must proclaim it anyway. “
I wouldn’t attribute any guilt or culpability, nor am I suggesting that the CDF say nothing in response to works by Catholics that diverge from Catholic teaching. I am saying that the way the CDF speaks should reflect an awareness of how what is said and the methods it uses to say it will play in the world of instant, mass communications.
Kyle:
I’m not sure what you want the CDF to do other than remain silent. The Gospel will always be hated by the world. You can’t make it acceptable to the world by dressing it up. Saying that homosexual acts are objectively disordered (for example) will be offensive to the world (today’s world anyway) no matter how you say it, so you may as well say it directly. When Peter was preaching to the Jews he said flat out that they had killed the Just One whom God had sent to turn them from their wicked ways, and pleaded with them to save themselves from that corrupt generation. He didn’t try to soften it to make it more palatable. Yet “they were cut to the heart” and “thousands were added to the Lord” (Acts 2, 3).
Please. You can engaged the world–you know, evangelize–and make a case that what you say is the truth by showing (as opposed to just asserting based on your asserted authority) that it is true.
as opposed to just asserting based on your asserted authority
I don’t know that that’s fair. It wasn’t mere authoritarian fiat; the CDF gave reasons for its answers from scripture and tradition, while citing to other sources where there can be found additional explanations.
It’s more than fiat, yes, but the reasons nonetheless rest on the magisterium’s authoritative interpretation of scripture, tradition, and those additional explanations.
And what’s the problem with that?
Only a few of those to whom the Church speaks buy that authority.
It’s good to properly identify the problem. The way you just put it, this doesn’t seem like a “problem” of the Church’s position on masturbation, homosexual acts, et a, nor even with the CDF, but of whether the Church has authority. For those who reject that notion, no action is valid; for those who accept it, the action is reasonable and indeed expected.
The Church was probably wise in discontinuing the Index, but only for practical reasons. Had it been continued, it would probably have needed a whole curial office of its own and would be a couple New York City phone book sized volumes wide considering all the garbage that is heretical and/or offensive these days. That said, the CDF should probably be condemning a whole lot more books and on more things than just sexuality. Its pretty obvious to anyone who knows the constant teaching of the Church that this book is plain wrong on sexuality. Its not that necessary to have the Grand Inquisitor tell us that this book is wrong, but there are a whole slew of other ones floating around out there that are much more subtle and seemingly harmless that we could use an authoritative condemnation of.
Some (actually, it seems like more and more) people just get a sick joy out of doing something “naughty” specifically to flaunt or thumb their nose at authority. The kind of people that would go out and purposefully buy this book because the CDF condemned it are just heaping coals on their own heads. There is no point in casting our pearls before swine. Save a 2×4 of grace to the back of the head, there is no reasoning with the unreasonable and thus no point in trying to pander to them.
Further, we’ve already argued these points. There are tome upon dusty tome of reasons why sodomy is sinful. People of today seem to think everything that cannot be contained in a tweet or 10 sec. soundbite is irrelevant. Vincible ignorance is a terrible thing. It is like starving to death in a house with a fully stocked pantry because one was too lazy to figure out a can opener or how a jar works. The Church truly is an expert in humanity like no other group or organization could possibly be, but we cannot reduce that wisdom and knowledge into soundbites. We have always been at a disadvantage in these ways as truth isn’t a sleek package, an easy 5 step program. Only heretics and apostates have the luxury to be able to pass off their lies in this way.
Sr. Farley, the leadership conference of nuns, Sr. Carol Keenan, the “sluts” supporting the contraceptive mandate on insurance companies.
How about the Church take a break and find some men to attack for the next few months?
Instead, when men commit the most vile of acts, Archbishop Dolan gives them a $20,000 payoff to go away quitely. Why wasn’t Sr. Margaret just offered twenty grand to shut up?
That money wasn’t a payoff to shut up, read what the Archdiocese actually said about it. Furthermore, they probably wouldn’t have had such a problem if they didn’t have to suffer under the reign of Archbishop Weakland.
That said, it is true the Vatican could go after some men too (not that this is a “sexism” issue anyway). Kung would be a prime target if he hadn’t already made a grand modernist-sedevacantist ass of himself and already long ago consigned himself to being the Supreme Pontiff of Heterodox Irrelevance.
Yeah right. Why not offer Sister Farley twenty grand “in charity” to go away quitely? Sheeesh!
Thanks, Kurt. Lately, both the USCCB and the CDF (itself under the direction of an American) seem focused to the point of overkill on what they consider threats to orthodoxy and their own authority by either women or those advocating for women’s issues. This just may be a totally coincidental “perfect storm.” I can see why the CDF might flag certain passages in what Sr. Farley has written. Yet I can’t see why either her book or Sr. Johnson’s would be singled out when there are so many others out there on public bookshelves by better-known male writers and theologians who raise questions about traditional doctrine almost routinely. It’s getting harder to defend the male leadership of the Church against charges of misogyny or fear of women and women’s sexuality. It would be ever so helpful if they’d show a little more energy in disciplining pedophile priests and a little less on women’s problems and/or prolematic women.
So you understand that this action can be independently justified, and need not be part of a “war on women,” but you weave it into that narrative anyway.
That’s helpful.
How about the Church take a break and find some men to attack for the next few months?
Let’s look at the past 20 years, shall we? Who has received a Notification on his or her writings by the CDF? Anrdré Guindon, OMI (1992), Vassula Ryden (1995), Tissa Balasuriya (1997), Anthony DeMello, SJ (1998), Jeannine Gramick, SSND and Robert Nugent, SDS (1999), Reinhard Meßner (2000), Jacques Dupuis, SJ (2001), Marciano Vidal, CSsR (2001), Roger Haight, SJ (2004), Jon Sobrino, SJ (2006), and Margaret Farley, RSM (2012). That makes twelve persons whose works received official notification by the CDF, of which only three were women. Jesuits are actually more directly represented on this list than women (i.e. there are four of them).
It may fit the present news cycle to frame this notification as part of a larger attempt to silence women, but the facts of the case, at least in terms of official notification by the CDF, do not support such a view.
Thank you.
I understand your point that it was a mere eight years when they went after a man. My point was that even if it is perfectly accidential, going after a series of women and women’s concerns in the short space of a few months is not an aid to evangelization.
And couldn’t some of these women been offered the Timmy Dolan $20K payoff (excuse me, “charity”) to shut up and go away?
I think they should be going after more people (men, women, doesn’t matter) but it isn’t some sort of silly misogynistic pogrom that you are implying it is. The Vatican isn’t going after loyal nuns/sisters/consecrated lay women (in or out of habit), they aren’t going after anyone simply because they are female. This is ridiculous.
Secondly and for the last time, the money wasn’t shut up and go away money. It was to transition them out of the clerical state as quickly as possible and provide for the necessities thereof. Despite their crimes, its not right to simply cut someone loose with nothing. If you think that wasn’t the way it should have been handled, great, whatever.
However, if you want to impy that then Bishop Dolan is morally complicit in child abuse that is getting rather close to other moral issues (i.e. calumny) you shouldn’t go for.
And couldn’t some of these women been offered the Timmy Dolan $20K payoff (excuse me, “charity”) to shut up and go away?
What are you trying to accomplish by posting this?
I’m sure you’re aware of the vast differences in both the activity being addressed and the epsicopal response (e.g. nobody is asserting the pedophila is part of a “Christian ethic of sexuality”; nobody is trying to drive Sr. Farley from the siterhood).
So why tie them together except to score a cheap shot?
And if so, why? What is accomplished by doing so?
Good response.
. Why wasn’t Sr. Margaret just offered twenty grand to shut up?
Most likely because the bishops are not trying to drive her out of the sisterhood, and are not anticipating an expensive legal fight to do so.
But I think you knew that already.
Kyle,
Maybe we’re arguing at cross-purposes here.
The Church’s teaching on sexuality is highly complex: thousands of pages can be written on why the Church says what it says. But the point is that the Church’s reasons for saying “sex outside of marriage is bad” is not an authoritarian fiat. The Church has plenty of reasons for saying so, many arguments from Scripture, from tradition, from natural law, from biology, from faith, from reason, etc.
Now if you’re noting that many people don’t accept or understand the reasons for the Church’s position on sexuality, that the Church’s reasons are poorly conveyed to its people, that the Church has failed to engage the culture on this subject, that the Church has been unsuccessful at times in evangelizing on this topic — and that this Notification doesn’t do much in furthering evangelization, I agree with you. But (1) the main purpose of the Notification is not to engage the culture, it’s to notify, and (2) a longer Notification with a longer explanation wouldn’t have done much to engage the culture either and possibly would have failed in its primary purpose to notify. For the Church to engage the culture and convey its teaching on sexuality, a multi-layered approach is needed: Popes need to issue encyclicals, Bishops and priests and religious need to teach by word and example; lay single and married people need to write, and read, and teach, and engage, and live out a Christian life — through all of these ways, the truths of the Church, especially those on sexuality, can be passed on to others.
the main purpose of the Notification is not to engage the culture, it’s to notify
I think, related very closely to this, it’s also worth pointing out that a notification is not a general address or clarification, but is directed to a particular type of audience. It is (1) given because people have already specifically asked for an opinion; (2) a stage that comes after having given the person in question a chance to respond; and (3) is addressed only to people involved in particular kinds of tasks (those “in counseling and formation, or in ecumenical and interreligious dialogue”).
This is why the suggestions that this in particular is ‘the Vatican’ ‘cracking down even more’ on nuns, which you sometimes see in more sensationalist venues, is so looney-tunes: the CDF was asked to render an opinion; it investigated by due process according to standard procedures that are a matter of public record; and it rendered an opinion when the process reached the appropriate stage. Like pretty much everything that happens at that level, it happens largely automatically, barring intervention from the pope and excepting the fact that the Prefect has some definite but incomplete influence, given high demand and small staff, over what will be a priority and what won’t, and over how fast things will move.
Thus I think authority is almost an irrelevance here; somebody somewhere wanted the CDF to say something about the book, the CDF gave it. As a matter of fact Catholics are obliged to take it into account, where relevant, but all that we have here is the published result of a requested investigation conducted according to promulgated procedures. If people want to ignore it, or explicitly defy it, it really doesn’t change the fact that the CDF can’t go about ignoring its own due process procedures, regardless of what other people think of the result.
it’s also worth pointing out that a notification is not a general address or clarification, but is directed to a particular type of audience.
But this is part of the problem: however limited the intended audience of its judgment, the notification, published online, became a public exercise of “argument by authority” that caught a lot of people’s attention and reinforced the view that the church’s teachings on these matters are reducible to “because we say so.” Is that a fair reading? No, but it is what it is.
At the risk of encouraging even more church bureaucracy, I wonder if the Vatican could use an office with the purpose of engaging the secular world in dialogue and defense of its doctrines in ways that speak to people where they are and don’t assume the “listen to us because we speak for God” line.
At the risk of encouraging even more church bureaucracy, I wonder if the Vatican could use an office with the purpose of engaging the secular world in dialogue and defense of its doctrines in ways that speak to people where they are and don’t assume the “listen to us because we speak for God” line.
It already has the Pontifiical Councils, one of whose functions is precisely that, but people merely make fun of the fact that they wander around talking about all sorts of things you don’t generally think of as particular Catholic (ethics of the road, and the like), and are seen, again, as a ‘listen to us because we speak for God’ thing. That’s because the latter is in people’s heads regardless of what is done, not something that the hierarchy is usually actually saying. Pontifical Councils have virtually no authority, and are focused almost entirely on discussion, but they are repeatedly lumped in with everything else as ‘the bishops meddling things that don’t concern them’. As you say, it is what it is, but I think you are massively underestimating the problem, which extends well beyond anything that the hierarchy actually does.
As you say, it is what it is, but I think you are massively underestimating the problem, which extends well beyond anything that the hierarchy actually does.
Well, duh. My focus here doesn’t dismiss the larger problems the church faces in its efforts to evangelize.
It already has the Pontifiical Councils, one of whose functions is precisely that,
True, but these are too many. I’m thinking more along the lines of a singular entity whose express purpose is to engage the secular world.
I don’t really understand this answer, since your suggestion really does seem to ignore just how extensive the problem is. A unified entity wouldn’t do anything of any significance to affect anything of any significance; it would, if anything, be an easier target and a more obvious meddler with its bossy fingers in more pies. We have no evidence of any sort that this is the kind of problem that is even partially soluble at the level of the Curia, or that any move at that level will alleviate things; perhaps there is one, but we have no way of knowing it. All the suggested solutions or alleviations I’ve seen require pretending that the problem is of a much narrower scope than it really is. This is not a small problem connected to larger evangelization problems; this problem is the larger problem which ends up affecting evangelization.
Ah, well, my suggestion ain’t a catch-all. It might–might–help with a small part of the wider problem.
Re: The Church has plenty of reasons for saying so, many arguments from Scripture, from tradition, from natural law, from biology, from faith, from reason, etc.
The arguments from natural law and biology are much, much weaker now that we have effective contraception, though. Most people who subscribe to the teaching ‘sex outside marriage is always wrong’ do so on the grounds that Paul says so, or that the Church says so, they don’t do so on grounds of natural law.
Having said all that, of course, whether one agrees with this Sister Farley or not, what she is propounding certainly isn’t Catholic doctrine.
Most people who subscribe to the teaching ‘sex outside marriage is always wrong’ do so on the grounds that Paul says so, or that the Church says so, they don’t do so on grounds of natural law.
That’s not true. There are plenty of people making natural law arguments (wander over to The Public Discourse blog for examples.) Also, I consider the Theology of the Body to be a natural-law-type argument.
Kyle writes, “You can engaged the world–you know, evangelize–and make a case that what you say is the truth by showing (as opposed to just asserting based on your asserted authority) that it is true.” Also, “It’s more than fiat, yes, but the reasons nonetheless rest on the magisterium’s authoritative interpretation of scripture, tradition, and those additional explanations.”
But it’s not addressed to “the world”. It’s a warning to “the faithful”. Granting for the sake of argument that it rests mainly on authority, why shouldn’t it? Evangelizing to the world is a separate enterprise. I get your point that the secular media is going to get hold of it and as a result, the world will criticize it on various grounds. So, the world is going to criticize the Gospel (i.e. the Church and its teachings) and find it offensive. What else is new?
As to your point that a lot of people will read the book who otherwise would not, as Thales pointed out, those people will know that the book contains what is *not* the Church’s teaching, whereas without the notification, seeing as how the book was written by a nun, readers might have been confused as to whether and to what degree the book was in accord with Church teaching. Better to say it flat out and eliminate confusion as to what’s what. You can argue about the ground of the Church’s teachings later.
I don’t know that there is anything much to get upset over in this latest little storm in a teacup.
Theologians push the boundaries, ask questions, and come up with new theories, some of which won’t stand the test of time and are clearly morally dangerous, and some of which might help develop understanding.
The Magisterium responds by restating where her teaching stands.
Isn’t that all just business as usual, precisely what one expects the various parties to do ?
God Bless
Chris, I think you’ve hit the nail on the head here, and I’ve heard basically the same point made by a very balanced ecclesiologist. The problem is, though, that there is too much short-sightedness on both sides. Rather than taking the long view and seeing the complementariness of the Church’s visionary and cautionary voices, too many resort to a polemical knee jerk and portray a situation such as this in terms of truth or justice being under attack.
If they don’t take the CDF’s statements seriously it is doubtful they are truly Catholic.
The statement wasn’t meant to be a ground-up argumentation for the Catholic hierarchy’s view of sexuality; it was meant to be a statement that the book is not in alignment with it.
The CDF can certainly assert this with authority, since they in fact are the authority on what the Church teaches. Just like I can assert with authority what my own values are, and what the rules of my house are.
As you mention, it is one thing to assert authority; it is another to have people accept it. But I’m not sure confronting this specific book is the proper forum for that, just as I don’t have to establish the base reasons for the rules of the house when I tell my children they’re in violation of them.
They are two different jobs. Perhaps the Church has been bad at establishing it’s creativity. That doesn’t mean it should refrain from asserting it when necessary.
“Aquinas says arguments from authority are the weakest of all, but he does not say they are worthless. Sometimes we are justified in relying on them (e.g., on a diagnosis by a team of great MDs.), sometimes not (e.g., on a story in the National Enquirer). The doctors know more than we do so it is reasonable to rely on them. The National Enquirer usually deals in rumor or fantasy rather than real evidence, so even if it has been right on occasion it is not reasonable to rely on it unless it presents very strong evidence.
The problem is to determine which so-called “authorities” really know what they’re talking about and will tell the truth as they see it.
One criterion that can help us establish reliability is whether or not the person is logical. Logic is internal to their arguments, and we do not need to know whether or not they’ve gotten their facts right to criticize their logic. When an authority is regularly inconsistent that hands us a great big red flag — don’t trust this guy to reach the truth.
Another mark of a truly rational person is whether he/she engages in self-criticism, and a related one is whether or not the person accepts deserved criticism from others.
Then there’s the matter of checking out facts. Does the “authority” ignore what most other authorities recognize as facts?
Other signs of reliability — or at least of veracity — are that the person admits being wrong, and, perhaps strongest of all, does the person ever criticize the positions of folks “on his own side”? That is a matter of veracity and takes courage.
None of this touches on the person’s knowledge of facts. It does touch on reasonableness, veracity, and the courage to admit mistakes.
Ann Olivier, March 22, 2010, http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=7426
“Over the Pope as expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical AUTHORITY, there stands one’s own conscience which must be obeyed before all else, even if necessary against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority. This emphasis on the individual, whose conscience confronts him with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and one which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even the official Church, also establishes a principle in opposition to increasing totalitarianism”.
(Joseph Ratzinger in: Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II,Vol. V., pg. 134 (Ed) H. Vorgrimler, New York, Herder and Herder, 1967).
“One criterion that can help us establish reliability is whether or not the person is logical. Logic is internal to their arguments, and we do not need to know whether or not they’ve gotten their facts right to criticize their logic. When an authority is regularly inconsistent that hands us a great big red flag — don’t trust this guy to reach the truth.
Another mark of a truly rational person is whether he/she engages in self-criticism, and a related one is whether or not the person accepts deserved criticism from others.
Then there’s the matter of checking out facts. Does the “authority” ignore what most other authorities recognize as facts?
Other signs of reliability — or at least of veracity — are that the person admits being wrong, and, perhaps strongest of all, does the person ever criticize the positions of folks “on his own side”? That is a matter of veracity and takes courage.”
## All well said, and all – AFAICS – true. The CC performs poorly on most of these. It is, essentially, a Fundamentalist cult. (That’s not abuse BTW, but description & analysis.) Which is why it is incapable of any self-criticism except of the kind that means being ever more faithful to the Party Line. What it never does, perhaps is incapable of doing, is to question whether the PL is good or true. A Church that lacks the integrity to examine itself and its own *ethos* closely, is not good for the people in it. It is frustrating & aborting their growth in moral courage. :(
“The inquisition continues to this day, albeit under a different name and with different methods. ”
## This – or something to the same effect – is often said: but is it true ? According to Michael Cardinal Browne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Browne_%28cardinal%29),
as quoted by Michael Davis, the Holy Office & the S.C.D.F. are not the same thing.
History and traditional teachings would recognize that:
It is a product of man’s sinful nature that an object banned because it rejects Truth would become an object more in demand. Forbidden fruit come to mind.
The Church’s position is that the Truth is being undermined by actions and teachings that conflict with the Truth.
The Church’s correction is based in love, no matter how harsh or subtle the rebuke, because it is based in bringing the faithful back to the Truth, the only thing which matters in regard to salvation.
The argument is not in directing the faithful back to the Truth, because that is always required.
The only issue is what is the best method of doing so.
From a non Catholic.