The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) on Wednesday issued a sharply worded rebuke of a book co-authored by two Creighton University theologians. "The Sexual Person: Toward a Renewed Catholic Anthropology" was published in 2008 and written by Todd A. Salzman, chairman of the Creighton University Department of Theology, and Michael G. Lawler, the department’s professor emeritus. The book attempts to provide moral justification for contemporary sexual behaviors that consistently have been held to be immoral by the Catholic Church. The 23-page statement is titled "Inadequacies in the Theological Methodology and Conclusions of The Sexual Person: Toward a Renewed Catholic Anthropology." Drafted by the USCCB’s Committee on Doctrine, it calls the authors’ conclusions “a radical departure from the Catholic theological tradition,” erroneous, and “harmful to one’s moral and spiritual life.” Moreover, the statement said, “the book proposes ways of living a Christian life that do not accord with the teaching of the Church and Christian tradition.”
Archbishop George J. Lucas of the Archdiocese of Omaha said it is unfortunate that two theologians associated with Creighton University have taken theological positions in clear conflict with Catholic tradition. “The Catholic community is rightly proud of the good work of Creighton University over so many years,” Lucas said. “However, it is disappointing that Professors Salzman and Lawler have persisted in publishing material that is not consistent with the teaching of the Catholic Church.”
In 2007, Archbishop Elden F. Curtiss, then archbishop of Omaha, publicly reprimanded Salzman and Lawler for co-writing articles that argued for the moral legitimacy of h@mosexual acts. A year later, in The Se@ual Person, the theologians opposed the Church’s traditional teaching that prohibits premarital s@x, homos@xual acts, contraception, and artificial insemination and called the Church’s teaching on these matters “flawed theology.”
Link (here) to Lifesite
Hat Tip to Tancred (here)
6 comments:
I am disappointed in both the professors and the Council of Bishops. There is too much intellectual analysis and logical inference.
“Life is important” somehow becomes “stop abortion”. “Promote free will” somehow becomes “support free market economics”. God’s preference for traditional marriage somehow becomes “oppose non-traditional marriage”. These are implementations of literal interpretations, rather than representing a deep understanding of God’s values.
Judgment implies that there will be many situations where there is a greater evil than abortion. Similarly, judgment implies that there are greater evils than “allow free markets” and “non-traditional marriage”. We do not have God’s perspective. We would do well to heed “love your neighbor” and respect others values – even if that means supporting abortions, supporting communism, and supporting non-traditional relationships.
Each of us uses our free will to choose an interpretation of God’s will. For some, it is a literal interpretation. Often, it is an interpretation that reflects our existing biases. In choosing an interpretation, each of us is held accountable for alignment with God’s will. To say that we were consistent with any given authority is neither an excuse nor a reason for our choice – we were given the free will to choose.
This is about the immaterial – the spirit, the soul. Our progress is reflected in our choice.
This accountability may seem unfair – especially if there was no intention of harm. But what some call harsh punishment God calls a lesson. The choice of a literal or simplistic interpretation may require that God provide a lesson. The particular lesson will be appropriate, depending on the individual and the situation.
Tony D, here you are again spewing more of your nonsensical blather. Did you even read the Committee on Doctrine's analysis? You are committing the same epistemological error that the committee identifies in the approach of Salzman and Lawler. Namely, the error is in believing that "natural law moral judgments have no objective basis in knowledge of the order of nature; such judgments are derived from socially constructed interpretations of nature." (p. 9) The authors continue, "The root of the problem here is philosophical, an epistemology distorted by skepticism.... An epistemology that denies to human reason the capacity to grasp the intelligibility of nature and to discern an intrinsic order to nature is too skeptical to be compatible with a Catholic understanding of the human person as created in the image of God...." (p. 11)
You claim, "We do not have God's perspective." To the contrary, natural law is the human mind's participation in the eternal law of God's mind. So, through natural law we can indeed attain a definite knowledge of God's perspective, even though partial. But the partiality of our knowledge does not rule out absolute conclusions, as you believe. We can know with certitude that abortion is always offensive to God because it is intrinsically evil. Same with same-sex acts and unions.
You also claim that what you are writing about concerns the immaterial, the spirit, the soul. Well, there you commit another error that the book's two authors also commit and are called to the carpet for by the committee. In the section titled "A Dualistic View of the Human Person" the committee critiques the authors' stance by stating, "The implication here is that the personal and the bodily are separable. Rather than an integral part of the human person, the human body becomes merely an instrument of the human spirit, an instrument that can be manipulated according to one's desire." (p. 15) Rather, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, "Spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature."
TonyD, you simply do not know what you are talking about. Nor do the authors Salzman and Lawler, but at least they have the intelligence and education to conceal their blather in an convoluted maze of theological and philosophical assertions. The maze goes to a dead end, but it takes some time to figure that out.
You are disappointed in the bishops because there is too much intellectual analysis and logical inference? You're waaaaaaay out of your league, then. Get to know some real theology and philosophy before you express simplisms that disclose your vacuous habits of thought.
Tony D, here you are again spewing more of your nonsensical blather. Did you even read the Committee on Doctrine's analysis? You are committing the same epistemological error that the committee identifies in the approach of Salzman and Lawler. Namely, the error is in believing that "natural law moral judgments have no objective basis in knowledge of the order of nature; such judgments are derived from socially constructed interpretations of nature." (p. 9) The authors continue, "The root of the problem here is philosophical, an epistemology distorted by skepticism.... An epistemology that denies to human reason the capacity to grasp the intelligibility of nature and to discern an intrinsic order to nature is too skeptical to be compatible with a Catholic understanding of the human person as created in the image of God...." (p. 11)
You claim, "We do not have God's perspective." To the contrary, natural law is the human mind's participation in the eternal law of God's mind. So, through natural law we can indeed attain a definite knowledge of God's perspective, even though partial. But the partiality of our knowledge does not rule out absolute conclusions, as you believe. We can know with certitude that abortion is always offensive to God because it is intrinsically evil. Same with same-sex acts and unions.
If someone believes that we discern the order of nature, and that partial knowledge allows absolute conclusions about God’s perspective, and that God can’t choose when to use the human body as an instrument, and that we fully understand the relationship of the material and immaterial – well, then we have nothing to talk about.
Here is an old tale of a man who flourished in this world and practiced what he thought was virtuous, loving behavior:
Luk 16:19 "There was a rich man, who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day.
Luk 16:20 And at his gate lay a poor man named Lazarus, full of sores,
Luk 16:21 who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man's table; moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
Luk 16:22 The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died and was buried;
Luk 16:23 and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes, and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus in his bosom.
Luk 16:24 And he called out, 'Father Abraham, have mercy upon me, and send Laz'arus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame.'
Luk 16:25 But Abraham said, 'Son, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish.
Luk 16:26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.'
Luk 16:27 And he said, 'Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father's house,
Luk 16:28 for I have five brothers, so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.'
Luk 16:29 But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.'
Luk 16:30 And he said, 'No, father Abraham; but if some one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.'
Luk 16:31 He said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if some one should rise from the dead.'"
It is obvious that the authors of this revisionist tract have not listened to Moses and the Prophets. Nor were they impressed by Christ rising from the dead. The authors think that their eyes have been opened and they have become like God knowing good and evil.
Caveat emptor.
Post a Comment