Margaret Farley is an immensely well respected theologian and scholar,
and is a revered mentor for many Catholic theologians. It would be
difficult to overstate her influence in the field of sexual ethics, or
the esteem in which she is held by her colleagues. With this stinging critique, the Vatican has again signaled its concern about
theologians writing about sexual morality. This Notification will
certainly sadden Sister Margaret's many colleagues, her generations
of students, and those many Catholics who have profited by her decades
of reflection on the faith. It will also, inevitably, raise strong
emotions among those who already feel buffeted by the
Vatican's Apostolic Visitation of Catholic sisters in the US, and its
intervention into the LCWR
Link (here) to In All Things to read post by Fr. James Martin, S.J.
Sister Margaret Farley’s book is not really a theological book, it is more an anti-theological book, because it tells us that everything that has gone before is more or less wrong and all that we believe now is more or less right, ignoring the inconvenient fact that this modern knowledge is not based on any sort of theological reflection, but rather on the rejection of theological tradition. Margaret Farley is a theologian in the sense that David Cameron and others, with their championship of gay marriage, are theologians.
Incidentally, I have no personal grudge against Sister Farley. I have never met her, and all I know of her is her book. She is perfectly entitled to her views, but the CDF is completely correct to point out to the faithful what constitutes a legitimate part of the tradition, and what stands firmly outside of it. All that surprises me is that it took so long for them to do so.
Link (here) to read full by Father Alexander Lucie-Smith at The Catholic Herald
Sister Margaret Farley’s book is not really a theological book, it is more an anti-theological book, because it tells us that everything that has gone before is more or less wrong and all that we believe now is more or less right, ignoring the inconvenient fact that this modern knowledge is not based on any sort of theological reflection, but rather on the rejection of theological tradition. Margaret Farley is a theologian in the sense that David Cameron and others, with their championship of gay marriage, are theologians.
Incidentally, I have no personal grudge against Sister Farley. I have never met her, and all I know of her is her book. She is perfectly entitled to her views, but the CDF is completely correct to point out to the faithful what constitutes a legitimate part of the tradition, and what stands firmly outside of it. All that surprises me is that it took so long for them to do so.
Link (here) to read full by Father Alexander Lucie-Smith at The Catholic Herald
15 comments:
id much rather hear a "celebrity Jesuit" than some Mr Levada or Mr Ratzinger . the latter are boring and uninteresting
"The Epidemic of Error. Pope John Paul II (was) relentless in exposing the widespread dissemination of error in moral teaching. He identifies professedly Catholic universities and seminaries as a seedbed of these errors. He stresses the fact that these errors are especially in the area of sexual and conjugal ethics. So called Catholic moralists are claiming that each person is to decide for himself what is right or wrong regarding contraception, direct sterilization, homosexuality, masturbation, pre-marital sexual relations, and artificial insemination. One result of this moral iconoclasm is to reject even the constant moral teaching of the Church’s magisterium.
THE POPE LEAVES NO DOUBT HOW BELIEVING CATHOLICS ARE TO REACT TO THESE SATANIC IDEAS. THEY MUST BE CONDEMNED AS CONTRARY TO THE TRUTH ABOUT MAN AND HIS FREEDOM. They contradict the Church’s teaching on the unity of the human person, whose rational soul is essentially the form of his body. We are destined for a heavenly eternity in body and soul. We are therefore to serve God here on earth both in body and soul. We are to submit our bodily desires to God’s revealed truth about human pleasure here on earth."
--John Hardon SJ
The above comment was deleted when posted as commentary at Am Mag. It seems the Society only trumepets women who dissent from the teachings of the Church. Then, they are always "courageous" and "holy". Women who assent to the faith? Not so much.
Ever wonder what how to detect the :Sista dissenteres"? Well, like I always say--pink lipstick on nuns in plain clothes is very nearly always pathognomonic for dissent. Memo to Sister Farley: Do your self a favor and lose your pink lipstick and costume jewelry. As my Mother was often wont to say: "it is unbecoming".
Fr. Hardon: shame of the Church.
I posted the following on America's website, in the Comments section under Father Martin's post, late Tuesday night, June 5th. It was removed by the next morning. An earlier version didn't last an hour. I asked a simple question, i.e. does Father Martin share the beliefs of the individuals that he touts so highly, in this case, Sister Farley. I guess it was too difficult a question for America or, if the post ever reached him, Father Martin, to answer.
"Father Martin habitually highlights those who contest church teachings but he never quite comes out and says whether he agrees with the person in question. Here, he states that Sister Farley is “an immensely well respected theologian and scholar” and “a revered mentor for many Catholic theologians.” He writes “it would be difficult to overstate her influence in the field of sexual ethics, or the esteem in which she is held by her colleagues” Fine, but does Father Martin agree with what she writes? He doesn’t say so, but he links to NCR, dotCcommonweal, and Boston College (hardly bastions of traditional Catholicism) and lets others say that they do. I’ve never read Sister Farley’s work but it seems, even by her own admission, that she doesn’t agree with Church teachings on divorce, same-sex marriage, homosexual relationships, and legal abortion, as evidenced by her signing of A Catholic Statement on Pluralism and Abortion, more widely known as A Diversity of Opinions Regarding Abortion Exists Among Committed Catholic that appeared in the October 7 1984 New York Times. Does Father Martin also share her doubts on these Church teachings? He never says."
I don't understand those of you who whine about America Magazine. If you don't agree with what's written there, why don't you simply read those publications you do agree with, or a variety, including things like New Oxford Review, for example...
I’ve never read Sister Farley’s work but it seems, even by her own admission, that she doesn’t agree with Church teachings on divorce, same-sex marriage, homosexual relationships, and legal abortion, as evidenced by her signing of A Catholic Statement on Pluralism and Abortion.
Actually the line that the righties keep quoting just notes that there is no consensus among Catholics, not the view of each signer.
You probably had your post deleted because it was off-topic, i.e., a cheesy effort to attack Fr. Martin.
Mr. Anonymous:
A little clarification: the Catholic Church forbids:
contraception
sodomy
masturbation
pre-marital sexual relations
Subscription to the teachings of the Catholic Church, contrary to popular notion, does not involve politics either of the left or right hemispheres.
America Magazine has a plethora of false claims that are used as a rationale for the deletion of commentary, chief among them, those seldom adverted to, is that they do not brook dissent.
Julianna: America Magazine daily attackes the Church and endangers the souls of its readers. The Catholic laity, as never before, has an obligation to defend the faith.
KM: Good Work!!
Marian - The Catholic Church "forbids"
- sodomy of boys
- clerical sexual abuse of boys and girls
- financial abuse
-treating women badly
also commenting on someones physical attributes is not so kind
What I was taught is to love one another no matter what - the golden rule
we are all Gods creation -
The church that Fr Martin and Sr Farley have served is a stellar example of what is good about our heritage . i applaud them
Clement:
Do you imagine that our Lord is looking for pink likpstick from a woman consecrated to God and betrothed to Christ? Ditto for the drugstore earrings.
"Do you imagine that our Lord is looking for pink likpstick from a woman consecrated to God and betrothed to Christ? Ditto for the drugstore earrings."
maria--have you ever actually read the New Testament?!
I Imagine our Lord is wondering when those who have been sleeping in Gethsemane are going to wake up and realize that we are living in the Time of The Great Apostasy, which has fooled many of the elect because those who have left Christ's Church spiritually, have been allowed to remain in His Church physically, causing chaos and confusion, while leading many astray.
I Imagine our Lord is wondering when those who have been sleeping in Gethsemane are going to wake up and realize that we are living in the Time of The Great Apostasy, which has fooled many of the elect because those who have left Christ's Church spiritually, have been allowed to remain in His Church physically, causing chaos and confusion, while leading many astray.
I have read the New Testament. The New Testament notwithstanding, call me crazy, but pink lipstick and a woman consecrated to God seem altogether incongruous.
Lipstick and earrings are utterly incongruous with the religious life. I am a lay woman and never worn earrings or lipstick.
PS I love Fr Hardon: Good Jesuit! Why does America Magazine silence Fr Hardon?
"I am a lay woman and never worn earrings or lipstick."
Big deal.
Post a Comment