It’s not every day that a book on my shelf is condemned by
the Roman Catholic Church’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF). It turned out to be the case last week, when
the CDF condemned the book Just
Love. A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics (New York: Continuum, 2006)
by Sr. Margaret A. Farley, R.S.M. You
can read the condemnation here. A flurry of activity followed: Yale Divinity School, where Farley is Professor
Emerita, gathered an impressive list of theologians and ethicists to
defend Farley’s work; Farley responded
to the notification; and 24 hours after news broke of the Vatican
censure, the book was propelled from an Amazon ranking of 142,982 to 16,
and #1 in Religion.
I had conflicted feelings about the entire story. I was disappointed but not surprised by the
censure. It is no secret to anyone
reading the book that Farley arrived at conclusions contrary to the teachings
of the Roman Catholic Church. Still, I
have a great affinity for Farley’s book.
Since coming across the book in 2009, I’ve used it as my primary frame
of reference for discerning responsibility and truth within my personal
relationships. I think considering
Farley’s work has made me a better human being in relationship to others,
especially my wife. And while I’m not
perfect, Farley’s framework gives me the ethical and theological language to
speak of success and failure in relationships shaped by a concern for justice, duty, virtue, and my Christian faith,
as well as giving due consideration to current social science research. I would recommend the book to anyone, Christian or not, seeking the same goals in their relationships.
Being the people-watcher that I am, I’ve been observing
the reactions to the Vatican censure filter through a couple of different
sources and circles for the past week, from Facebook to the New York Times to
blogs, and from Christians of varying denominations to those who profess no
particular tradition. To my dismay, it
became clear that conversations about the censure were actually not about the
censure, but opportunities to give litanies of everything one considers wrong
with the Roman Catholic Church.
To take one incredibly hyperbolic example, Maureen Dowd’s
op-ed piece “Is
pleasure a sin?” throws a lot of un-careful rhetoric around and makes the
Catholic hierarchy a monolithic entity that it is not, which managed to turn a
piece I could agree with into
something not worthy of careful consideration.
For instance, equating the CDF to the Saudi Committee for the Promotion
of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice in terms of hostility to women is the kind
of thing that should not be treated as self-evident, and certainly not as a
throw-away comment in an op-ed. Dowd also
says that “The Vatican showed no mercy to the Sister of Mercy.” That sounds like a very clever phrase; but while
the censure was surely hurtful to Farley (and ill-advised in my opinion), the
book was censured without any disciplinary action taken personally against
Farley; that shows that the CDF had some
restraint.
Dowd then attempts to link the censure of the book (occurring
in Rome) to the cover-up of sexual predation of children in the U.S., as though
the workings of the USCCB---or individual bishops---and the CDF were one and
the same. Dowd suggests that:
“The hierarchy should read Sister Farley’s opprobrium against adults harming vulnerable children and adolescents by sexually exploiting them; respect for the individual and requirement of free consent, she says, mean that rape, violence and pedophilia against unwilling victims are never justified.”
Dowd’s rhetorical tactic is to implicitly say that the hierarchy
is completely uncaring toward children, or to suggest that because the CDF
condemns the book the hierarchy is not concerned about sexual abuse. My guess is that, since the CDF didn’t
mention that part of the book in the censure, they had no problem with Farley’s
statement condemning the harm of children, and most likely agreed with it. And since they are not the entity (in a huge
institution) dealing with the sex abuse scandals (where more to bring perpetrators
to justice indeed could be done), I don’t expect the CDF to make reference to
the scandals when talking about sex. But
if one is keen to disagree with the Roman Catholic Church, it’s easy to pass
over or relish in rhetorical phrases that seem to cut opponents deeply. The unfortunate thing is that op-eds like
this do nothing to hold open a place for any type of civil conversation; instead
of dialogue, opponents entrench themselves.
Now, that is the limited defense I will give to the CDF. I think Farley’s book is brilliant; it is certainly
not a risk of “grave harm to the faithful” (some of the things Farley is concerned about are graver harms to the faithful: like injustice or oppression which affect both one's material and spiritual well-being); and the CDF missed an opportunity
for fruitful dialogue on the subject of sexual ethics. I’ll come back to this in a moment.
Because of my appreciation of the
book, I’m also disappointed that the media missed an opportunity to go deeper
into the divide over sexual ethics. Farley’s book is about what the basic level
of justice in romantic and sexual relationships should be; it isn't simply---as
the New
York Times put it--a book of "theological rationales for same-sex
relationships, masturbation, and remarriage after divorce." There is much
more to this story. The
book is not simply a reworking of what is permissible that was not permissible
before. The book Just Love takes as its central question: "With what kinds of motives, under what
sorts of circumstances, in what forms of relationships, do we render our sexual
selves to one another in ways that are good, true, right, and just?" Farley's answer rests on the fundamental
notion that morally appropriate sexual relationships, heterosexual as well as
same-sex, must be characterized by justice.[1] This is a different sort of project than
simply overthrowing traditional Catholic teaching. This is the project I wish the media would
focus on, and the propagation of the project of promoting justice in
relationships is what I hope the increased book sales will allow to happen.
Still, perhaps it is understandable
that the book was short-changed in the media.
Reporters probably did not have time to read the book before reporting
on the censure, and the media’s reporting reflected the CDF’s censure’s priorities. And---it must be noted---the censure’s
priorities also missed the point of Farley’s book. As Farley noted in her official statement:
“I can only clarify that the book was not intended to be an expression of current official Catholic teaching, nor was it aimed specifically against this teaching. It is of a different genre altogether…. I only regret that in reporting my positions on select “Specific Problems” in sexual ethics, the Notification does not also consider my arguments for these positions. Nor does it render my positions in terms of the complex theoretical and practical contexts to which they are a response. Hence, I fear the Notification–while clear in its conclusions–misrepresents (perhaps unwittingly) the aims of my work and the nature of it as a proposal that might be in service of, not against, the church and its faithful people.”
It’s worth noting here that there is a fundamental
difference in what the CDF does and what Farley does. The CDF determines whether something matches
the prescribed answers to sexual questions according to established Church
teaching; Farley is suggesting an ethical framework for discerning answers in
one’s own context:
"This book was designed to help people, especially Christians but also others, to think through their questions about human sexuality. It suggests the importance of moving from what frequently functions as a taboo morality to a morality and sexual ethics based on the discernment of what counts as wise, truthful, and recognizably just loves. Although my responses to some particular sexual ethical questions do depart from some traditional Christian responses, I have tried to show that they nonetheless reflect a deep coherence with the central aims and insights of these theological and moral traditions."
There are a few ways of thinking about the divide between
the CDF and Margaret Farley’s work.
1. The CDF has already determined the morally acceptable
answer to actions and situations that is true in all times and in all places based
on the moral tradition of the Church. Margaret
Farley is providing a framework for examining one’s own life and the answer is
not necessarily a given. This is a divide over the process and the end
result of moral deliberation.
2. Another major difference is that the CDF is critiquing Farley
from an understanding of ethics based primarily on the Natural Law, and Farley is
not really working in that tradition in the book. There were bound to discrepancies between the
two systems.
3. A matter of genre, which Farley mentioned above. The CDF notes that the book cannot be used as
a reflection of Roman Catholic teaching.
Farley notes that she was not attempting to write such a book.
4. Different pastoral concerns are evident. The CDF wants to be clear on what the Church’s
teaching currently is, and sees Farley’s work as an aberration from that
teaching. The Roman Catholic Church has
an interest in being correct morally (whether one agrees with their positions
or not) and enforce a clear teaching that can unify Catholics across time and
cultures. Margaret Farley is responding
to the on-the-ground realities of gender oppression and injustice. Her framework offers a way of thinking
through what justice would require in personal and social relationships
regardless of one’s status as religious or not, and in careful consideration of
modern research.
5. Others are noting that the CDF’s censure is happening
in the context of a crackdown on American women Religious. I’m certain that
plays some role, but I’ll refrain from trying to quantify or comment on this
aspect. I’ll leave that to others more
capable, except to say that it does represent a divide in motive between Farley’s
writing and the CDF’s censure.
In the end, I recognize the CDF acted within their
ability, but I think it is a shame that the CDF will not interact with the book
in dialogue, or with more clarity and depth in conversation. There was an opportunity to speak of the
promise of seeking justice in relationships, to affirm parts of the book that are
in accord with traditional Church teaching.
Instead the CDF took an easier (and a bit lazier) way that showed them
reticent to engage modern ethical conversation from one within their own
tradition. To those not within academia
or the Catholic faith, I have seen that this left the Roman Catholic hierarchy looking
unnecessarily dismissive of modernity and disconnected from reality. Within academia, the hierarchy appeared anti-intellectual
and dismissive of excellent scholarship.
This could have been avoided...it should have been avoided.
And regardless of whether the Roman Catholic Church chooses
to engage Farley’s work in ethics, I hope her project of advocating a framework
that will help people continually discern the just and unjust in their own relationships
will continue. To that end:
A quick, quick
review of the framework in Just Love
(That should leave you wanting to buy the book for the massive amount of awesome detail I do not add)
The framework moves through six principles. Farley is proposing a standard to which
individuals could hold themselves and measure their partners. These duties are: doing no unjust harm, free
consent, mutuality, equality, commitment, fruitfulness, and social justice.
Do no unjust
harm. Given that Christians (although
certainly not only Christians) tend to see themselves as having both a body and
soul and that the two are closely linked, the concept of doing no harm holds
two meanings: do no unjust physical harm
(rape, battery) and do no unjust spiritual/mental harm (deceit, betrayal,
disparity in committed loves).[2] This is presented as a duty, but the
prohibition on unjust harm requires, and in many ways may inculcate, the virtue
of (at least) nonmaleficence when dealing with others.
Free consent Those
in the relationship should respect the other as an end in himself or
herself. This also reinforces the above
duty of not harming the other, since lying/deceit truncates the ability of the
other to make informed decisions about the nature of the relationship; free consent asks that we beware of forms of coercion.[3]
Mutuality Farley
speaks mainly of sexuality when enumerating the characteristics of just
relationships. She sees both giving and
receiving of both partners as necessary (contrast with the image of the active
male and the passive female).[4] Still, the concept of mutuality in
relationships extends well beyond sex and into the everyday requirements of
living in relationship. Consider
division of household chores—there can be agreement of who performs what
duties, and they can be divided among lines of traditional gender expectations,
but no task in itself is beneath a man or above a woman to do. The very nature of life together makes it a
project in which there must be give and take.
Equality This is
a radical equality that goes beyond merely saying that one is equal to the
other. One must be mindful of power
differentials in play throughout the relationship and try to mediate the
differentials in order to keep from treating the other as property or
commodity, not to mention endangering the others’ autonomy and sense of self by
the inordinate use of power by one partner.[5]
Commitment As
Farley says, sexuality is something that needs to be “nurtured and sustained,
as well as disciplined, channeled, and controlled.”[6] Sexuality is an important part of human
identity and constitutive of our nature.
Sexuality is also powerful, given its procreative potential and intimate
nature. What commitment offers, then, is
an outlet for partners to know, and be known, by each other and deepen that
relationship. The advantage that
commitment offers over the novelty of seeking many sexual partners is that
seeking other partners runs the risk of treating others as a mean to a selfish
end instead of ends in themselves.
Fruitfulness This
has traditionally been associated the procreative nature of sexual
relationships and marriage but there is another way to think about
fruitfulness. Those who are in
relationships are not only responsible for the creation or raising of their own
children; wider community also makes a claim on couples. American culture holds individualism in high
regard and to a certain extent rightly so.
However, humans are social and need relationship. Those in relationship
(a couple) offer nourishment to a larger community by providing avenues for
resources, just as the community provides resources to the couple.
Social justice The respect for persons as sexual beings
in society.[7] Since humans are always in relationship to
one another, humans must realize that their personal decisions have
consequences that affect others in a ripple effect. As Farley puts it, “at the very least…social
justice requires of sexual partners that they take responsibility for the
consequences of their love and their sexual activity…No great love, is just for
“the two of us.””[8] Certainly this includes children who are born
of such relationships. Social justice
expands even further outwards in hope of addressing global sexual and gender
injustices. People contribute to
realizing this global social justice by acting in such a way that their
relationships, characterized by virtue and duty, become a standard to which
they hold themselves and others.
No comments:
Post a Comment