CDF publishes notification on book ‘Just Love’

[NeedImprovement]

today.msnbc.msn.com/id/47677809/ns/today-books/?ocid=todmsnbc11#.T80RF9XIYug

And are we supposed to be angry about this, MSNBC?

There was another thread started after this one which got moved and we were redirected to this thread ; the OP on that other thread was quoting the same MSNBC article . It is interesting to see the words of the headlines in that article contrasted against the headlines of the release from the USCCB yesterday :

MSNBC article:

Vatican attacks popular US nun over sexuality book

USCCB’s release headline :

Vatican Critiques Book By Mercy Sister Margaret Farley

link from USCCB site: usccb.org/news/2012/12-097.cfm

So, the two distinct images being conveyed by the respective wording :

1. 
   *]“Vatican Attacks Nun” (Thankyou Philip Pullella/Reuters/MSNBC . . . uch: )
   
   *]"Vatican Critiques Book"
   • Easier to see a marked difference when the two are side by side.
   I was digging a little earlier this morning for the other thread and the first thing that came up in my search engine results window was an opinion - that this wouldn’t be the first time that particular journalist - Philip Pullella, went “headline hunting” concerning Church statements and, interestingly enough this also, pertaining to the issue of same sex -]marriage/-].
   
   Link:[/-] ](Pontification on gay marriage. - On Line Opinion - 27/1/2012)
   
   Sometimes people try to erode our sense of conviction and our faith little by little - they try to weaken it, rather than blatantly say it’s “wrong”. (In the case of jounalists, whether or not this eroding/weakening is deliberate, sensationalism appears to be a virtue ; their job is still to *sell papers *- not to sell the truth.)
   
   We need to continue praying today , never abandoning the pursuit of our own holiness - our own drawing nearer to God - despite any personal setbacks and despite the “spirit of the world” , encouraged by the fact that our Blessed Lord gave us His promise that the “gates of Hell” shall not prevail against His Church.
   
   Yet, , one can hardly avoid noticing with increasing frequency, evidence that He never made this same promise concerning responsible journalism.
   
   

 

[Leo1]

I converted to Catholicism in 2007 and entered the Church on Easter Sunday that year. I was a believing Christian and a committed Protestant before that. In fact, I was an ordained Elder in the Presbyterian Church. The story of my conversion is long, and I will not bore anyone with it here. When I called around to inquire about what had to be done to “join the Church,” I found out about RCIA. When I called various Catholic parishes, I spoke to persons who had various titles but who were basically Christian education directors. They all asked me why I wanted to join. I learned later that the usual answer to this question was something like “I am a lapsed Catholic and just want to return to the Church” or “I am marrying (or have married) a Catholic and wish to join” or “my family is Catholic and I never got confirmed” or something like this. My answer was, “because I think you are right!” This took a lot of people by surprise. If Catholicism is “right” and not just a spiritual preference, then the Church MUST take actions like this. “Just Love” is contrary to everything the Church teaches on this subject matter. In mainline Protestant denominations, where I was a member for over 40 years, the only real sin is believing that there is a “right” way. Different strokes for different folks is the official theological postion. You never hear about Protestant “churches” getting in to this kind of trouble, because they are becoming increasingly irrelvant to our culture. Don’t get me wrong, there are many good Protestants out there fighting the good fight, but the mainline started to wither long ago. Only Catholicism is a REAL force for Christian culture and values in the world. It is the ONLY institution standing up to a complete secular hegemony, and they know it! It greatly pains me to see the Church under such an assault. (Vatileaks nonsense too! What dribble!) You just don’t understand how hostile the world is to Christ until it punches you in the gut for living and asserting your faith. “Just Love” is just wrong! I’m glad THE CHURCH still has some fire in it’s belly. It’s times like this that you really have to have faith that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church (Mt.16:18).

 

[Rainaldo]

Farley, Margaret. *Just Love: A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics *(Continuum, 2006).

Has anyone even read it?

I’d wager the book and the controversy it has engendered would have passed unnoticed were it not for the Last Acceptable Prejudice.

 

[Prague]

Great post Leo1:thumbsup:

 

[Elizabeth502]

Farley, Margaret. *Just Love: A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics *(Continuum, 2006).

Has anyone even read it?

I’d wager the book and the controversy it has engendered would have passed unnoticed were it not for the Last Acceptable Prejudice.

What’s your point?

(The Last Acceptable Prejudice has recently been referred to as Catholicism.)

 

[Rence]

Farley, Margaret. *Just Love: A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics *(Continuum, 2006).

Has anyone even read it?

I’d wager the book and the controversy it has engendered would have passed unnoticed were it not for the Last Acceptable Prejudice.

I think so too. Well, actually, all the headlines that (expectedly) make it popular resulted from the banning. But then, if it wasn’t in the headlines, no one would know it was banned… I don’t think the majority of people can resist the curiosity once something has been banned.

religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/05/vatican-intensifying-crackdown-on-american-nuns/?hpt=hp_t3

There is evidence that the reprimand against Farley has raised her profile as a theologian. Her “Just Love” was the best-selling religious studies book Tuesday on Amazon.com.

 

[baylee]

The problem is it’s not just the women who are problematic. Many male theologians are in the same bed with the devil, as Sr Farley is.

Unless Rome also picks some of these male theologians to work with, the liberals will start framing these as a war against women. No matter how false that caricature is, words are important in contemporary American society, and it will be harder to convince the average American that it is truth that matters here, not gender.

Maybe the male theologians are less wacky (in my country, the men are more conservative than the women), or because they are more careful not to stray in as dramatic a fashion as Sr Farley, but unfortunately, our world today is more about appearances than substance.

I’m assuming that by male theologian you mean priest. Yes, I would argue that that’s a bigger issue (which needs to be addressed STAT) since it is the priests who preach to us every Sunday. Most Catholics do not interact with nuns as much.

Perhaps there are current investigations of priests going on but we don’t hear about them…well, because that would ruin the image that the Church is misogynist.

 

[jilly4ski]

I think so too. Well, actually, all the headlines that (expectedly) make it popular resulted from the banning. But then, if it wasn’t in the headlines, no one would know it was banned… I don’t think the majority of people can resist the curiosity once something has been banned.

religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/05/vatican-intensifying-crackdown-on-american-nuns/?hpt=hp_t3

I don’t know about that, apparently this book has been out awhile, and someone called Jamie Manson (from NCR fame) in her recent article has claimed that she uses “Just Love” as her text book in college level “sexual ethics” class. Thus I would imagine that this book has been passed around theological schools (especially those of a certain stripe) for some time now.

 

[Rainaldo]

What’s your point?

You only hear about the Vatican correcting theologians when the story can be used to harm the reputation of the Church. These sorts of books are rarely runaway best-sellers and pass into obscurity as fast as they are published. But because she is boldly and wrongly treating of the exact same issues that are newsworthy today on account of the media’s obsession with sex, we hear about it. The book has been out since 2006.

Most people would never have heard of Leonardo Boff, Hans Kueng, or Charles Curran but for the fact the media made a big deal about the Vatican silencing them.

 

[Non_sum_dignus]

I honestly just don’t understand it. Maybe one of you can make it clear for me. Here’s how I see events as happening:

1. Nun writes a book about sex (insert giggles here)
2. Nun advocates homosexual union and birth control (which is against church teachings)
3. Church makes an announcement that the book is against church teachings
4. Catholic communities are now holding prayer vigils for nun whose feelings weren’t actually hurt by church announcement (she said herself that she knew what was she writing about was against church teachings)
5. Media announces church’s war on women

I just really don’t get why people are upset that the church censured this book.

Yep, that’s about right. I’m kind of gun-shy about checking out sex advice from heterodox “religious” after a bad experience with Andrew Greeley’s Sexual Intimacy. When he went into the sexual benefits of checking oneself out in the mirror while naked (a practice which he referred to as “erotic self-display”), I started (or perhaps stopped) wondering what Fr. Greeley was doing to occupy himself during those cold winter nights.

 

[catharina]

I converted to Catholicism in 2007 and entered the Church on Easter Sunday that year. I was a believing Christian and a committed Protestant before that. In fact, I was an ordained Elder in the Presbyterian Church. The story of my conversion is long, and I will not bore anyone with it here. When I called around to inquire about what had to be done to “join the Church,” I found out about RCIA. When I called various Catholic parishes, I spoke to persons who had various titles but who were basically Christian education directors. They all asked me why I wanted to join. I learned later that the usual answer to this question was something like “I am a lapsed Catholic and just want to return to the Church” or “I am marrying (or have married) a Catholic and wish to join” or “my family is Catholic and I never got confirmed” or something like this. My answer was, “because I think you are right!” This took a lot of people by surprise. If Catholicism is “right” and not just a spiritual preference, then the Church MUST take actions like this. “Just Love” is contrary to everything the Church teaches on this subject matter. In mainline Protestant denominations, where I was a member for over 40 years, the only real sin is believing that there is a “right” way. Different strokes for different folks is the official theological postion. You never hear about Protestant “churches” getting in to this kind of trouble, because they are becoming increasingly irrelvant to our culture. Don’t get me wrong, there are many good Protestants out there fighting the good fight, but the mainline started to wither long ago. Only Catholicism is a REAL force for Christian culture and values in the world. It is the ONLY institution standing up to a complete secular hegemony, and they know it! It greatly pains me to see the Church under such an assault. (Vatileaks nonsense too! What dribble!) You just don’t understand how hostile the world is to Christ until it punches you in the gut for living and asserting your faith. “Just Love” is just wrong! I’m glad THE CHURCH still has some fire in it’s belly. It’s times like this that you really have to have faith that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church (Mt.16:18).

Beautiful post, Leo. Thank you.
The gates of hell will NOT prevail.
We have the word of Almighty God on that!

 

[NeedImprovement]

Yep, that’s about right. I’m kind of gun-shy about checking out sex advice from heterodox “religious” after a bad experience with Andrew Greeley’s Sexual Intimacy. When he went into the sexual benefits of checking oneself out in the mirror while naked (a practice which he referred to as “erotic self-display”), I started (or perhaps stopped) wondering what Fr. Greeley was doing to occupy himself during those cold winter nights.

(FOCL) I’m trying really hard not to laugh, but it just isn’t working (thanks for that , Non sum dignus . . . and let’s continue to pray that anyone who has read Fr. Greely’s book never confuses a mirror with a window .)

 

[Non_sum_dignus]

(FOCL) I’m trying really hard not to laugh, but it just isn’t working (thanks for that , Non sum dignus . . . and let’s continue to pray that anyone who has read Fr. Greely’s book never confuses a mirror with a window .)

I’ll be content as long as Fr. Greeley himself continues to make the distinction.

 

[Corki]

The problem is it’s not just the women who are problematic. Many male theologians are in the same bed with the devil, as Sr Farley is.

Unless Rome also picks some of these male theologians to work with, the liberals will start framing these as a war against women. No matter how false that caricature is, words are important in contemporary American society, and it will be harder to convince the average American that it is truth that matters here, not gender.

Maybe the male theologians are less wacky (in my country, the men are more conservative than the women), or because they are more careful not to stray in as dramatic a fashion as Sr Farley, but unfortunately, our world today is more about appearances than substance.

Then it may fall to us to correct the librerals’ faulty memories. The truth is that the Church has treated women theologians with kid gloves until very recently. Theologians such as Hans Kung, Charles Curran, and the priest who was removed as editor of American magazine (sorry, I can’t remember the priest’s name) have found themselves on the wrong side of the CDF long before these women got themselves in public “trouble”.

 

[jilly4ski]

Then it may fall to us to correct the librerals’ faulty memories. The truth is that the Church has treated women theologians with kid gloves until very recently. Theologians such as Hans Kung, Charles Curran, and the priest who was removed as editor of American magazine (sorry, I can’t remember the priest’s name) have found themselves on the wrong side of the CDF long before these women got themselves in public “trouble”.

Lol, I have noticed a trend of faulty memories with 'liberals" lately. Saying the women are getting picked on or persecuted, etc. But America’s seminaries had a visitation before the women’s religious orders in America, and Opus Dei had an investigation and corrective action taken against it before the LCWR. Priests and seminaries in Ireland are getting the ole scrutiny, and isn’t some pontifical seminary in South America getting its entire staff sacked and restaffed at the insistence of the Vatican. And all this in the last 2-3 years. I think sisters and their supporters need to get off their high horse and remember that they are not special, and others have committed similar errors and been corrected before them.

 

[julesgogol]

I have been reading what is written here with great interest.

Certainly the Church is right when it condemns someone for advocating positions contrary to its doctrine. Sr. Farley’s explanation that her book was not “aimed specifically against [Catholic] teaching” is disingenuous at best. As a member of a religious order she should defer to the Church’s authority once they have publicly rebuked her.

However, I think that it is important that we discuss this issue with respect and Christian compassion for all people involved in the debate. Sr. Farley has devoted her life to the Church and the spread of the Gospels. She seems like an intelligent and pious woman. Furthermore, none of us have read Sr. Farley’s book. Until we examine it for ourselves what right do we have to criticize it? It is beyond doubt that the Church is infallible. That being said, Catholic dogma exits in a cultural context and has changed throughout the Church’s history. At the very least, Sr. Farley has stimulated debate on a contentious and important issue that we face as Catholics and as human beings.

I believe greater respect must be payed to all people who pursue religious vocations. Much attention is given to the issues that divide us; why not devote our energies to what makes us people of faith: our devotion to the instruction of Jesus in the Gospels? Having feelings of pride or condescension in our hearts is certainly contrary to the spirit of our faith as well.

In Christ,
Ian

 

[jilly4ski]

. That being said, Catholic dogma exits in a cultural context and has changed throughout the Church’s history. At the very least, Sr. Farley has stimulated debate on a contentious and important issue that we face as Catholics and as human beings.

Certainly your comment is disingenuous at best? The Church’s dogma has not changed. Not for cultural considerations or temporal ones. Dogma is dogma cannot change by definition and has not changed.

Ah more examples selective memory, there have been many theologians and people recently writing on sexual ethics who have indeed received a nihil obstat and an imprimatur, and didn’t need to be notified or corrected.

 

[julesgogol]

Catholic dogma has changed. For example, a longstanding principle of the Church is that, “Outside the Church there is no salvation.” For many years this was expressed as those “not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life,” (Council of Florence, 1441). In the most recent version of the Catechism of the Catholic Church this precept has been softened to, “Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994). Similarly, for many years Catholic dogma affirmed a Ptolemaic view of the universe, now the church embraces prevailing cosmological models as consistent with Catholic teachings. There are many more examples.

As a Catholic, I accept the infallibility of the papacy. As Pope John Paul II stated in his papal encyclical, “On Faith and Reason,” the two can never be conflict. This why the church occasionally revises its teachings to comport with what we observe in the natural world. This doesn’t mean that the Council of Florence was invalid, it means that through the grace of God the Church has adjusted its position.

My point is that within certain bounds there is room for debate within the Church. At times this can even be a healthy and beneficial thing for the community of believers. Even the canonical Gospels are not in agreement in all the points of Jesus’ life. However, once the Church issues its judgement it is the duty of those in religious vocations to submit to its teaching. This is the central failure of Sr. Farley.

 

[Phaedra777]

Catholic dogma has changed.

Dogma cannot change.
Doctrine cannot change; may be expanded.
Discipline can change.

See #98 on this thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=556264&page=7

 

[julesgogol]

Dogma cannot change.
Doctrine cannot change; may be expanded.
Discipline can change.

Over the Church’s history it has “proclaimed” changes to what has been considered orthodox Catholic teachings. If the fact that it is proclaimed by the Vatican means that by definition dogma has not changed, let that be. My point is that what has been deemed right conduct for people of faith has not been perfectly consistent throughout the history of the Church. Within the bounds prescribed by the Holy Father there is room for divergent opinions within the Church.