Vatican: U.S. nun's book on sexuality poses "grave harm" to the faithful
Margaret Farley / http://divinity.yale.edu/farley
(CBS/AP) VATICAN CITY - The Vatican on Monday sharply criticized a book on sexuality written by a prominent American nun, saying it contradicted church teaching on issues like masturbation, homosexuality and marriage and that its author had a "defective understanding" of Catholic theology.
The Vatican's orthodoxy office said the book, "Just Love: A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics" by Sister Margaret Farley, a member of the Sisters of Mercy religious order and emeritus professor of Christian ethics at Yale Divinity School, posed "grave harm" to the faithful.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said that in the 2006 book, Farley either ignored church teaching on core issues of human sexuality or treated it as merely one opinion among many.
Farley said Monday she never intended the book to reflect current official Catholic teaching. Rather, she said, she wrote it to explore sexuality via various religious traditions, theological resources and human experience.
The Farley critique, signed by the American head of the congregation, Cardinal William Levada, comes amid the Vatican's recent crackdown on the largest umbrella group of American sisters. The Vatican last month essentially imposed martial law on the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, accusing it of undermining church teaching and imposing certain "radical feminist themes" that were incompatible with Catholicism.
Nuns reject Vatican charges of radical feminism
U.S. Catholic nuns go about work after rebuke
Video: Vatican accuses nuns group of "radical feminism"
It ordered a full-scale overhaul of the group and appointed three bishops to carry it out.
(Charlie Rose and Gayle King speak with "Interfaith Voices" radio host Sister Maureen Fiedler about the Vatican's accusation of "radical feminism" in a U.S. nuns group.)The crackdown on Farley, a top American theologian, will likely fuel greater resentment at Rome among more liberal-minded American sisters.
The Vatican examination of the book began in 2010 and involved seeking Farley's responses to its concerns. After her replies failed to satisfy the Congregation, it moved to a full-fledged "examination in cases of urgency" that concluded Dec. 14.
Pope Benedict XVI approved the decision last March and ordered the decision published.
In its statement, the Vatican singled out specific problems in Farley's book which it said "affirms positions that are in direct contradiction with Catholic teaching in the field of sexual morality."
Farley, for example, writes that masturbation doesn't raise any moral problems and can actually help relationships rather than hinder them. The Vatican asserted that according to church teaching "masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."
Farley wrote that homosexual people as well as their activities should be respected. Church teaching holds that gays should be respected but that homosexual acts are "intrinsically disordered."
On gay marriage, Farley said legal recognition of gay marriage can help transform the stigmatization of gays. Levada wrote back that approving gay marriage would not only signal approval of "deviant behavior" but would obscure the value of traditional marriage between man and woman in society.
"The principles of respect and non-discrimination cannot be invoked to support legal recognition of homosexual unions," he wrote.
In her statement, Farley said she had aimed to propose a framework for sexual ethics that "uses a criteria of justice" in evaluating sexual relations.
She acknowledged that her responses to certain issues do depart from traditional doctrine, but said they nonetheless were coherent in theological and moral traditions.
"The fact that Christians (and others) have achieved new knowledge and deeper understanding of human embodiment and sexuality seems to require that we at least examine the possibility of development in sexual ethics," she wrote.
She said she appreciated the Vatican's work but lamented that her positions weren't reflected in the Congregation's final document.
The Rev. James Martin, a liberal-leaning Jesuit author, said the notification will sadden many Catholic theologians who consider Farley a mentor.
"It will also, inevitably, raise strong emotions among those who already feel buffeted by the Vatican's Apostolic Visitation of Catholic sisters in the U.S., and its intervention into the LCWR," said Martin, who has been a vocal supporter of U.S. sisters since the Vatican crackdown.
Farley has received 11 honorary degrees over her lifetime, is a past president of the Society of Christian Ethics and the Catholic Theological Society of America, and won an award in 2008 for "Just Love."
That said, Farley doesn't identify herself as a member of the Sisters of Mercy on either her official Yale biography or on the book's cover.
The Vatican criticism, while seemingly harsh, is rather tame. It's not a formal censure of Farley herself, but just the book. And given that Farley doesn't teach at a Catholic university, the Vatican couldn't forbid her from teaching as it has done with other Catholic theologians who don't toe the Vatican line.
But the Vatican did seem indirectly to hold Farley's superiors to blame for having allowed her to voice such positions that are so contrary to church doctrine. The Vatican notification said it was saddened that a "member of an institute of consecrated life" would do such a thing.
Farley's superior, Sister Pat McDermott, defended Farley and said she was deeply saddened that the Vatican had criticized "the significant pastoral and ethnical thinking that are represented in her book."
Popular on CBSNews.com
- Photos of the Week 21 Photos
- U.K. police announce new leads in missing girl case
- Plane catches fire landing in Moscow
- S. Korea: N. Korea launches short-range missiles
- Plane catches fire on Moscow runway Play Video
- Drone technology myths, facts and future feats
- Dramatic video appears to show 747 crash in Afghanistan
- Assad: Syria transition talks are internal matter
It is shameful to use the name of Christ to promote ignorance and intolerance.
Jesus Christ had one commandment to his followers, and it had nothing to do with fire and brimstone.
I have posted my opinion on the subject of homosexuality as a birth defect in my book "Obama from Macedonia". Of primary concern was about the modern scientific theory on Prenatal Hormones and Genetics which appears to clarify the cause of homosexuality. What I didn't get into is the remaining question; "What amount of learned behavior is indicative of unacceptable, deleterious and harmful to the individual gay man or woman that was born with the disease? In other words they are born gay and then they learn to be even gayer by a culture that is reinforced by those that want to help but are doing just the opposite.
A good metaphorical example might be found in the film "Farewell My Concubine". This is a movie from China that is based on an ancient story about an Emperor and his concubine. The movie however uses a young boy that was raised by his prostitute mother in a brothel and then sold to some theatre company. He appears to be approximately ten to twelve years old when he was taken in by merciless teachers and was forced to be the star of the show as the female concubine. As we can clearly see he refused to be a female and right from the beginning he was beaten bloody until he submitted to the role. I won't take the semantics of the film past the appearance that he refused to act like a girl and was forced to the task. The end result was the lifetime in that role eventually leading to suicide.
What this film might be suggesting is we cannot allow the disease of homosexuality to be exploited as a learned behavior. Of course the example found in this fiction film is a bit extreme but who are we to judge what is happening right now to the tens of millions that are born gay? The twists and turns in life that create a plethora of real life scenarios appear endlessly complex and even replicate what is found in fiction sometimes. To enable the disease of homosexuality by allowing it to be taught as a culture may do far more harm to the individual gay men and women than we can know.
The fact that science continues to learn is all we need to know. We legitimized homosexuality in the 70's by removing it from the list of mental diseases and now we are in the process of certifying homosexuality as a disease again. The cost is found in tomorrow's youth the next generation that relies on age to lead and teach them right from wrong.
Will power, mind control, and discipline is taught and learned through trial and error. The young mind that has not been disciplined will cast aside the notion of controlling his behavior in sexual matters because he is of the impression that there isn't any ability and talent in suppressing his sexual desires. Where does it all end? If it is after someone is raped and molested then we as a society have failed our children.
So homosexuality as a birth defect by itself may be somewhat harmless when applied with constraint and limited by ones nature and when it is legitimized and expanded into a cultural and society it assumes dark and sinister accomplices that convolute into other realms of sexual deviant behavior. Like opening Pandora's Box when homosexuality becomes a civil right all kinds of creepy creatures will come flying out. It didn't work in ancient Greece because forcing children into a homosexual relationship runs against the nature of the majority.
This is a no brainer because there are only two choices. They are born gay or they learn to be gay and science may never give us the perfect answer. Those people that are expecting science to solve the puzzle need to be given a ticket to the other side of the universe. Here sir, take this space ship and fly to the end of the infinite universe and when you get there turn around and bring us the proof that it is infinite. There is a point when people have to decide for themselves what is right or wrong because the solution is unattainable through other means.
Everything in moderation! We legalized alcohol in the 20's because the majority wanted a drink. Over the decades we learned that there are two kinds of drinkers; the ones that drink in moderation and use self-control and discipline never falling overboard with drunkenness and the others who never can stop. The same logic should apply to homosexual rights; give them the basic rights that allow them to work and live in relative peace and harmony. Legalizing gay marriage is like giving an alcoholic another drink.
C'mon, just a little research bubbletime, remember ...everything in moderation.
Yet, is by nature destructively patriarchal! A balance is LONG OVERDUE!