CTSA statement on Sr. Margaret Farley (UPDATED)
UPDATE: Moments ago (Friday evening), at the business meeting of the Catholic Theological Society of America, the assembly voted by an overwhelming majority to adopt the statement of the CTSA board on the case of Sr. Margaret Farley as its own. (A few members opposed the motion, and a few more abstained.) This is significant because CTSA board statements are solely the responsibility of its members. Full statement of the CTSA below. [End update.]
This morning the Catholic Theological Society of America board released the following statement responding to the Vatican’s “notification” on Sr. Margaret Farley’s book Just Love:
On June 4, 2012, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published a “Notification” entitled “Regarding the Book Just Love: A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics by Sister Margaret A. Farley, R.S.M.” The “Notification” judged that, in a number of respects, Professor Farley’s book presents positions on matters of sexual ethics that are contrary to the teaching of the Magisterium.
We, the undersigned members of the Board of Directors of the Catholic Theological Society of America, wish to note that Professor Farley is a highly respected member of the theological community. A former President of the CTSA and a recipient of the Society’s John Courtney Murray Award, she has devoted her life to teaching and writing on ethical issues and has done so in ways that have been reflective, measured, and wise. Her work has prompted a generation of theologians to think more deeply about the Christian meaning of personal relationships and the divine life of love that truly animates them. The judgment of the “Notification” that a number of Professor Farley’s stated positions are contrary to the teaching of the Magisterium is simply factual. In our judgment, however, Professor Farley’s purpose in her book is to raise and explore questions of keen concern to the faithful of the Church. Doing so is one very legitimate way of engaging in theological inquiry that has been practiced throughout the Catholic tradition.
The Board is especially concerned with the understanding of the task of Catholic theology presented in the “Notification.” The “Notification” risks giving the impression that there can be no constructive role in the life of the Church for works of theology that 1) give voice to the experience and concerns of ordinary believers, 2) raise questions about the persuasiveness of certain official Catholic positions, and 3) offer alternative theological frameworks as potentially helpful contributions to the authentic development of doctrine. Such an understanding of the nature of theology inappropriately conflates the distinctive tasks of catechesis and theology. With regard to the subject matter of Professor Farley’s book, it is simply a matter of fact that faithful Catholics in every corner of the Church are raising ethical questions like those Professor Farley has addressed. In raising and exploring such questions with her customary sensitivity and judiciousness, Professor Farley has invited us to engage the Catholic tradition seriously and thoughtfully.
Signed, John E. Thiel, Ph.D.
Fairfield University
Fairfield, CT
PresidentSusan A. Ross, Ph.D.
Loyola University
Chicago, IL
President-ElectRichard R. Gaillardetz, Ph.D.
Boston College
Chestnut Hill, MA
Vice-PresidentMary Ann Hinsdale, I.H.M., Ph.D.
Boston College
Chestnut Hill, MA
Past PresidentM. Theresa Moser, R.S.C.J., Ph.D.
University of San Francisco
San Francisco, CA
SecretaryJozef D. Zalot, Ph.D
College of Mount St. Joseph
Cincinnati, OH
TreasurerMichael E. Lee, Ph.D.
Fordham University
Bronx, NYKathleen McManus, O.P., Ph.D.
University of Portland
Portland, ORJudith A. Merkle, S.N.D. de N., Ph.D.
Niagara University
Niagara, NYElena Procario-Foley, Ph.D.
Iona College
New Rochelle, NYJune 7, 2012
Seems like a balanced statement. I might wish for a little more praise for the work, but that would not be as apprpriate in this kind of statement, I guess. Perhasp its minimalism is its strength.
The key line, IMO:
“Such an understanding of the nature of theology inappropriately conflates the distinctive tasks of catechesis and theology.”
I note that one of the signers of the statement above is Richard R. Gaillardetz. He is the author of By What Authority?: A Primer on Scripture, the Magisterium, and the Sense of the Faithful,and some may be interested to know he is the editor of a new book published just last month titled When the Magisterium Intervenes: The Magisterium and Theologians in Today’s Church. Here’s the book information from Amazon:
Mr. Gaillardetz will become I think the next CTSA president.
The grpwing breach between theolgians and CDF approaches have different understandings of magisterium and its functions and development.It is not catechism rehash!
BTW Fr. Schroth has a nice piece at “In All Things” about Sr. Farley.
I think there’s a sense of dejavu after the mangling of Sr. Johnson’s matter today.
Ot’s just another piece in the doward spiral of divide in today’s Church.
It’s also not “small potatoes.”
Six signers out of 10 are women, which automatically invalidates this document with its intended audience. None of the signers are most rev, very rev., extremely rev. or even msgr., which further invalidates it. It is simply the babble of people who know what they are talking about. Everyone, back in the sand pile with your heads.
It’s a very good statement. Even better would have been if it had included an offer for the CTSA and its members to engage with church authorities in constructive discussion of the concerns it raises. That kind of engagement would seem like meat, potatoes and blueberry pie for the Holy Father.
For anyone who’s interested, I’ll be livetweeting CTSA this weekend: http://twitter.com/gallicho
Jim Pauwels: The Holy Father does not want any engagement with the theologians in the CTSA. Instead, he want them to buckle under and just support the old teachings of the church’s magisterium regarding sexual morality.
Tangent:
The whole American order of Franciscan Brothers Minor has written an open letter to Rome in support of the LCWR. Methinks there is perhaps a revolt stirring not only in Germany but in the U. S.
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/
Tom Farrell is right.
And not only the Pope but USCCB doesn’t really want “doalogue” but tp nring folks into line.
After Sr. Johnson, I thought canonists were supposed yo be working on a “fair” notification process.
Not in this climate.
I can’t tell you how many times during my 12 years of Catholic education I was told, usually tacitly but many times explicitly, that I “had to believe” something. It always rankled. If only they’d explained more fully that it didn’t apply if you became a theologian, it might have changed the course of my life.
A very good, common sense response to this statement by Fr. Ray Blake: http://marymagdalen.blogspot.com/2012/06/theology-triumph-of-orthodoxy.html
Thomas Farrell – I don’t agree. I think that Benedict would find engagement with theologians on the matters of concern that the CTSA raised to be much more interesting and stimulating than the hum-drum of Vatican administration. Arguably, he’s shown quite a bit of interest during his pontificate in dialogue and building bridges.
I believe I read somewhere (probably here) that this is the second notification to come from the CDF during Benedict’s reign; the other was to Rev. Jon Sobrino in 2007. (And this one is pretty narrow; it is really directed to a single book of Sr. Farley’s rather than to the totality of her writing). I am not sure how that stacks up to the frequency of notifications and discipline during previous pontificates, but this doesn’t seem to be an age of crackdowns and suppression.
David N
If you got the right confessor it would have helped you too. In moral theology training there was always the proviso that one could not tell the people about “loopholes” because they did not have the discipline like the clergy to use the info wisely.
This statement acknowledges that though the truth may be immutable, our understanding of it is always changing. This is how doctrine in the church has evolved.
6-8-12
I like Crystal Watson’s comment. “This statement acknowledges that though the truth may be immutable, our understanding of it is always changing. This is how doctrine in the church has evolved.”
I posted this comment in The New York Times: American Nuns Vow to Fight Vatican Criticism by Laurie Goodstein 6-1-12. “The evaluation of the RC Church has to go to the baseline. This bout is but one of a multitude. Moving from indoctrination to critical thinking skills and multidisciplinary knowledge is what will make the real change. Not hierarchy, religious orders, nor laity are willing to do this to a necessary and sufficient degree and so the spin goes on and on.”
Doctrine had its day (~2000 years). Hopefully the intellectuals will move more and more to the mode of knowledge for our times: critical thinking skills and multidisciplinary knowledge especially philosophy and science. Theology and catechesis are in the outdated mode because of their connection to doctrine. As Crystal said, “though the truth may be immutable, our understanding of it is always changing.” Thanks Crystal and others. “Professor Farley has invited us to engage the Catholic tradition seriously and thoughtfully.” I would add, and relevantly.
The Church of Dogma/doctrine has done very little for Christianity. Many Christians have been willing to kill other Christians over it forgetting the commandment to love. Even today too many dogma Christians spill venom on other Christians while the message is always to love. Sure there have been non dogma Christians who have spewed hatred toward their fellow Christians. So there is plenty of blame to go around. We have to endeavor to be a church of the beatitudes not a church of dogma from either spectrum.
Crystal, Marie, and Bill, I think you’re making important distinctions.
I would only say that I think Bill’s post strikes me as a little cynical (and I say this as a cynical Bad Catholic). Doesn’t much of Church teaching derive from the beatitudes? It seems to me that Catholic social justice is predicated on those eight teachings.
What you three MAY be getting at, which is an interesting point, is that the Church teachings on the books that no longer look as black and white as they used to–or rules that seem contradictory.
Some while back, there were several posts about a Catholic school that ousted the children of a lesbian couple. It seems to me that the teachings of the Church are not clear about what’s to be done in that situation. Some Catholics came down on the side of caritas–accept everyone, even if you don’t condone eveything they do–and some came down on the side of not creating scandal by seeming to accept what has been considered a sin.
It made me think of one of Dad’s friends, Mr. B., who visited him faithfully throughout his last illness. Mr. B. was a Jew and was asked to stay to lunch one day. He accepted enthusiastically. Dad asked him how he could “get away with” eating in a non-kosher home. Mr. B. replied that doing mitzvah was sometimes more important than keeping kosher. “God expects us to do the best we can, and today that it seems the best thing to do is to have lunch with you, Tom.”
Mr. B.’s faith seemed predicated on the notion that God was not a dogmatic S.O.B. I hope that’s true. My salvation depends on it!
I just think that Bill M. has a point, viz. that much of current traditional moral theogy is based more on (confessional) manuals and not the beatitudes.
Jean, i loved your mitzvah story.
How many times back in the big Apple did i hear people say, “Do me a mitzvah” or “I’ll do you a mitzvah.”
The emphasis on loving behaviour is waht counts so much -especially in our increasingly fragmented individualistic society (where dinero is everything).
Bob, I mention Mr. B. here because it seems to me that conservative Jews, like Catholics, deal with a lot of “rules” that can make you crazy or squeeze the joy and spontaneity out of life because you start monitoring every response you have to ensure it corresponds to “correctness.”
David Nickol mentioned Richard Gaillardetz earlier in this post. I remember being given one of his articles in RCIA because I was asking too many questions. Gaillardetz talked about the development of the catechism and different orders of teachings, and that certainly was helpful. More than that, his tone was encouraging. Like Dad’s friend, Mr. B., he seemed to feel that God wanted us to do our best and try to always draw closer and to let God gently correct us in His own good time.
Jean, I just meant that some of the beliefs the church now holds have evolved. Once the church believed the sun moved around the earth, that slvery was ok, that popes could marry and have children. For the Vatican to now say that all we believe is what we’ve always believed and that it cannot change seems unrue. A strange example – though the Vatican has stated (I think) that the teaching on abortion has always been the same, I was just reading an article about medieval Irish saints who thought abortion was ok …. http://www.medievalists.net/2012/06/07/research-examines-the-abortionist-saints-of-medieval-ireland/
Right – Catholics across the nation are on the edge of their seats, just waiting to hear what the CTSA has to say.
Give me a break.