NCR classifieds - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Two theologians at Creighton University, a Jesuit-run school in Omaha, Neb., have been sharply rebuked by the Committee on Doctrine of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops for defending the moral legitimacy of homosexuality, contraception, premarital sex, and other hot-button issues in sexual ethics.
The theologians, Michael Lawler and Todd Salzman, had been previously censured in 2007 by Omaha's then-archbishop, Elden Curtiss, for articles that, according to Curtiss, expressed "serious error ... [that] cannot be considered authentic Catholic teaching."� The Sept. 15 statement from the doctrine committee reaches the same conclusion about a 2008 book by Lawler and Salzman titled The Sexual Person: Toward a Renewed Catholic Anthropology.
"The book proposes ways of living a Christian life that do not accord with the teaching of the church and the Christian tradition,"� the statement says.
Salzman is the chair of Creighton's theology department, while Lawler is now an emeritus professor.
In the Catholic theological guild, their work has often drawn sympathetic reviews. In a 2009 essay for the National Catholic Reporter, Julie Hanlon Rubio of the Jesuits' St. Louis University said that The Sexual Person is "among the most important works in Catholic sexual ethics to emerge in the last two decades,"� and that the authors "stand firmly within the Catholic tradition even as they argue for significant change."�
The Sexual Person also earned first-place honors in the books in theology category from the Catholic Press Association.
The doctrine committee does not impose disciplinary measures, and the current archbishop of Omaha, George Lucas, has expressed "confidence"� that Creighton will handle the situation "in a manner consistent with the mission of a Catholic university."� A statement from the university said Creighton is committed to both Catholic doctrine and academic freedom, and thanked Lucas for fostering a "positive working relationship."�
A university spokesperson said she had no other information about what steps Creighton might take, and Salzman declined a request for comment.
The Committee on Doctrine is currently chaired by Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington. In its 24-page statement, the committee faulted Lawler and Salzman for their treatment both of scripture and of natural law. Their approach, it said, represents "a radical departure from the Catholic theological tradition."�
Published by Georgetown University Press, The Sexual Person argues for more accepting positions on a wide range of controversial issues. The broad aim is to offer a "person-centered"� morality that the authors contrast with a more physical approach grounded in traditional understandings of natural law.
With regard to scripture, the doctrinal committee statement accuses Lawler and Salzman of falling into "historical relativism"� by suggesting that biblical injunctions on sexuality reflect the particular socio-historical assumptions of the authors.
By insisting that "nature"� is also socially constructed, the doctrine committee statement asserts, the only thing Lawler and Salzman leave intact about natural law is the name.
"The root of the problem here is philosophical, an epistemology distorted by skepticism,"� the statement says.
Issues of sexual morality, according to the statement, "should be thoroughly studied and discussed by theologians as part of their service to the church and to society,"� but those efforts "can only bear fruit if they are in fact carried on within a hermeneutic of continuity and in the framework provided by the Catholic theological tradition and the teaching of the church."�
As of Sept. 23, it was not clear whether Lawler and Salzman might be subject to a review from the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. In recent years, the congregation has preferred that corrections of theologians on issues where the Vatican has already spoken about the underlying principles come from the local bishop or from the national bishops' conference.
Editor's Note: NCR reviewed The Sexual Person in February 2009. The book review is online here.
The bishops of the US having settled for protecting their own, are hardly in a position to teach anything about human sexuality with authority. They may be the successors of the Apostles but they have been covering their rear ends at horrendous expense to others for at least three generations. They're just blowing smoke at us.
The bishops in union withe the pope have ALL authority to teach about issues of human sexuality. While those INDIVIDUALS made GRIEVOUS incorrect choices, the teaching Magisterium of the Church is always without error in matters of faith and morals. The authors of this book would do well to learn that, especially as they profess to uphold the teachings of the Holy Catholic Church.
"The SEXUAL person"! OOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!! Tittilating!!!!!!!
Is this an accurate description of the human person? There are some persons who go through life without exercising the sexual function, so it really isn't necessary to sustain one's life. But how about eating? We all need to eat to survive. If we don't we die. Most of us like to eat meat but have you ever heard of a book titled "The Carnivorous person? I haven't!
Now obviously sexuality is an important aspect of the human person & it runs deep into the psyche. But still I think it is more properly called an aspect of human personality. Sexuality really doesn't define the person; it is an aspect of the person. It reminds me of JPII talking about the nuptial meaning of the body. No, dear pontiff, you may speak of a nuptial aspect of the body, its physical sexuality, but this is not the meaning of the body for a Christian.
We are really spiritual beings for the simple reason that we have an eternal destiny. Once the soul leaves the body it says goodbye to its sexuality. The only thing left of sexuality in the mind is the way the person was formed when he or she had a body. This is not to downplay the body. The body is not a container for the soul; it is an integral part of the human person. If you want to come up with a meaning for the body, not just an aspect like sexuality, it would be work. And as St Benedict said, "To work is to pray."
Do you believe in "the resurrection of the body", my friend? And if the body is an "integral part" of the human person, how can the whole person enjoy his or her eternal destiny unless he or she has some sort of bodily component to his or her exisitence?
paulte on Sep. 24, 2010.
You stated:
("The SEXUAL person"! OOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!! Tittilating!!!!!!!
Is this an accurate description of the human person? There are some persons who go through life without exercising the sexual function, so it really isn't necessary to sustain one's life. But how about eating? We all need to eat to survive. If we don't we die. Most of us like to eat meat but have you ever heard of a book titled "The Carnivorous person? I haven't!
Now obviously sexuality is an important aspect of the human person & it runs deep into the psyche. But still I think it is more properly called an aspect of human personality. Sexuality really doesn't define the person; it is an aspect of the person. It reminds me of JPII talking about the nuptial meaning of the body. No, dear pontiff, you may speak of a nuptial aspect of the body, its physical sexuality, but this is not the meaning of the body for a Christian.
We are really spiritual beings for the simple reason that we have an eternal destiny. Once the soul leaves the body it says goodbye to its sexuality. The only thing left of sexuality in the mind is the way the person was formed when he or she had a body. This is not to downplay the body. The body is not a container for the soul; it is an integral part of the human person. If you want to come up with a meaning for the body, not just an aspect like sexuality, it would be work. And as St Benedict said, "To work is to pray.")----------------------------------------------
Read Full Article »