C D F Publishes Notification On Book €˜just Love’

[cmotherofpirl]

Pennsylvania is divided up culturally as well. Philly is east coast wanna-be types, Pittsburgh is more laid back midwestern, and everything in between is farmland or Appalachia.

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1338835740' post='2440696']
Since when do professors not spout around whatever they feel like? That's happening all over the country in classes as we speak. There are really good ones. Benedictine College in Atchison, Kansas, has really good orthodox professors. But unfortunately in even some Catholic colleges there are some professors that teach their own theology rather than the Church's.
[/quote]

A bit tongue-in-cheek, yes. But most professors don't ever just spout whatever they feel like. They do their research. They think critically. They keep tabs on what their peers are saying about their topics. They have good reasons for what they say. They might not be the "right" reasons, but they're usually good, and I think we have to respect that process of reason.

The thing is, level of scholarship and amount of fidelity to the Magisterium are two completely separate things. Usually when someone has a teaching position at a school like Yale it means that their scholarship is pretty good, and they aren't just "making things up." But the Yale Divinity School isn't Catholic. At all. So while she has the potential to know what she's talking about as a member of the scholarly discussion on the subject, there's absolutely no reason to assume that she's going to be in line with the Church. But this is why every so often the Church has to come out with these statements and investigations into what scholars really mean when they publish things like this. If a scholar writes something questionable, he or she is given a chance to defend it and clarify things. A sizable portion of the time that works, and the Church says it's okay. Clearly Sister Farley failed to show how her views are in line with Church teaching (um, duh. I can't even fathom how she'd even recover from the things she wrote).

And after reading the direct quotes from her book the article included, I'd be willing to call her scholarship into question as well. She tried to write a book from an ecumenical perspective, but in the process she rejected the definitive authority of the Magisterium for her own views, because for someone who isn't Catholic the Magisterium is just one voice of many. But I would argue that she's got a personal obligation as a Catholic to defend the Magisterium and the Church's position because she can't just ignore her own identity as a Catholic. I think that maybe in the name of ecumenism she ended up tossing out her own religious identity, with all the "rights and obligations" associated with it.

[PhuturePriest]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1338853783' post='2440892']
A bit tongue-in-cheek, yes. But most professors don't ever just spout whatever they feel like. They do their research. They think critically. They keep tabs on what their peers are saying about their topics. They have good reasons for what they say. They might not be the "right" reasons, but they're usually good, and I think we have to respect that process of reason.

The thing is, level of scholarship and amount of fidelity to the Magisterium are two completely separate things. Usually when someone has a teaching position at a school like Yale it means that their scholarship is pretty good, and they aren't just "making things up." But the Yale Divinity School isn't Catholic. At all. So while she has the potential to know what she's talking about as a member of the scholarly discussion on the subject, there's absolutely no reason to assume that she's going to be in line with the Church. But this is why every so often the Church has to come out with these statements and investigations into what scholars really mean when they publish things like this. If a scholar writes something questionable, he or she is given a chance to defend it and clarify things. A sizable portion of the time that works, and the Church says it's okay. Clearly Sister Farley failed to show how her views are in line with Church teaching (um, duh. I can't even fathom how she'd even recover from the things she wrote).

And after reading the direct quotes from her book the article included, I'd be willing to call her scholarship into question as well. She tried to write a book from an ecumenical perspective, but in the process she rejected the definitive authority of the Magisterium for her own views, because for someone who isn't Catholic the Magisterium is just one voice of many. But I would argue that she's got a personal obligation as a Catholic to defend the Magisterium and the Church's position because she can't just ignore her own identity as a Catholic. I think that maybe in the name of ecumenism she ended up tossing out her own religious identity, with all the "rights and obligations" associated with it.
[/quote]

If it means anything I was going to like your post but I'm all out, so I give you a like in spirit.

[BG45]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1338853783' post='2440892']
A bit tongue-in-cheek, yes. [b]But most professors don't ever just spout whatever they feel like. [/b]They do their research. They think critically. They keep tabs on what their peers are saying about their topics. They have good reasons for what they say. They might not be the "right" reasons, but they're usually good, and I think we have to respect that process of reason.

The thing is, level of scholarship and amount of fidelity to the Magisterium are two completely separate things. Usually when someone has a teaching position at a school like Yale it means that their scholarship is pretty good, and they aren't just "making things up." But the Yale Divinity School isn't Catholic. At all. So while she has the potential to know what she's talking about as a member of the scholarly discussion on the subject, there's absolutely no reason to assume that she's going to be in line with the Church. But this is why every so often the Church has to come out with these statements and investigations into what scholars really mean when they publish things like this. If a scholar writes something questionable, he or she is given a chance to defend it and clarify things. A sizable portion of the time that works, and the Church says it's okay. Clearly Sister Farley failed to show how her views are in line with Church teaching (um, duh. I can't even fathom how she'd even recover from the things she wrote).

And after reading the direct quotes from her book the article included, I'd be willing to call her scholarship into question as well. She tried to write a book from an ecumenical perspective, but in the process she rejected the definitive authority of the Magisterium for her own views, because for someone who isn't Catholic the Magisterium is just one voice of many. But I would argue that she's got a personal obligation as a Catholic to defend the Magisterium and the Church's position because she can't just ignore her own identity as a Catholic. I think that maybe in the name of ecumenism she ended up tossing out her own religious identity, with all the "rights and obligations" associated with it.
[/quote]

This. It's a good way to get fired if you do, especially if you're not tenured yet. It's not your job to teach your opinion, though it does happen sometimes, but you have objectives that need to be met and responsibilities that must be fulfilled.

The most egregious "whatever you want" example I can think of was at my previous school. The head of the Geography Department was from Nepal and went on this rant about how America deserved 9/11. The entirety of the students in the class he was teaching at the time dropped his course.

[EmilyAnn]

I've been seeing a lot of stuff about this and I am so fed up of it being portrayed as the big bad Vatican attacking the poor little sister. She [i]admits[/i] her book isn't in line with Catholic teaching. Whether the book was intended as a Catholic teaching book or not (she claims its okay because it wasn't) how on [i]earth[/i] can a Catholic in good conscience promote things that we [i]know[/i] as Catholics are gravely wrong?

[Papist]

[quote name='EmilyAnn' timestamp='1338882216' post='2441117']
I've been seeing a lot of stuff about this and I am so fed up of it being portrayed as the big bad Vatican attacking the poor little sister. She [i]admits[/i] her book isn't in line with Catholic teaching. Whether the book was intended as a Catholic teaching book or not (she claims its okay because it wasn't) how on [i]earth[/i] can a Catholic in good conscience promote things that we [i]know[/i] as Catholics are gravely wrong?
[/quote]

Not just that. This is coming from a person in a Catholic religious order, that part of her vows is [u]obedience[/u].

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1338895417' post='2441127']
Not just that. This is coming from a person in a Catholic religious order, that part of her vows is [u]obedience[/u].
[/quote]

Exactly. And things may have been a bit different if she was a layperson. But even if they wouldn't be different, the fact that she uses first-person pronouns for lots of problematic quotes is troubling. She could have written a book that presents the Magisterium's voice as one among many without including her own personal opinion. Her scholarly opinion could have been inferred through how she presented the material. Because she included statements like, "My own view...My own position..." followed by statements that clearly oppose Church teaching leaves her absolutely no room to defend her book to the Magisterium. If she had left her own personal opinion ambiguous, she might have saved herself and her book from such condemnation.

She's either really stupid to think that such a book WOULDN'T face such condemnation, or she's purposefully trying to stir things up.

[Papist]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1338915162' post='2441231']
Exactly. And things may have been a bit different if she was a layperson. But even if they wouldn't be different, the fact that she uses first-person pronouns for lots of problematic quotes is troubling. She could have written a book that presents the Magisterium's voice as one among many without including her own personal opinion. Her scholarly opinion could have been inferred through how she presented the material. Because she included statements like, "My own view...My own position..." followed by statements that clearly oppose Church teaching leaves her absolutely no room to defend her book to the Magisterium. If she had left her own personal opinion ambiguous, she might have saved herself and her book from such condemnation.

[b]She's either really stupid to think that such a book WOULDN'T face such condemnation, or she's purposefully trying to stir things up.[/b]
[/quote]

Perhaps both. Well, at least she made the CDF's job easy.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1338915162' post='2441231']
Exactly. And things may have been a bit different if she was a layperson. But even if they wouldn't be different, the fact that she uses first-person pronouns for lots of problematic quotes is troubling. She could have written a book that presents the Magisterium's voice as one among many without including her own personal opinion. Her scholarly opinion could have been inferred through how she presented the material. Because she included statements like, "My own view...My own position..." followed by statements that clearly oppose Church teaching leaves her absolutely no room to defend her book to the Magisterium. If she had left her own personal opinion ambiguous, she might have saved herself and her book from such condemnation.

She's either really stupid to think that such a book WOULDN'T face such condemnation, or she's purposefully trying to stir things up.
[/quote]

Nope. As far as she is concerned the teaching authority of the Magisterium is meaningless, because the opinion of the "faithful" supercedes it. So she has no problem disagreeing with what the Church officially teaches because to her is just one opinion among many. Go to Amazon and read the reviews, she is a "hero". You can bet this book with be used EVERYWHERE as a textbook.

[cappie]

Interesting post helps clarify a few things from a canonical point of view:

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published a notification last week regarding a book on sexuality by Sr. Margaret A. Farley, R.S.M. The Congregation warned the faithful that Sr. Farley’s book, Just Love. A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics, “is not in conformity with the teaching of the Church.” It is a brilliantly nuanced document which deserves careful reading. What is interesting, from a canonical perspective, is that Sr. Farley does not seem to be disciplined in any way. Her book, “affirms positions that are in direct contradiction with Catholic teaching in the field of sexual morality,” and consequently, “cannot be used as a valid expression of Catholic teaching.” But she, as a result of publishing her views and refusing to clarify them to the satisfaction of the Church, has not been penalised publicly.

Canon 751 defines heresy as, “the obstinate denial or doubt, after baptism, of a truth which must be believed by divine and catholic faith.” So, then, what is a truth which must be believed by divine and catholic faith? Canon 750 gives us the answer (my emphasis):

Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal magisterium, which is manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful under the guidance of the sacred magisterium. All are therefore bound to shun any contrary doctrines.

The question becomes, do any of the propositions held by Sr. Farley constitute an act of heresy? And if they do, is she punishable by canon 1364 which states that a heretic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication? The reason I pose the question is because it is sometimes heard, “why doesn’t the Church excommunicate dissenters and heretics?” The answer is: she does! Just not in the manner in which some would like. There are no grand processions of the Inquisitor, with candles turned upside down to the cries of anathema sit!

The notification points out that some of Sr. Farley’s opinions contradict the Magisterium of the Church . Her opinion on masturbation contradicts the Magisterium’s “course of a constant tradition;” her opinions, on homosexual acts being justifiable, contradict tradition, based on Sacred Scripture, which teaches that such acts are intrinsically disordered.

Now this is really a question for a theologian; but, could we say that these Church teachings which Sr. Farley’s opinions contradict, are to be believed by divine and catholic faith? Remember not only must the teaching be handed down by tradition but it must also be proposed as divinely revealed. To answer that is the competence of a theologian. If the teachings on masturbation and homosexual acts are considered to be divinely revealed, then Sr. Farley, in holding contrary opinions which she has refused to abjure, is guilty of the sin of heresy. Here we must distinguish. Has she committed only the sin of heresy? Or also the delict of heresy? Every delict is a sin, but not every sin is a delict. If she has committed the sin of heresy (in other words, in her mind and will she refuses to believe with divine and catholic faith the Church’s teaching on masturbation and homosexual acts) and has coupled that with manifesting the sin outwardly (by publishing her opinions in a book), then she has committed the delict of heresy (all things being equal). In virtue of canon 1364, she would be excommunicated. The Church doesn’t need to declare it publicly; although, the Church could. The excommunication happens automatically.

Why the Church has chosen not to publicly declare an excommunication, which it threatened to do in the case of Father Tissa Balasuriya, OMI, is not mine to answer. Perhaps it is connected to whether or not these teachings of the Church are divinely revealed or not. Perhaps it is a prudential decision of the Church. But the point is that the Church does deal with dissenters. It has now warned the faithful that her book is not an expression of Catholic teaching. If she is guilty of heresy, then she is excommunicated. She has been dealt with.

Just as criminal law (even in the Vatican) is complicated, so, too, is canon law in these matters. The Church doesn’t throw around her power, she is a mother – firm when she needs to be, prudent in her judgment, but always seeking the truth for the good of her children. And let’s thank God that there are competent people handling all these difficult situations. And don’t forget to pray for them, too.

[url="http://musingsofacanonist.wordpress.com/2012/06/08/of-crime-and-punishment/"]http://musingsofacanonist.wordpress.com/2012/06/08/of-crime-and-punishment/[/url]

[Papist]

Sister Farley speaks.

[url="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/deaconsbench/2012/06/standing-ovation-for-sister-margaret-farley-at-theologians-meeting/"]http://www.patheos.com/blogs/deaconsbench/2012/06/standing-ovation-for-sister-margaret-farley-at-theologians-meeting/[/url]